• Home
  • About Inspector Gadget
  • Online Shop
  • Ruralshire
  • The Book

POLICE INSPECTOR BLOG

Doughnuts & Diversity in riot-torn England, 2012.

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« It’s time for TASER in London.
Why we take so long to arrive SHOCK! »

F**k Off to all my readers!

November 21, 2011 by inspectorgadget

That isn’t very nice is it? According to Mr Justice Bean in the Court of Appeal, it’s fine and shouldn’t cause any distress or alarm because youngsters swear all the time.

On the face of it, this story seems to be of little consequence. Just another nail in the coffin. I never regarded the swearing itself as a crime, it is however, evidence of disorderly and aggressive conduct.

This will soon arrive in the classroom, the local housing office, the benefits office, local swimming pool, the library ( if the Tories have left any in your area) and all areas of public life. The you will ring us and tell us that youths are telling you to fuck off, right in your face, and asking us what we are going to do about it. At that point, we will tell you that there is nothing we can do, you will blame us and the courts will once again escape accountability.

Then someone will ask you if you have confidence in the police, you will say no and we will spend loads of your money on glossy leaflets telling you how good we are and training courses, and yes folks, this is true, to teach police officers to be polite! Meanwhile, the local criminal underclass, no doubt fuelled by illegal drugs and legal alcohol, will float about abusing everyone with impunity.

Why should swearing constantly at police officers be any different to burglary, car crime, wife-beating and drug supply? After all, we see people walk away from the local courts every day for those offences, and we are used to the public and politicians blaming us for that too.

We will continue to get stabbed, shot at, run over and generally rioted at with no proper equipment, and again, you will all complain that you have no confidence in the police.

Here’s a thing. We are running out of confidence in society.

We used to accept all this nonsense for the odd occasion where we actually managed to do some good and for a good contributory pension scheme and a decent wage. Now we are told we can’t have those either, with all the money spent (on foreign wars no one believes in) and foreign aid budgets (no one benefits from).

I’ll leave you with this; how would you feel if next time you asked me something on the street and I looked you straight in the eye, curled back my lip and told you to fuck off? And then imagine being told later by a Judge that you should be used to it because policemen swear a lot. It’s bloody nonsense and we all know it.

Gadget Note: Inspector Gadget and Response Team F are currently on nights, hence the grumpy post.

Advertisement

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Posted in Perverting the Course of Justice, published by Monday Books, is available in all good bookstores, at amazon.co.uk and as an e-Book. | 336 Comments

336 Responses

  1. on November 21, 2011 at 10:46 am Lance Manley- former STAB PROOF SCARECROW

    first!!!


    • on November 21, 2011 at 11:18 am Special Dibble

      OMG amazing!!!! WOW! it must be better than sex!


      • on November 21, 2011 at 12:02 pm Quiddity

        What? Stealth ninja firsts?


        • on November 21, 2011 at 12:28 pm Special Dibble

          Oh yes, or I’m doing something wrong in the bedroom… Coming first is not well received.


          • on November 21, 2011 at 12:35 pm Quiddity

            Well, I was going to say Lance was being selfish…but I’ve been told off for lowering the tone before…


    • on November 21, 2011 at 1:11 pm 20yearstogo

      Well done you!


  2. on November 21, 2011 at 10:46 am UPP

    First!


  3. on November 21, 2011 at 10:47 am pj21

    First


    • on November 21, 2011 at 10:47 am pj21

      So near but yet so far. Well done UPP. Now to read the post.


  4. on November 21, 2011 at 10:47 am Newbie

    first


    • on November 21, 2011 at 10:47 am Newbie

      so close to my second first … :-(


  5. on November 21, 2011 at 10:47 am UPP

    Ah, right at the forefront of the latest news with the help of Twitter!


  6. on November 21, 2011 at 10:47 am Dastardly Detective * * *

    Not even podium


  7. on November 21, 2011 at 10:47 am @PCWibble

    Yay!


    • on November 21, 2011 at 10:57 am @PCWibble

      Not first… Oh well…

      And a very merry fuck off to all your readers too! :)


      • on November 21, 2011 at 9:13 pm Mjolinir

        First to point out that no-one said ‘fuck’ in the first 14 posts.

