Discussion:
Preston Bans Swearing In Street
(too old to reply)
Maria
2008-12-10 10:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Legal or not?

(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
Maria
2008-12-10 10:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
PS they have also banned vomiting in the street - should make for good
entertainment at least...
Alasdair
2008-12-11 15:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
PS they have also banned vomiting in the street - should make for good
entertainment at least...
How can they stop you doing something which is totally involuntary?
--
Alasdair.
DVH
2008-12-10 11:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a few
'elected' individuals?)
It could be the result of centralisation. If you remove traditional powers
to Westminster but give councils the right to set their own taxes, they will
then look for lunatic schemes on which to spend the money.

The "market" may be inelastic - i.e. you have to make living in a local
authority very expensive before people actually start moving house into a
cheaper area to punish the council.

It's a truism that the great increase in public spending has resulted in
large numbers of people being employed to do public sector work. They must
find things to do, no matter how hare-brained.

It's also possible that when you take a greater share of a limited labour
pool, you must hire a greater number of idiots.

Let P = "number of pointless initiatives", I = "registered idiots working
for council", W = "powers transferred to Westminster" and T = "annual
council tax".

P = T (W/I)

So where 230 registered idiots work for a local council, 32 powers have been
transferred, and the council tax is £800, you will get an annual output of
111.3 pointless initiatives.
aracari
2008-12-10 11:59:34 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:08:06 -0000 'DVH'
Post by DVH
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a few
'elected' individuals?)
It could be the result of centralisation. If you remove traditional powers
to Westminster but give councils the right to set their own taxes, they will
then look for lunatic schemes on which to spend the money.
The "market" may be inelastic - i.e. you have to make living in a local
authority very expensive before people actually start moving house into a
cheaper area to punish the council.
It's a truism that the great increase in public spending has resulted in
large numbers of people being employed to do public sector work. They must
find things to do, no matter how hare-brained.
It's also possible that when you take a greater share of a limited labour
pool, you must hire a greater number of idiots.
Let P = "number of pointless initiatives", I = "registered idiots working
for council", W = "powers transferred to Westminster" and T = "annual
council tax".
P = T (W/I)
So where 230 registered idiots work for a local council, 32 powers have been
transferred, and the council tax is £800, you will get an annual output of
111.3 pointless initiatives.
Is that *per week*? ;-)
--
socialism is like chronic heart disease ...
you may not know you suffer from it, but it'll kill you in the end.

"David Davis For Freedom":
http://www.daviddavisforfreedom.com/
...the battle against totalitarian 'database Britain'
under Gordon Brown's NooLab socialist government.
Boscawen
2008-12-10 12:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
I think not, and I'd be surprised if someone was fined.

http://boscawen-un.blogspot.com/
Jon°
2008-12-10 13:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Boscawen
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
I think not, and I'd be surprised if someone was fined.
http://boscawen-un.blogspot.com/
We are so quickly losing the freedoms that one would expect to have in
a democratic socialist state.......That masturbating whilst sitting on
the steps of town-halls will soon be verboten.
jake
2008-12-10 11:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
I thought it already was!
I don't particularly enjoy hearing the foul-mouthed language I can
hear when in town - so good luck to them. This is one law I'd back
anyway.
My wife had had enough th eother day when on a bus. Two girls about 13
yo talking loudly so the entire bus could hear... "went to fuckin town
yesterday saw the fucking friend of - what's hi sname that talk fucker
... " etc etc. Mainly elderly people on bus - but wife had enough and
had a go at them - verbally (no foul lang). They shut up. However NONE
of the other passengers back wifey up - just sat there like the lemons
and sheeply they are. Makes me think we deserve this country
sometimes.

apols about the written foul lang above - needed to illustrate the
point.
Osric
2008-12-10 19:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by jake
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
I thought it already was!
I don't particularly enjoy hearing the foul-mouthed language I can
hear when in town - so good luck to them. This is one law I'd back
anyway.
My wife had had enough th eother day when on a bus. Two girls about 13
yo talking loudly so the entire bus could hear... "went to fuckin town
yesterday saw the fucking friend of - what's hi sname that talk fucker
... " etc etc. Mainly elderly people on bus - but wife had enough and
had a go at them - verbally (no foul lang). They shut up. However NONE
of the other passengers back wifey up - just sat there like the lemons
and sheeply they are. Makes me think we deserve this country
sometimes.
Or perhaps they thought your wife was doing an entirely sufficient job and
calculated that were the whole bus to turn on them the two young girls may
well have been frightened, distressed and intimidated, and it might well
amount to bullying. One person having a quiet word is propotionate and
appropriate. Two 13 year old girls, beneath their foul language, are still
just 13 year old girls, who did indeed shut up when asked to. I'd have
thought there is some reassurance to be taken from your story where two
young girls were admonished successfully and without incident when their
behaviour fell below acceptable standards, or would you prefer they burst
into tears?
--
Osric




THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
Rob
2008-12-10 14:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Maria wrote:
|| Legal or not?
||
|| (Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
|| because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
|| few 'elected' individuals?)
||
||
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp

I assume they'll publish a list of proscribed words, or at least make it
available for inspection somewhere - else how will people know what they
can't say?
--
Rob
Jon°
2008-12-10 14:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
|| Legal or not?
||
|| (Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
|| because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
|| few 'elected' individuals?)
||
||http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777...
I assume they'll publish a list of proscribed words, or at least make it
available for inspection somewhere - else how will people know what they
can't say?
--
Rob
I would wager that they will make it punishable with a severe prison
sentence for telling a councillor to fuck off.
Alasdair
2008-12-11 16:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon°
I would wager that they will make it punishable with a severe prison
sentence for telling a councillor to fuck off.
More likely for thelling a council official...
--
Alasdair.
Francis Burton
2008-12-10 14:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
I assume they'll publish a list of proscribed words, or at least make it
available for inspection somewhere - else how will people know what they
can't say?
Publishing a list of proscribed words would highlight how
ludicrously arbitrary this measure is. OTOH, I would suggest
that we can all recognize swearing when we hear it. Or do
you think what consitutes swearing varies a lot from person
to person?