        And first to claim another ‘anticipatory 1st’ – for having posted a link to this story at 2:51 this morning (Insomnia has 2 advantages – reading the papers early – and as an excuse for drinking a large Bell’s and ginger-ale)


  8. on November 21, 2011 at 10:48 am Dastardly Detective * * *

    Well done PJ21


  9. on November 21, 2011 at 10:49 am Dastardly Detective * * *

    And very well done UPP


    • on November 21, 2011 at 11:06 am Dastardly Detective * * *

      Can we have a recount please. LM seems to have snuck in with a very belated post as ‘First’. That was not there before UPP. Confused.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 3:55 pm pj21

        Stewards inquiry required.


  10. on November 21, 2011 at 10:49 am Woodentop363

    10th


    • on November 21, 2011 at 10:52 am Woodentop363

      Even better 9th


  11. on November 21, 2011 at 10:50 am Dav

    1st


    • on November 21, 2011 at 10:50 am Dave the Dog

      Not even close


  12. on November 21, 2011 at 10:50 am Asitis

    Top 10?


    • on November 21, 2011 at 10:51 am Asitis

      Top 10, mint!


  13. on November 21, 2011 at 10:50 am Journo

    Top 20!


  14. on November 21, 2011 at 10:51 am Quiddity

    Piss off, back you you. :P

    and inside top 20. So there. Nyah.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 10:54 am Quiddity

      Mt. Quiddity is on nights and it makes him grumpy as well. Especially when I still have to get up at 6 am and go to work on a Monday.

      I’m still working on morning ninja skills, but it’s difficult with a man that has mastered the process of becoming an octopus in his sleep and I wake up pinned between him and two cats.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 10:55 am Quiddity

        {PS} MR Quiddity, not Moutain Quiddity.

        Also: header amused me.


  15. on November 21, 2011 at 10:51 am Noob

    Top 10….


  16. on November 21, 2011 at 10:51 am MP_out

    Top 10 must be FFS!! :)


  17. on November 21, 2011 at 10:55 am GrumpySgt

    It’s not the words itself, its the tone and aggression and lack of respect for the custodians of society who draw a line in the sand and say:

    “No, you can’t do that or behave in that manner”

    Oh and Fcuk off!


  18. on November 21, 2011 at 10:57 am Journo

    Tolerance of abusive language on the street is just a symptom of the underlying weakness displayed by those in authority who you’d really think would know better, but because they live in a cocoon what goes on in the real world has little or no effect on them, and I reckon the nearest Mr Justice Bean ever get to hear swearing is when he gets an occasional mouthful as the scrotes are taken down.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 11:04 am inspectorgadget

      and with the courts the way they are at the moment, that WILL be very occasional….


      • on November 21, 2011 at 12:01 pm Journo

        So very true!


    • on November 21, 2011 at 2:46 pm Scully

      Sigh…………..One rule for us, another for them. I have taken to face palming while watching the World’s Strictest Parents, as it is very hard and embarrassing to watch as Brit teens swear and disrespect decent families all around the world. Once the UK was famous for manners…………sigh!

      Hang in there Guv, nights are enough to make anyone grumpy.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 6:05 pm Bringbackpeterimbert

        Standards Scully, standards! ‘Disrespect’, if it is a word at all, is a noun and one should never use a noun as a verb. It’s almost on a par with the use of bad language.


        • on November 21, 2011 at 6:55 pm Scully

          Apologies! I am very tired and sleep deprived at the moment. I agree, very shoddy on my part. I should have phrased it to read disrespectful. That will teach me to combine a Nursing career with Police work. Now I am off to bed……


          • on November 21, 2011 at 8:58 pm Bringbackpeterimbert

            Nighty -nigtht!


          • on November 22, 2011 at 12:09 am Susie C.

            Nursing AND policing?…….respect!


      • on November 23, 2011 at 11:26 am killscroungers

        The UK has never been famous for its manners in the rest of the world.


  19. on November 21, 2011 at 10:58 am pj21

    Another beak living in cloud cuckoo land. Perhaps his worship would care to fuck off and take a brief glance at the wider picture we loosely call “society”.

    Merry ducking christmas IG readers. Duck off the lot of you!


  20. on November 21, 2011 at 10:58 am Quentin

    So it’s okay for me to call Mr Justice Bean a prat, then? Sauce for the goose and all that?