Francis
Maria
2008-12-10 14:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Burton
Post by Maria
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
I assume they'll publish a list of proscribed words, or at least make it
available for inspection somewhere - else how will people know what they
can't say?
Publishing a list of proscribed words would highlight how
ludicrously arbitrary this measure is. OTOH, I would suggest
that we can all recognize swearing when we hear it. Or do
you think what consitutes swearing varies a lot from person
to person?
It's not what we think that matters!
Litter wardens recognise litter-dropping as something different to what
most of us would recognise it as.
Cynic
2008-12-10 16:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Burton
Publishing a list of proscribed words would highlight how
ludicrously arbitrary this measure is. OTOH, I would suggest
that we can all recognize swearing when we hear it. Or do
you think what consitutes swearing varies a lot from person
to person?
Yes, what constitutes offensive language can vary considerably from
person to person.

Two exuberant youths are indulging in friendly but loud banter whilst
walking along the road. Which of the following should get an
on-the-spot fine?

"You fool, John"
"You bloody fool, John"
"You're a real shite, John"
"You're a real shit, John"
"You're a real bastard, John"
"You're a right twat, John."
"You're a right prick, John."
"You're a right dick, John"
"You're a right dickhead, John"
"You're a right penis, John"
"You're a right fokker, John"
"You're a cupid stunt, John"
"You're girlfriend's a right minger"
"You're pissed"
"You're sodding pissed."
"That's really jank"
"Fucked if I know what time it is"
"Shit! I left my wallet in the pub!"
--
Cynic
Richard Bird
2008-12-10 16:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Francis Burton
Publishing a list of proscribed words would highlight how
ludicrously arbitrary this measure is. OTOH, I would suggest
that we can all recognize swearing when we hear it. Or do
you think what consitutes swearing varies a lot from person
to person?
Yes, what constitutes offensive language can vary considerably from
person to person.
Two exuberant youths are indulging in friendly but loud banter whilst
walking along the road. Which of the following should get an
on-the-spot fine?
"You fool, John"
"You bloody fool, John"
"You're a real shite, John"
"You're a real shit, John"
"You're a real bastard, John"
"You're a right twat, John."
"You're a right prick, John."
"You're a right dick, John"
"You're a right dickhead, John"
"You're a right penis, John"
"You're a right fokker, John"
"You're a cupid stunt, John"
"You're girlfriend's a right minger"
"You're pissed"
"You're sodding pissed."
"That's really jank"
"Fucked if I know what time it is"
"Shit! I left my wallet in the pub!"
--
Cynic
Who is going to police the ethnics, chinese, indian,pakistanis, Etc Etc ---
who will know if they are swearing -- if the english speaking people are
fined simply because they can be understood and the others are not, is that
racial discrimination or something similar, so if i am fined who can i sue
for compensation
Discrimination happens when someone is treated worse ('less favourably' in
legal terms) than another person in the same situation
www.communities.gov.uk
Mr X
2008-12-10 16:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Bird
Who is going to police the ethnics, chinese, indian,pakistanis, Etc
tc --- who will know if they are swearing -- if the english speaking
people are fined simply because they can be understood and the others are
not, is that racial discrimination or something similar, so if i am fined
who can i sue for compensation
Discrimination happens when someone is treated worse ('less favourably' in
legal terms) than another person in the same situation
www.communities.gov.uk
Very easily. If a person who understands that language complains then
action can be taken.
Jethro
2008-12-10 16:46:14 UTC
Permalink
tc  ---  who will know if they are swearing  --  if the english speaking
people are fined simply because they can be understood and the others are
not, is that racial discrimination or something similar, so if i am fined
who can i sue for compensation
Discrimination happens when someone is treated worse ('less favourably' in
legal terms) than another person in the same situation
www.communities.gov.uk
Very easily.  If a person who understands that language complains then
action can be taken.
In which case I can see a boom in evening classes in Hindi, Gudjerati,
Urdu etc as the net-twitching classes find new ways to be offended ....
Mr X
2008-12-10 16:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Bird
ethnics, chinese, indian,pakistanis, Etc
tc --- who will know if they are swearing -- if the english speaking
people are fined simply because they can be understood and the others are
not, is that racial discrimination or something similar, so if i am fined
who can i sue for compensation
Discrimination happens when someone is treated worse ('less favourably' in
legal terms) than another person in the same situation
www.communities.gov.uk
Very easily. If a person who understands that language complains then
action can be taken.
In which case I can see a boom in evening classes in Hindi, Gudjerati,
Urdu etc as the net-twitching classes find new ways to be offended ....

Probably.
f***@gmail.com
2008-12-10 16:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr X
Post by Richard Bird
Who is going to police the ethnics, chinese, indian,pakistanis, Etc
tc --- who will know if they are swearing -- if the english speaking
people are fined simply because they can be understood and the others are
not, is that racial discrimination or something similar, so if i am fined
who can i sue for compensation
Discrimination happens when someone is treated worse ('less favourably' in
legal terms) than another person in the same situation
www.communities.gov.uk
Very easily. If a person who understands that language complains then
action can be taken.
Will they be using the CCTV cameras that have mics built in to them?
William Black
2008-12-10 18:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Bird
Who is going to police the ethnics, chinese, indian,pakistanis, Etc
tc ---
Who's going to police any of it?

I can't see the cops wanting to have anything to do with this load of
rubbish, and you can just imagine the reaction on a busy Saturday night
when Constable Evilbastard turns up at the station with an elderly gentleman
in tow

"He was swearing Sarge"

"There a bloody fight down at the Dog and Duck and three constables are in
hospital, where were you?"

"But he was swearing sarge, he said 'Hell' "

"So will Inspector Vile when you see him at ten sharp tomorrow morning
lad"...

So it's down to the local council busybodies.

After the humiliation the Hull litter wardens got the other month over the
'great sausage roll scandal' I imagine everyone will be opting for trial by
jury...
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Francis Burton
2008-12-10 18:08:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Francis Burton
Publishing a list of proscribed words would highlight how
ludicrously arbitrary this measure is. OTOH, I would suggest
that we can all recognize swearing when we hear it. Or do
you think what consitutes swearing varies a lot from person
to person?
Yes, what constitutes offensive language can vary considerably from
person to person.
Indeed, and I don't think all swearing is offensive. The degree
of offensiveness varies considerably. However, what constitutes
swearing (use of swearwords) is more narrowly defined, I reckon.
Post by Cynic
Two exuberant youths are indulging in friendly but loud banter whilst
walking along the road. Which of the following should get an
on-the-spot fine?
None should get an on-the-spot fine, in my opinion.

[Swearing snipped.]