    • on November 21, 2011 at 11:57 am Wstr

      Seems fair enough – you first though :)

      Justice Bean: …therefore I have no choice but to release…[blah, blah]
      PC: You have got to be sh*tting me!
      JB: Who said that? Who had the temerity to interrupt these proceedings?
      PC: That’ll be me, you mindless old duffer
      JB: Good god man, but you’re a police officer. How dare you. You’re simply a disgrace to that uniform.
      PC: Make your bleeding mind up. You just said the uniform and the office can be freely abused so how can I possibly…
      JB: [interrupting] I..I simply will not tolerate being talked back to, in this manner.
      PC: …further disgrace it. [pause] Your c*ntship.
      JB: TAKE THAT MAN DOWN AND FIND ME SOME IRONS TO CLAP HIM IN!! [splutter], [gasp]
      Clerk: He’s collapsed, someone get help and start GPR
      PC: Oh for f*cks sake!

      GPR- Gin and Port Resuscitation. Other scenarios requiring revival, include dozing off after running later than usual, between ‘elevenses’ and a ‘damn fine lunch’.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 2:48 pm Scully

      Of course Quentin, and for good measure, take off the justice part. Mr. Bean says it all, a joke…..


  21. on November 21, 2011 at 10:59 am VerySpecialConstable.

    I wonder how the good judge would react if he was faced with the same situation. Pillock.


  22. on November 21, 2011 at 11:00 am Retired Sgt

    This situation could be easily resolved by the introduction of an offence along the lines of being abusive to a public official.This offence is common place on the continent and where I live is dealt with severely on the rare occassion that it happens.Public official could include all civil servants police rail staff etc and would at a stroke reduce the amount of grief all public servants get.
    I do not know if the Fed still sponsor an MP but if so surely he/she could try tio introduce as a private members bill.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 11:03 am Quiddity

      Well, from all the signs I see in shop windows and doctor’s offices, etc, it seems being abusive to people you want help from is the done thing these days…

      Maybe it’s cultural. See, in the US, we’re taught you smile at people you want something from and you use words like ‘Please’ ‘Thank you’ and ‘Have a Nice Day’. All the shop assistants smile at you and offer to help because they want you to buy things from their shop so that they can keep a pay cheque.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 1:09 pm Peterloo

      Isnt that somewhat discriminatory? Why are public officials any more offended by abuse than an ordinary MoP?

      We dont need any more laws on the stutute book – we just need to enforce the ones we have ffs!


      • on November 21, 2011 at 3:26 pm Taff Taff

        Peter,

        There is already Section 5 and Section 4 of the public order act that is/can be used when members if the public are abused and threatened. It not not acceptable to scream abuse and obscenities at anyone therefore people get locked up. However the courts have decided that police officers should be used to such behaviour so when they are mouthing of at us we just have to take it. In my experience when these people are not dealt with their behaviour escalates to the point where they abuse anyone in the street or turn violent against people. As soon as they start displaying abusive or threatening behaviour they need to get locked up. If the police can not use the public order act when abuse is directed at officers then the suggesting of a law making it an offence to abuse a public official is a good idea as it will be used to lock up abusive and potentially violent people, which surely benefits all members of the public.
        I see your point about more laws and enforcing the ones we have but obviously, this case in mind, it’s not happening is it.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 9:00 pm iplod

      That’s all well and good however if the Judge had only grown a brain cell he would have known the shit storm he has now created let’s look back over recent history Bail dates yet another high point of the Court Service – the term fit for purpose?????


  23. on November 21, 2011 at 11:01 am Stuart

    Is this not how so many officers on here speak to people who make comments that do not agree with them all the time? :-)


    • on November 21, 2011 at 11:06 am inspectorgadget

      Seems they are ahead of the game then, since it’s now officially OK to do so….


      • on November 21, 2011 at 11:13 am Stuart

        Touche’ :-)


      • on November 21, 2011 at 11:15 am Stuart

        ‘ere hold on!! It’s okay to swear at YOU, not you at us, we is delicate blossoms still :-)


    • on November 21, 2011 at 11:06 am Quiddity

      No, it’s how a few officers speak to the trolls that roll through here with tripe and nonsense. Personally, I don’t like pompous idiots either.

      It has little to do with opinions and more to do with how those opinions are expressed.


      • on November 22, 2011 at 1:29 am Susie C.

        +1. Not to mention WHEN those opinions are expressed. For example, when four officers are attacked by a lunatic with a butcher’s knife and end up in hospital, it’s bad timing to show up here and whinge about how crap the police are. Just saying.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 3:59 pm pj21

      Fuck off!