Francis
Colonel Colt
2008-12-10 16:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Burton
Post by Maria
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
I assume they'll publish a list of proscribed words, or at least make it
available for inspection somewhere - else how will people know what they
can't say?
Publishing a list of proscribed words would highlight how
ludicrously arbitrary this measure is. OTOH, I would suggest
that we can all recognize swearing when we hear it. Or do
you think what consitutes swearing varies a lot from person
to person?
I doubt many people will be fined for saying 'damn' or 'zounds'!
Cynic
2008-12-10 17:37:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:23:25 -0000, "Colonel Colt"
Post by Colonel Colt
Post by Francis Burton
Publishing a list of proscribed words would highlight how
ludicrously arbitrary this measure is. OTOH, I would suggest
that we can all recognize swearing when we hear it. Or do
you think what consitutes swearing varies a lot from person
to person?
I doubt many people will be fined for saying 'damn' or 'zounds'!
I don't know about "zounds", but many people do not allow their
children to use the word "damn"

So I would not be so certain that you would not be fined for saying
it.
--
Cynic
Maria
2008-12-10 17:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colonel Colt
Post by Francis Burton
Post by Maria
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
I assume they'll publish a list of proscribed words, or at least make it
available for inspection somewhere - else how will people know what they
can't say?
Publishing a list of proscribed words would highlight how
ludicrously arbitrary this measure is. OTOH, I would suggest
that we can all recognize swearing when we hear it. Or do
you think what consitutes swearing varies a lot from person
to person?
I doubt many people will be fined for saying 'damn' or 'zounds'!
Maybe it will be like the racism laws - if someone thinks it is a
swearword, then it is a swearword.
Rob
2008-12-10 17:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Francis Burton wrote:
|| In article <***@bt.com>,
|| Rob <rsvptorob-***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
|||
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
|||
||| I assume they'll publish a list of proscribed words, or at least
||| make it available for inspection somewhere - else how will people
||| know what they can't say?
||
|| Publishing a list of proscribed words would highlight how
|| ludicrously arbitrary this measure is.

Indeed. The very idea that certain individual words can be banned is
completely ridiculous.

|| OTOH, I would suggest
|| that we can all recognize swearing when we hear it. Or do
|| you think what consitutes swearing varies a lot from person
|| to person?

I think it's fairly obvious that there will be disagreement as to what
constitutes swearing.
--
Rob
Francis Burton
2008-12-11 11:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
|| that we can all recognize swearing when we hear it. Or do
|| you think what consitutes swearing varies a lot from person
|| to person?
I think it's fairly obvious that there will be disagreement as to what
constitutes swearing.
How do you define swearing - the use of swear words in obvious
context (i.e. "bloody Council" vs "bloody steak"), or the causing
of offence?

What I am suggesting is that a list *could* be drawn up that 99%
of people would agree are swear words, but any attempt to do so
with a view to stopping people offending or being offended would
be doomed to ignominious failure.

Francis
Gary
2008-12-10 18:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francis Burton
Post by Maria
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
I assume they'll publish a list of proscribed words, or at least make it
available for inspection somewhere - else how will people know what they
can't say?
Publishing a list of proscribed words would highlight how
ludicrously arbitrary this measure is. OTOH, I would suggest
that we can all recognize swearing when we hear it. Or do
you think what consitutes swearing varies a lot from person
to person?
Francis
I sometimes exclaim things like 'Oh! SON of a CAMEL' on the badminton court,
upon missing a shot as a mental conversion from something worse. I guess
someone could be offended by that. Or KNICKERS! If I make a fluffed shot.
What is swearing then? Bugger? Toss? Feck? Chuffin' 'ell?

Unless it's to be yet another, "You're guilty if we say you are" law, then
there must be a proscribed word list, surely?

What about Sacre Bleu, Merde, Qu'vatlh or anything else I could come out
with.
--
remove stars for email
g*a*r*y*c*o*w*e*l*l*a*t*m*a*c*d*o*t*c*o*m
Mike
2008-12-11 00:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary
Unless it's to be yet another, "You're guilty if we say you are" law, then
there must be a proscribed word list, surely?
What about Sacre Bleu, Merde, Qu'vatlh or anything else I could come out
with.
I shouldn't worry about the last one, the job of a "naughty words" warden has no
honour. No Klingon would demean himself by doing the job of a petaQ.
--
Mike
Maria
2008-12-10 14:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
|| Legal or not?
||
|| (Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
|| because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
|| few 'elected' individuals?)
||
||
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
I assume they'll publish a list of proscribed words, or at least make it
available for inspection somewhere - else how will people know what they
can't say?
What if someone is swearing in a different language? Will they have to
have multilingual interpreters accompanying the wardens to make sure
they get fined also?
Big Les Wade
2008-12-10 15:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
What if someone is swearing in a different language? Will they have to
have multilingual interpreters accompanying the wardens to make sure
they get fined also?
What if you hum a dirty song, like "Four and Twenty Virgins"? Will the
wardens have to be accompanied by ex-squaddies who can recognise all
these songs and know the words are obscene?
--
Les
"If just one child is saved, then we'll have created a police state for the
benefit of just one child."
Cynic
2008-12-10 17:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Maria
What if someone is swearing in a different language? Will they have to
have multilingual interpreters accompanying the wardens to make sure
they get fined also?
What if you hum a dirty song, like "Four and Twenty Virgins"?
Get the title right!

You're thinking of "The ball of Carrymuir"
--
Cynic
Big Les Wade
2008-12-10 18:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Get the title right!
You're thinking of "The ball of Carrymuir"
I forgot you used to be a squaddie. I bow to your superior expertise in
this particular field.
--
Les
"If just one child is saved, then we'll have created a police state for the
benefit of just one child."
Cynic
2008-12-11 13:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Cynic
Get the title right!
You're thinking of "The ball of Carrymuir"
I forgot you used to be a squaddie. I bow to your superior expertise in
this particular field.
All the sods' opera I know was not learnt in the military, but in a
gliding club of all places!