  24. on November 21, 2011 at 11:01 am Long Gone

    It’s not the words used, but how they are said. In 1972 the Met Police Instruction book (Chapter 5 para 19), stated that we could ignore ‘idle and silly’ remarks. It was our choice and should remain at the discretion of the officer involved.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 11:07 am inspectorgadget

      in that case I would have to ignore almost everything said to me every day.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 11:52 am Metcountymounty

        I do, especially if it comes from someone with more than a couple of pips. Days of old swearing at someone in the street would get a smack in the mouth, those days need to come back with avengence.


        • on November 21, 2011 at 12:03 pm Special Dibble

          Maybe, I’m not the ‘clip round the ear. sort, but I’m also not a mug and not wet behind the ears….


  25. on November 21, 2011 at 11:04 am Broken Bill

    Top Thirty again at last!

    I swore at the TV this morning when I heard that Judge’s comments.

    With such an attitude he is as much a part of society’s fall from grace as the feral scum who cannot talk without obscenity.

    I had a bit of a row Saturday morning with a rude little man blocking the way into our village shop and stopping staff and customers from getting in and out. He started to swear at me, in front of a number of ladies.

    i took him aside and put his hat on straight for him.

    The next day I got quietly thanked for it by those ladies.

    I bet I’m not top thirty now, rabbiting on like an old duffer.

    Bill.


    • on November 22, 2011 at 12:19 am Susie C.

      Nicely done. You’re a gent, Broken Bill.


  26. on November 21, 2011 at 11:06 am Gary Williams (@Garyw_)

    I swear, Police officers swear. Everyone swears at somepoint. That’s just life but like everything it’s all down to how it’s said. Context matters.

    If I got pulled over by a Police officer for something there would probably be a swearword involved but it would not be at the officer, it would be at me for not spotting the problem myself, etc, etc.

    In this case you’ve got someone who is a repeat offender probably out of his mind on dope and showing no respect at all. He should be done for it. This just sends a message out that it’s ok to abuse police officers and where does that stop? Swearing? Punching? Stabbing? How much more can our forces take of this abuse?

    It seems that you have no back up at all except that from your colleagues. Your own managers, the court system, etc.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 11:10 am inspectorgadget

      where does that stop? Swearing? Punching? Stabbing?

      funny you should mention that, our blood was boiling last year about a govt. idea to make ‘assault police’ a PND offence thus reducing it to the level of a parking ticket.

      this is truly the end of society as we knew it, all all presided over by Conservatives, who’d have thought it?


      • on November 21, 2011 at 11:24 am Special Dibble

        Broken window, stabbing us won’t be attempted murder anymore.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 11:40 am Agent Zig Zag

        I’d have thought it! Conservative party have not brought anything good to the table, ever.


        • on November 21, 2011 at 2:35 pm Lolzors

          Seriously, after ten years of New Labour’s totally insane political correctness initiatives – treating every attack upon British morality and customs as a protected ‘culture’ – you’re all so quick to blame the Conservatives?! Is it the Conservatives that decided that ‘diversity’ (whatever the heck that word is even supposed to mean) ought to be a deciding factor for hiring and promoting police? Is it the Conservatives that decided that PCSOs would be an excellent use of the extremely limited police funds? Is it the Conservatives that set up the patronising dreck that is the NPIA?

          Yeah, the Conservatives are pretty bloody abysmal for numerous reasons, but it would be nigh on impossible for them to ravage UK policing to quite the extent that New Labour achieved.

          I’m pretty unsurprised by this story; after three terms of New Labour’s insistence that acting like a scumbag ought be a protected cultural minority, I’m only surprised this guff hasn’t happened sooner – we all know the same attitude expressed by the judge has been in effect for years now, so all he’s actually done is made that laissez-faire attitude towards morality the Crown’s official stance.


          • on November 21, 2011 at 2:50 pm Quiddity

            Can I have an apolitical agenda to take to the streets with a bar of soap and administer the age-old cure for excessive potty-mouth?


          • on November 21, 2011 at 2:54 pm thespecialone

            As an ex-Tory Party member I am not impressed by them at all. They have been in power now for 18 months and as far as I can tell, not done much different to Labour. There is virtually no difference between the 3 main parties. I wouldn’t vote for any of them if there was an election tomorrow. Cameron is a lefty; he is a CINO (Conservative In Name Only).