My singing is terrible, but I used to be able to recite all the verses
of "Eskimo Nell" (there are over 50). We had the poem on punched tape
when I worked in telecommunications, and used to use it to test a
radio telex link. Sadly I can recall less than half of them today -
though I expect it is available on the Internet.
--
Cynic
judith smith
2008-12-10 22:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Big Les Wade
Post by Maria
What if someone is swearing in a different language? Will they have to
have multilingual interpreters accompanying the wardens to make sure
they get fined also?
What if you hum a dirty song, like "Four and Twenty Virgins"?
Get the title right!
You're thinking of "The ball of Carrymuir"
<Alex mode on>
Surely you're thinking of "The Ball of Kirriemuir" ;-)
<Alex mode off>
Cynic
2008-12-11 13:26:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:18:18 +0000, judith smith
Post by judith smith
Post by Cynic
Post by Big Les Wade
What if you hum a dirty song, like "Four and Twenty Virgins"?
Get the title right!
You're thinking of "The ball of Carrymuir"
<Alex mode on>
Surely you're thinking of "The Ball of Kirriemuir" ;-)
<Alex mode off>
I have only ever heard it spoken (or sung, badly), and must have
misheard the Scottish town it referred to. Have you actually visited
the place? If so, is Mrs. McGinty still alive and knitting away by
the fireplace? She seems such a helpful & sweet old dear in the song
...
--
Cynic
_
2008-12-10 15:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
Letter sent:
-----------
Christine Abram (Mayor)
Preston, Lancs, UK

Ma'am:

I read with interest an article in the December 10th Yorkshire Post which
gives a few sketchy details of a Preston campaign titled "Respect Our
City". As might be expected, the newspaper article is neither exhaustive
nor definitive in the description of this campaign, and as I may visit
Preston in the future I have a few questions. These questions have
occurred to me upon reflection that there is a general principle that
"ignorance of the law is no excuse", and as the usual run of my speech (and
I suspect others') is by definition extemporaneous and hence unpredictable,
I might have no defence to a charge as described by the article had I not
attempted to ascertain more fully the nature of the law.

Would you be so kind as to take a moment to answer them, or to forward this
letter to a person who can do so; and should this process be expected to
take more than a few days would you reply stating receipt of this letter
and an estimated date by which I could expect a more responsive reply?

Now, to the questions:

1. The article refers to "swearing". This is rather a general term. Can
you supply a list of words and/or phrases that are included in "swearing"?
If not, can you supply a list of words that are not "swearing"?

2. If such lists exist, who is in charge of maintaining them, and what is
the procedure for adding or deleting words? Is there a consultative
process, and do members of the public have input?

3. Must the words or phrases be spoken to be considered "swearing"?

4. If spoken, are they swearing if whispered? Are they swearing if said in
a normal volume? Are they if spoken loudly? Are they if yelled?

5. If spoken, what if mispronounced? What if syllables of the proscribed
words are interspersed with other non-proscribed words (as is sometimes
affected by those afflicted with the need to swear)?

6. If spoken, but no person is within earshot, the words being captured by
some electro-mechanical recording device, are they swearing?

7. If spoken, is it an offence for a person to stand outside the boundary
of Preston but to swear so that persons inside the boundary hear the words?

8. If spoken, is it an offence for a person to swear on a radio programme
when such programme is received in Preston? Would it be an offence for a
person to play that programme on a motorcar radio through an open window?

9. If swearing includes not only speaking the words, but also other means
of communicating, are they swearing if printed on a T-shirt?

10. If swearing includes not only speaking the words, but also other means
of communicating, are they swearing if tattooed on a person's forehead?

11. If swearing includes not only speaking the words, but also other means
of communicating, are they swearing if tap-danced in morse-code?

12. Are there exemptions to this offence? For example, were I to give a
public reading of a work by James Joyce (or some other literary worthy)
which might happen to include a words or phrases that would otherwise be
considered "swearing", is there an exemption due to artistic merit?

13. If exemptions exist, and your reply to me includes a list of words
considered swearing, would a public reading of that letter be exempt on the
grounds that I am advising the public not to use those words? Would a
poster produced for the same purpose which also contained the list of words
be an offence?

14. Is there a medical exemption? I understand that persons with a
condition known as "Gilles de la Tourette syndrome" sometimes
uncontrollably say words which would otherwise be considered swearing;
should such people avoid the City of Preston due to fear of being fined due
to their medical state?

15. If exemptions such as suggested in (8) exist, is there a permit for
which one must apply and if so is there a fee?

I remain

Respectfully yours

-----------------

Should a reply be received I will post it...
Richard Bird
2008-12-10 16:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by _
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
-----------
Christine Abram (Mayor)
Preston, Lancs, UK
I read with interest an article in the December 10th Yorkshire Post which
gives a few sketchy details of a Preston campaign titled "Respect Our
City". As might be expected, the newspaper article is neither exhaustive
nor definitive in the description of this campaign, and as I may visit
Preston in the future I have a few questions. These questions have
occurred to me upon reflection that there is a general principle that
"ignorance of the law is no excuse", and as the usual run of my speech (and
I suspect others') is by definition extemporaneous and hence
unpredictable,
I might have no defence to a charge as described by the article had I not
attempted to ascertain more fully the nature of the law.
Would you be so kind as to take a moment to answer them, or to forward this
letter to a person who can do so; and should this process be expected to
take more than a few days would you reply stating receipt of this letter
and an estimated date by which I could expect a more responsive reply?
1. The article refers to "swearing". This is rather a general term. Can
you supply a list of words and/or phrases that are included in "swearing"?
If not, can you supply a list of words that are not "swearing"?
2. If such lists exist, who is in charge of maintaining them, and what is
the procedure for adding or deleting words? Is there a consultative
process, and do members of the public have input?
3. Must the words or phrases be spoken to be considered "swearing"?
4. If spoken, are they swearing if whispered? Are they swearing if said in
a normal volume? Are they if spoken loudly? Are they if yelled?
5. If spoken, what if mispronounced? What if syllables of the proscribed
words are interspersed with other non-proscribed words (as is sometimes
affected by those afflicted with the need to swear)?
6. If spoken, but no person is within earshot, the words being captured by
some electro-mechanical recording device, are they swearing?
7. If spoken, is it an offence for a person to stand outside the boundary
of Preston but to swear so that persons inside the boundary hear the words?
8. If spoken, is it an offence for a person to swear on a radio programme
when such programme is received in Preston? Would it be an offence for a
person to play that programme on a motorcar radio through an open window?
9. If swearing includes not only speaking the words, but also other means
of communicating, are they swearing if printed on a T-shirt?
10. If swearing includes not only speaking the words, but also other means
of communicating, are they swearing if tattooed on a person's forehead?
11. If swearing includes not only speaking the words, but also other means
of communicating, are they swearing if tap-danced in morse-code?
12. Are there exemptions to this offence? For example, were I to give a
public reading of a work by James Joyce (or some other literary worthy)
which might happen to include a words or phrases that would otherwise be
considered "swearing", is there an exemption due to artistic merit?
13. If exemptions exist, and your reply to me includes a list of words
considered swearing, would a public reading of that letter be exempt on the
grounds that I am advising the public not to use those words? Would a
poster produced for the same purpose which also contained the list of words
be an offence?
14. Is there a medical exemption? I understand that persons with a
condition known as "Gilles de la Tourette syndrome" sometimes
uncontrollably say words which would otherwise be considered swearing;
should such people avoid the City of Preston due to fear of being fined due
to their medical state?
15. If exemptions such as suggested in (8) exist, is there a permit for
which one must apply and if so is there a fee?
I remain
Respectfully yours
-----------------
Should a reply be received I will post it...
NO ANSWER WILL BE THE STERN REPLY
f***@gmail.com
2008-12-10 16:57:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:04:51 -0000, "Richard Bird"
Post by Richard Bird
Post by _
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
-----------
Christine Abram (Mayor)
Preston, Lancs, UK
I read with interest an article in the December 10th Yorkshire Post which
gives a few sketchy details of a Preston campaign titled "Respect Our
City". As might be expected, the newspaper article is neither exhaustive
nor definitive in the description of this campaign, and as I may visit
Preston in the future I have a few questions. These questions have
occurred to me upon reflection that there is a general principle that
"ignorance of the law is no excuse", and as the usual run of my speech (and
I suspect others') is by definition extemporaneous and hence
unpredictable,
I might have no defence to a charge as described by the article had I not
attempted to ascertain more fully the nature of the law.
Would you be so kind as to take a moment to answer them, or to forward this
letter to a person who can do so; and should this process be expected to
take more than a few days would you reply stating receipt of this letter
and an estimated date by which I could expect a more responsive reply?
1. The article refers to "swearing". This is rather a general term. Can
you supply a list of words and/or phrases that are included in "swearing"?
If not, can you supply a list of words that are not "swearing"?
2. If such lists exist, who is in charge of maintaining them, and what is
the procedure for adding or deleting words? Is there a consultative
process, and do members of the public have input?
3. Must the words or phrases be spoken to be considered "swearing"?
4. If spoken, are they swearing if whispered? Are they swearing if said in
a normal volume? Are they if spoken loudly? Are they if yelled?
5. If spoken, what if mispronounced? What if syllables of the proscribed
words are interspersed with other non-proscribed words (as is sometimes
affected by those afflicted with the need to swear)?
6. If spoken, but no person is within earshot, the words being captured by
some electro-mechanical recording device, are they swearing?
7. If spoken, is it an offence for a person to stand outside the boundary
of Preston but to swear so that persons inside the boundary hear the words?
8. If spoken, is it an offence for a person to swear on a radio programme
when such programme is received in Preston? Would it be an offence for a
person to play that programme on a motorcar radio through an open window?
9. If swearing includes not only speaking the words, but also other means
of communicating, are they swearing if printed on a T-shirt?
10. If swearing includes not only speaking the words, but also other means
of communicating, are they swearing if tattooed on a person's forehead?
11. If swearing includes not only speaking the words, but also other means
of communicating, are they swearing if tap-danced in morse-code?
12. Are there exemptions to this offence? For example, were I to give a
public reading of a work by James Joyce (or some other literary worthy)
which might happen to include a words or phrases that would otherwise be
considered "swearing", is there an exemption due to artistic merit?
13. If exemptions exist, and your reply to me includes a list of words
considered swearing, would a public reading of that letter be exempt on the
grounds that I am advising the public not to use those words? Would a
poster produced for the same purpose which also contained the list of words
be an offence?
14. Is there a medical exemption? I understand that persons with a
condition known as "Gilles de la Tourette syndrome" sometimes
uncontrollably say words which would otherwise be considered swearing;
should such people avoid the City of Preston due to fear of being fined due
to their medical state?
15. If exemptions such as suggested in (8) exist, is there a permit for
which one must apply and if so is there a fee?
I remain
Respectfully yours
-----------------
Should a reply be received I will post it...
NO ANSWER WILL BE THE STERN REPLY
OR
" Mind your own fucking business"
_
2008-12-10 16:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by _
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
-----------
Christine Abram (Mayor)
Preston, Lancs, UK
Typo in 15) corrected...
Phil Stovell
2008-12-10 16:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by _
Should a reply be received I will post it.
I bet they tell you to fuck off.
f***@gmail.com
2008-12-10 16:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
When I saw the subject line I thought ." WTF have The Ordinary Boys
got to with this ?"
Alang
2008-12-10 16:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
ISTR article 10 of the ECHA gives the right to free expression
Maria
2008-12-10 17:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alang
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
ISTR article 10 of the ECHA gives the right to free expression
How many people will be fined and will just pay it until some awkward
person decides(and can afford)to challenge it in the ECHR?
Mr X
2008-12-10 17:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Alang
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
ISTR article 10 of the ECHA gives the right to free expression
How many people will be fined and will just pay it until some awkward
person decides(and can afford)to challenge it in the ECHR?
Plenty I hope.
I know some people here don't want to live in a nice environment and would
rather that louts had the right to piss, vomit and swear on the streets
while masturbating over child porn bu most people would rather they didn't.
Maria
2008-12-10 17:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr X
Post by Maria
Post by Alang
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
ISTR article 10 of the ECHA gives the right to free expression
How many people will be fined and will just pay it until some awkward
person decides(and can afford)to challenge it in the ECHR?
Plenty I hope.
I know some people here don't want to live in a nice environment and would
rather that louts had the right to piss, vomit and swear on the streets
while masturbating over child porn bu most people would rather they didn't.
Oh please. Most people aren't like that, and if you can hear someone
swearing and it's not 1am when the clubs are spilling out, then you must
be eavesdropping on someone else's conversation.

Perhaps you would be happier in Saudi?