            • on November 21, 2011 at 3:33 pm Special Dibble

              Oh I’m ex Tory aswel…. Should I attend their next local Tory meeting? I am invited….


              • on November 22, 2011 at 1:56 pm Lolzors

                I went to the last one and yelled at them for being so feckin incompetent. I’m with thespecialone: they’re just New Labour’s retarded cousins. I was in no way implying the current Tory crop are good, I was just saying that they’re certainly not the main cause of the shambles this country’s police force is in – their identical ‘opposition’ is to blame for this.


          • on November 22, 2011 at 12:20 am Shafted Bluenose

            Have the Conservatives changed anything that they professed not to like when Labour was bringing all that in?


  27. on November 21, 2011 at 11:07 am Broken Bill

    Mornin’ Troll.

    Bill


    • on November 21, 2011 at 11:19 am Stuart

      That’s no way to speak to Inspector Gadget Broken Bill,


      • on November 21, 2011 at 1:04 pm Special Dibble

        Funny how you knew who it was aimed at…


  28. on November 21, 2011 at 11:12 am Henry Brubaker

    Would Mr justice bean find it acceptable to be told to fuck off in his courtroom?


    • on November 21, 2011 at 3:44 pm Slimy Chuck-A-Butty

      Of course not, that’s contempt of court.


  29. on November 21, 2011 at 11:14 am Serf

    The poor cweature pwobably suffered fwom Too-wets syndwome – ASRE -CNUT-FCUK-CNUT so there could be a medical weason fow his vewy poor langwuage – BLOLOCKS -CNUT-ASRE!

    Loved Humphries onRadio 4 earlier asking Simon Reed about how policemen probably swore when they got together over a pint in their socila clubs at the end of the day or in their canteen together. I’m surprised he didn’t mentioning removing their armlets, cycling home in uniform, smoking a nice pipe and singing in the force choir! CNUT!


    • on November 21, 2011 at 1:48 pm Whatever Next

      You mentioned armlets, would they be Ferals knife deflecting armlets?


      • on November 21, 2011 at 3:24 pm Serf

        Errrm no, I was harking back, lamp swinging if you will; making a point that even respected commentators like John Humphries still has this rose-tinted image of ‘the police’, I’m only surprised he didn’t mention ‘desk sergeants’ and think constables were marched to their respective beats blowing their whistles!

        As for ‘Feral’ and his/her knife deflecting forearm protectors – I think enough has already been said.


  30. on November 21, 2011 at 11:22 am sc longago

    I had a very sheltered upbringing. Perhaps Mr Justice Bean/the local yobs/anybody using the expression could explain for me what “Fuck off” means, and possibly even demonstrate by doing one? No, I think I need to rephrase that….


  31. on November 21, 2011 at 11:23 am Special Dibble

    Giving out tickets is such a ball ache anyway, if you do more that say, 3 or 4 a shift, the end of a shift is spent doing a PND entry, writing statements and waiting on hold to ORC them…. Well a dection is a dection isn’t it? my crewmate always loves me for them anyway…. Every cloud…


  32. on November 21, 2011 at 11:25 am townpoliceclauses

    Approx 18 years ago in a sleepy Lancashire town in a well to do suburb a man who was always at odd with the local council over planning permission he thought he didn’t need repeatedly erected signs on his land. The signs had all sorts of swearing on them in his ranting messages. I, as a young cop, told that man to remove the signs as they were likely to cause harrasment alarm or distress to passers by, when he refused I arrested him. Suitably charged we ended up in court where a solicitor made the point on the defendants behalf that “everyone swears these days” and that he had often heard police officers, me included, swearing at each other. He claimed that nobody was offended by it anymore and the magistrates found his client no guilty of a public order offence. I was livid. The fact that I swear is irrelevant and the fact that I am not offended by people I know swearing at me in conversation is also irrelevant, we know each other and we know what is acceptable. That does not mean that I can shout the same language in the street for all to hear because clearly that is not acceptable because I don’t know what everyone else feels about it. The test for me is this…. 18 years later I still know people who don’t like swearing, they don’t swear and they don’t like hearing others doing it. My mum and dad are such people, there are plenty of others and I maintain to this day that many people would have been distressed and alarmed at that ranting man’s notice boards. That was the day I lost faith in magistrates to make proper decisions.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 12:03 pm Stuart

      “The fact that I swear is irrelevant ”

      Hypocrisy then? Lead by example or are you above all others?