PS the only people I have seen pissing in the street are drunken Poles -
the people that most people admire as hard-working and decent.
Mr X
2008-12-10 18:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Mr X
Post by Maria
Post by Alang
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
ISTR article 10 of the ECHA gives the right to free expression
How many people will be fined and will just pay it until some awkward
person decides(and can afford)to challenge it in the ECHR?
Plenty I hope.
I know some people here don't want to live in a nice environment and
would rather that louts had the right to piss, vomit and swear on the
streets while masturbating over child porn bu most people would rather
they didn't.
Oh please. Most people aren't like that, and if you can hear someone
swearing and it's not 1am when the clubs are spilling out, then you must
be eavesdropping on someone else's conversation.
Not really. I often hear youths shouting swear words during the day or on
public transport at peak times. I'd have less problem if it was just at 1am
as the kind of people out then wouldn't be too bothered. I fact I wouldn't
be bothered at that time of the day. However I wasn't best pleased to have
to listen to three thugs speaking at the top of their voice when every other
work was fuck or fucking on a train at 3PM.
Post by Maria
Perhaps you would be happier in Saudi?
PS the only people I have seen pissing in the street are drunken Poles -
the people that most people admire as hard-working and decent.
You must be looking for pissing Poles then. I've never seen one. I've seen
natives pissing against poles, though.
Cynic
2008-12-10 19:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr X
Post by Maria
Oh please. Most people aren't like that, and if you can hear someone
swearing and it's not 1am when the clubs are spilling out, then you must
be eavesdropping on someone else's conversation.
Not really. I often hear youths shouting swear words during the day or on
public transport at peak times. I'd have less problem if it was just at 1am
as the kind of people out then wouldn't be too bothered. I fact I wouldn't
be bothered at that time of the day. However I wasn't best pleased to have
to listen to three thugs speaking at the top of their voice when every other
work was fuck or fucking on a train at 3PM.
There's lots of behaviour that I would prefer didn't happen, but I
would not want it to be made illegal.

You have failed to appreciate how the laws that you applaud tend to be
used to prosecute acts that you didn't intend to include.

Litter laws are used to fine people whose child drops a crisp. Child
pornography laws are used to prosecute people with images that are
neither pornographic nor involve child abuse, and used as an excuse to
forbid parents taking photos of their children's sports day or school
play. Terrorism laws are used to stop people heckling at a political
meeting.

A law against swearing will be difficult to enforce against the sort
of acts you describe. The youths will tell the council worker to get
lost and he will have little recourse. But they will be effective
against respectable people who mutter "Shit" under their breath when
they trip or stub their toe.

Perhaps one day *you* will become a victim of the inappropriate use of
a law, and then you, like myself, might decide to reconsider your
views on the whole matter, and decide that maybe it isn't such a good
thing to ban and criminalise everything that is merely offensive, but
which does no significant harm to anyone.
--
Cynic
Mr X
2008-12-10 20:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Mr X
Post by Maria
Oh please. Most people aren't like that, and if you can hear someone
swearing and it's not 1am when the clubs are spilling out, then you must
be eavesdropping on someone else's conversation.
Not really. I often hear youths shouting swear words during the day or on
public transport at peak times. I'd have less problem if it was just at 1am
as the kind of people out then wouldn't be too bothered. I fact I wouldn't
be bothered at that time of the day. However I wasn't best pleased to have
to listen to three thugs speaking at the top of their voice when every other
work was fuck or fucking on a train at 3PM.
There's lots of behaviour that I would prefer didn't happen, but I
would not want it to be made illegal.
You have failed to appreciate how the laws that you applaud tend to be
used to prosecute acts that you didn't intend to include.
Litter laws are used to fine people whose child drops a crisp. Child
pornography laws are used to prosecute people with images that are
neither pornographic nor involve child abuse, and used as an excuse to
forbid parents taking photos of their children's sports day or school
play. Terrorism laws are used to stop people heckling at a political
meeting.
A law against swearing will be difficult to enforce against the sort
of acts you describe. The youths will tell the council worker to get
lost and he will have little recourse. But they will be effective
against respectable people who mutter "Shit" under their breath when
they trip or stub their toe.
Perhaps one day *you* will become a victim of the inappropriate use of
a law, and then you, like myself, might decide to reconsider your
views on the whole matter, and decide that maybe it isn't such a good
thing to ban and criminalise everything that is merely offensive, but
which does no significant harm to anyone.
Then the problem is of how the law is applied.
Quite why they are doing this when existing Breach of the Peace legislation
would cover anti-social swearing is beyond me.
Cynic
2008-12-11 13:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr X
Post by Cynic
Perhaps one day *you* will become a victim of the inappropriate use of
a law, and then you, like myself, might decide to reconsider your
views on the whole matter, and decide that maybe it isn't such a good
thing to ban and criminalise everything that is merely offensive, but
which does no significant harm to anyone.
Then the problem is of how the law is applied.
No, it is a problem of how the law is *defined*.

Vague and undefined words such as "swearing" and "indecent" have no
place in a criminal law. Acts that the law was not intended to
criminalise should either not be included in the definition of the
law, or specifically excluded. Leaving it to individual enforcement
officers to decide when to apply and when not to apply the law can
never work.

It is why we have specific speed limits rather than a law that only
states that you may not drive "too fast", and parking signs state the
exact duration you are permitted to park rather than reading "Don't
park here too long".
--
Cynic
Mr X
2008-12-11 13:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Mr X
Post by Cynic
Perhaps one day *you* will become a victim of the inappropriate use of
a law, and then you, like myself, might decide to reconsider your
views on the whole matter, and decide that maybe it isn't such a good
thing to ban and criminalise everything that is merely offensive, but
which does no significant harm to anyone.
Then the problem is of how the law is applied.
No, it is a problem of how the law is *defined*.
I disagree. How else would you cover a situation like this?
Post by Cynic
Vague and undefined words such as "swearing" and "indecent" have no
place in a criminal law. Acts that the law was not intended to
criminalise should either not be included in the definition of the
law, or specifically excluded. Leaving it to individual enforcement
officers to decide when to apply and when not to apply the law can
never work.
They have a very important place. It leaves it up to the courts to decide
if and when the law has been broken. The law has many, many such terms as
'breach of the peace' 'careless driving' 'reasonable' etc. They are
intended to allow latitude when deciding if an offence has occured. It
wouldn't be sensible (or practical) to draft all the specific acts that
might count as breach of the peace.
Post by Cynic
It is why we have specific speed limits rather than a law that only
states that you may not drive "too fast", and parking signs state the
exact duration you are permitted to park rather than reading "Don't
park here too long".
But we do have catchall terms such as danerough/carless driving, negligance,
etc.
Jethro
2008-12-11 16:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Mr X
Post by Cynic
Perhaps one day *you* will become a victim of the inappropriate use of
a law, and then you, like myself, might decide to reconsider your
views on the whole matter, and decide that maybe it isn't such a good
thing to ban and criminalise everything that is merely offensive, but
which does no significant harm to anyone.
Then the problem is of how the law is applied.
No, it is a problem of how the law is *defined*.
I disagree.  How else would you cover a situation like this?
Post by Cynic
Vague and undefined words such as "swearing" and "indecent" have no
place in a criminal law.  Acts that the law was not intended to
criminalise should either not be included in the definition of the
law, or specifically excluded.  Leaving it to individual enforcement
officers to decide when to apply and when not to apply the law can
never work.
They have a very important place.  It leaves it up to the courts to decide
if and when the law has been broken.  The law has many, many such terms as
'breach of the peace' 'careless driving' 'reasonable' etc.  They are
intended to allow latitude when deciding if an offence has occured.  It
wouldn't be sensible (or practical) to draft all the specific acts that
might count as breach of the peace.
Post by Cynic
It is why we have specific speed limits rather than a law that only
states that you may not drive "too fast", and parking signs state the
exact duration you are permitted to park rather than reading "Don't
park here too long".
But we do have catchall terms such as danerough/carless driving, negligance,
etc.
ISTR One of the touchstones of the ECHR when it comes to legal systems
is that you have to have a certain clarity in law. Otherwise people
can be convicted of criminal behaviour without having been able to
avoid it - which is patently "unfair" (I note that "fairness" and
"justice" are not synonymous ...)
Mr X
2008-12-11 17:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
Post by Mr X
Post by Cynic
Perhaps one day *you* will become a victim of the inappropriate use of
a law, and then you, like myself, might decide to reconsider your
views on the whole matter, and decide that maybe it isn't such a good
thing to ban and criminalise everything that is merely offensive, but
which does no significant harm to anyone.
Then the problem is of how the law is applied.
No, it is a problem of how the law is *defined*.
I disagree. How else would you cover a situation like this?
Post by Cynic
Vague and undefined words such as "swearing" and "indecent" have no
place in a criminal law. Acts that the law was not intended to
criminalise should either not be included in the definition of the
law, or specifically excluded. Leaving it to individual enforcement
officers to decide when to apply and when not to apply the law can
never work.
They have a very important place. It leaves it up to the courts to decide
if and when the law has been broken. The law has many, many such terms as
'breach of the peace' 'careless driving' 'reasonable' etc. They are
intended to allow latitude when deciding if an offence has occured. It
wouldn't be sensible (or practical) to draft all the specific acts that
might count as breach of the peace.
Post by Cynic
It is why we have specific speed limits rather than a law that only
states that you may not drive "too fast", and parking signs state the
exact duration you are permitted to park rather than reading "Don't
park here too long".
But we do have catchall terms such as danerough/carless driving, negligance,
etc.
ISTR One of the touchstones of the ECHR when it comes to legal systems
is that you have to have a certain clarity in law. Otherwise people
can be convicted of criminal behaviour without having been able to
avoid it - which is patently "unfair" (I note that "fairness" and
"justice" are not synonymous ...)

I think the oposite! The EU has tried to get judges to follow the 'spirit'
rather than the letter of the law.
Dead Paul
2008-12-10 18:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Mr X
Post by Maria
Post by Alang
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
ISTR article 10 of the ECHA gives the right to free expression
How many people will be fined and will just pay it until some awkward
person decides(and can afford)to challenge it in the ECHR?
Plenty I hope.
I know some people here don't want to live in a nice environment and
would rather that louts had the right to piss, vomit and swear on the
streets while masturbating over child porn bu most people would rather
they didn't.
Oh please. Most people aren't like that, and if you can hear someone
swearing and it's not 1am when the clubs are spilling out, then you must
be eavesdropping on someone else's conversation.
Perhaps you would be happier in Saudi?
PS the only people I have seen pissing in the street are drunken Poles -
the people that most people admire as hard-working and decent.
I once observed a sober afro dreadlocked youth of about 22 or so pissing
against some bushes giving a clear side view to anyone on the pavement and
any student entering or leaving a busy hall of residence in the
mid-afternoon. Brazen as fsck he was about it. He strolled over from a
game of footie he was playing in the street with other students, had his
piss and went back to his footie. So it's not just Poles who might do it.
--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/
Dead Paul
2008-12-10 18:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Mr X
Post by Maria
Post by Alang
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
ISTR article 10 of the ECHA gives the right to free expression
How many people will be fined and will just pay it until some awkward
person decides(and can afford)to challenge it in the ECHR?
Plenty I hope.
I know some people here don't want to live in a nice environment and
would rather that louts had the right to piss, vomit and swear on the
streets while masturbating over child porn bu most people would rather
they didn't.
Oh please. Most people aren't like that, and if you can hear someone
swearing and it's not 1am when the clubs are spilling out, then you must
be eavesdropping on someone else's conversation.
Perhaps you would be happier in Saudi?
PS the only people I have seen pissing in the street are drunken Poles -
the people that most people admire as hard-working and decent.
I don't think it's bound by nationality or race.
--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/
Maria
2008-12-10 19:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dead Paul
Post by Maria
Post by Mr X
Post by Maria
Post by Alang
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
ISTR article 10 of the ECHA gives the right to free expression
How many people will be fined and will just pay it until some awkward
person decides(and can afford)to challenge it in the ECHR?
Plenty I hope.
I know some people here don't want to live in a nice environment and
would rather that louts had the right to piss, vomit and swear on the
streets while masturbating over child porn bu most people would rather
they didn't.
Oh please. Most people aren't like that, and if you can hear someone
swearing and it's not 1am when the clubs are spilling out, then you must
be eavesdropping on someone else's conversation.
Perhaps you would be happier in Saudi?
PS the only people I have seen pissing in the street are drunken Poles -
the people that most people admire as hard-working and decent.
I don't think it's bound by nationality or race.
AIUI it's quite common in Poland (and acceptable?)
A Polish teacher was electrocuted a while back when he piddled on the
third rail...
jon
2008-12-10 22:50:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:53:18 +0000, Maria <***@theshoe.com>
wrote:

<snip>
Post by Maria
PS the only people I have seen pissing in the street are drunken Poles -
the people that most people admire as hard-working and decent.
Now now, don't let your anti-Pole prejudices show through so easily.
Maria
2008-12-11 01:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by jon
<snip>
Post by Maria
PS the only people I have seen pissing in the street are drunken Poles -
the people that most people admire as hard-working and decent.
Now now, don't let your anti-Pole prejudices show through so easily.
I get on fine with the ones I know - our neighbours are Polish - they
don't talk to us, but every week they put our bins out, and we bring
them back in - sort of silent cooperation.

But it's true that they pee in the street. They also half emptied our
local fishing lakes when they first came - that's not to say anything
bad about them - just that the culture is different. They seem to have
more freedom in some respects. It took a while to point out to them that
in rip-off Britain you cannot fish without paying lots of money, and
have to throw them back.
jon
2008-12-11 18:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by jon
<snip>
Post by Maria
PS the only people I have seen pissing in the street are drunken Poles -
the people that most people admire as hard-working and decent.
Now now, don't let your anti-Pole prejudices show through so easily.
I get on fine with the ones I know - our neighbours are Polish - they
don't talk to us, but every week they put our bins out, and we bring
them back in - sort of silent cooperation.
But haven't they stolen your husband's job?
Osric
2008-12-10 22:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
PS the only people I have seen pissing in the street are drunken Poles -
the people that most people admire as hard-working and decent.
Is there some sort of bizarre circumcision practice peculiar to Poles?
--
Osric




THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
Maria
2008-12-11 01:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Osric
Post by Maria
PS the only people I have seen pissing in the street are drunken Poles -
the people that most people admire as hard-working and decent.
Is there some sort of bizarre circumcision practice peculiar to Poles?
Not that I am aware of, but then I've never asked (or looked!)
Osric
2008-12-11 22:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Osric
Post by Maria
PS the only people I have seen pissing in the street are drunken Poles -
the people that most people admire as hard-working and decent.
Is there some sort of bizarre circumcision practice peculiar to Poles?
Not that I am aware of, but then I've never asked (or looked!)
I was wondering, somewhat tongue in cheek, how you could tell a urinating
man was Polish....
--
Osric




THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
Alang
2008-12-10 19:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr X
Post by Maria
Post by Alang
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
ISTR article 10 of the ECHA gives the right to free expression
How many people will be fined and will just pay it until some awkward
person decides(and can afford)to challenge it in the ECHR?
Plenty I hope.
You are Gordon Brown AICMFP
Post by Mr X
I know some people here don't want to live in a nice environment
Most of us would prefer to live in a free cuntry
and would
Post by Mr X
rather that louts had the right to piss,
Build more or reopen all those public toilets the local councils have
closed or pulled down
Post by Mr X
vomit
What happens if you are taken ill with food poisoning?
Post by Mr X
and swear on the streets
Article 10 of the ECHR gives the right to free expression
"sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never harm me"
Post by Mr X
while masturbating over child porn bu most people would rather they didn't.
I would rather nasty little perverts didn't get their rocks off
imagining child porn.
nospam
2008-12-10 21:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr X
Post by Maria
Post by Alang
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
ISTR article 10 of the ECHA gives the right to free expression
How many people will be fined and will just pay it until some awkward
person decides(and can afford)to challenge it in the ECHR?
Plenty I hope.
I know some people here don't want to live in a nice environment and would
rather that louts had the right to piss, vomit and swear on the streets
while masturbating over child porn bu most people would rather they didn't.
The difference is I would rather they didn't by choice not by constant
surveillance of everyone by the state's plastic policemen and threat of
punishment.

Enforcing social behaviour by legislation creates the illusion of society
while actually destroying it. That's what politicians want. They want a
nation of individuals constantly monitored, controlled, and dependant on
the state. It lets them expand the apparatus of the state which they
control and makes them feel important and needed.
--
Mr X
2008-12-10 22:54:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
The difference is I would rather they didn't by choice not by constant
surveillance of everyone by the state's plastic policemen and threat of
punishment.
I agree. However we aren't likely to see such people change their
anti-social behaviour though choice.
Cynic
2008-12-11 13:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr X
I agree. However we aren't likely to see such people change their
anti-social behaviour though choice.
You will be surprised how people behave when they believe that they
are being trusted to get on with things unsupervised and unquestioned.
You usually end up with a pretty decent community that are
self-policing.

When antisocial behaviour is seen, the attitude changes from, "Someone
ought to do somerthing about that," to "*We* must do something about
that."

But in general, people behave *far* more responsibly when they
consider that they are being trusted rather than controlled.
--
Cynic
Osric
2008-12-10 23:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Mr X
Post by Maria
Post by Alang
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
ISTR article 10 of the ECHA gives the right to free expression
How many people will be fined and will just pay it until some awkward
person decides(and can afford)to challenge it in the ECHR?
Plenty I hope.
I know some people here don't want to live in a nice environment and would
rather that louts had the right to piss, vomit and swear on the streets
while masturbating over child porn bu most people would rather they didn't.
The difference is I would rather they didn't by choice not by constant
surveillance of everyone by the state's plastic policemen and threat of
punishment.
Enforcing social behaviour by legislation creates the illusion of society
while actually destroying it. That's what politicians want. They want a
nation of individuals constantly monitored, controlled, and dependant on
the state. It lets them expand the apparatus of the state which they
control and makes them feel important and needed.
All of which is a far greater problem than the talented individuals who can
piss, vomit and masturbate simultaneously.
--
Osric




THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
Osric
2008-12-10 22:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr X
Post by Maria
Post by Alang
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
ISTR article 10 of the ECHA gives the right to free expression
How many people will be fined and will just pay it until some awkward
person decides(and can afford)to challenge it in the ECHR?
Plenty I hope.
I know some people here don't want to live in a nice environment and would
rather that louts had the right to piss, vomit and swear on the streets
while masturbating over child porn bu most people would rather they didn't.
Got to give them credit for their skill at multi-tasking.
--
Osric




THE BORDERS OF MY COUNTRY
RUN AROUND THE SOLES OF MY FEET
Alang
2008-12-10 19:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Alang
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
ISTR article 10 of the ECHA gives the right to free expression
How many people will be fined and will just pay it until some awkward
person decides(and can afford)to challenge it in the ECHR?
We are allowed to do it in the mags court now
count 2
2008-12-10 19:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777...
What will all those with O level in English do now?

The F word should only be used if you hit your thumb or want yo sleep
with a women.
.
2008-12-10 22:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777...
Because councils are the preserve of morons in these times. If I lived
in Preston I would scribble KEEP OUT OF MY FUCKING COUNCIL OFFICE on
the front door of the council office in time for morning.
Steve Walker
2008-12-11 17:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Legal or not?
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
If you want to live in a town where public swearing, drunkenness and
vomiting is welcomed, then good luck to you. The council is just trying to
discourage such behaviour, which doesn't seem unreasonable.
Cynic
2008-12-11 17:27:15 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:15:00 -0000, "Steve Walker"
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Maria
(Why is it that councils are proving to be so dictatorial? Is it just
because they can, another symptom of handing over too much power to a
few 'elected' individuals?)
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/No-swearing-youre-in-Preston.4777886.jp
If you want to live in a town where public swearing, drunkenness and
vomiting is welcomed, then good luck to you. The council is just trying to
discourage such behaviour, which doesn't seem unreasonable.
Do you not see anything between "ban it" and "welcome it"?
--
Cynic
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...