      • on November 21, 2011 at 1:14 pm Hatedbythedailymail

        ten out of ten for effort, but zero for understanding. Feel free to sit at the back of the class, re read and come back when you grasp the nature of the argument/post.


        • on November 21, 2011 at 1:15 pm Hatedbythedailymail

          That was for Stuart, in case he did not grasp that either.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 2:48 pm Lolzors

        Somehow, Stuart, you’ve managed to miss his point. Let me spell it out a bit more clearly: the solicitor was arguing that the fact that the police officer has been heard swearing to a colleague is a valid defense for someone who’s been founding swearing at everyone. However, because swearing is contextual in both its meaning for the person using the word (if I were to call my friend a tosser, then I probably don’t mean the same thing by it that I’d mean if I were to use the word to describe someone I hate) and for the person hearing it (some chav scumbag probably wouldn’t care about swearing as much as a member of the clergy), it isn’t valid to link swearing to a friend and swearing at everyone as identical, because each instance of swearing has different consequences – it’s the logical fallacy of equivocation (confusing the terms in an argument to arrive at an invalid confusion).

        Unfortunately, the vast majority of the legal profession is full of the private school class – people who generally aren’t all that bright, but have received such an astoundingly good level of education (all far beyond what the normal person could afford, of course), that they’ve been catapulted into offices well beyond their intelligence level. Luckily for the scrote in this particular story, the Judge lacked the basic smarts to see this pretty simple logical fallacy in action.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 6:28 pm Sntplod

        Stuart,
        I believe that you are either being obtuse or deliberately misunderstanding.

        If I drop a hammer on my foot and in pain and surprise shout out “Fuck it”, absolutely although not to be condoned, is understandable.
        If I were challenged on my language and told that the language is offensive and I subsequently apologised or stopped doing it – again not a problem. If I were to stand there and tell someone to “fuck off you cu*t” that is not acceptable. To do it to a person in a position of authority – well that’s just a complete lack of respect for society. That’s why the judge today is out of touch. It’s the thin end of the wedge.


        • on November 21, 2011 at 9:15 pm townpoliceclauses

          I guess the acid test would have been if at the end of that particular magistrates ruling I had stood up and told the bench to F Off and that they were all a bunch of F’ing Wankers similar to what was written on the defendants billboard. Surely nothing would have happened to me as they had just ruled it wasn’t offensive. Does anybody think I would still be in this job today if I had taken that approach? Why not? well because we all know it’s not really acceptable.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 9:12 pm townpoliceclauses

        No not hypocrisy at all. I do lead by example. I use language that is acceptable and appropriate for the situation and for the people I am talking to. As an example I have never and will never swear in front of these people 1. My parents (they would be deeply offended) 2. My children, although they hear bad language every day from kids at school I don’t want them to feel that it is acceptable in all circumstances. 3. members of the public whilst I’m on duty in uniform representing the office of police constable 4. well you get the picture, need I go on? basically I know in my head from years of being brought up right, education and plain common sense when it is acceptable to swear and when it isn’t. When it comes to swearing in a public place people should apply the principle that they do not know what the other people within earshot think and feel about swearing so they should er on the side of caution and not swear. So yes I do swear, but would I swear at a public official? No..well possibly a building control officer… but if I was then told to stop because it was offending someone would I continue to the point where I got arrested? No of course not.
        The point is the police don’t lecture people on the rights and wrongs of swearing in general, it’s non of our business but we do have to challenge people on other people’s behalf. The final question is this. Does anyone think that a police officer in uniform should take no action if a person stands in a street and swears and shouts insults at that officer, surely it’s not about whether the officer themselves is offended it’s about the office the represent and the laughing stock they would become if the public saw this happening and the cops just stood back and did nothing.


        • on November 22, 2011 at 2:49 am dungbeetle

          It reminds me of being told sixty years ago by a stewardess said “when you chaps start speaking in English we will serve your meal” said because we returning to Blighty after spending time in the Arabian area had been using English for punctuation.


      • on November 22, 2011 at 12:23 am Shafted Bluenose

        It’s not a morality test, mate. Do you think it is? It’s about how words and behaviour is used and the effect it has on those apprehending it. Why oh why do I even need to explain this to you???


  33. on November 21, 2011 at 11:26 am MedDI

    I advocate swearing at Judges


    • on November 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm pj21

      That was a good sentence.


  34. on November 21, 2011 at 11:28 am Henry Brubaker

    As Im one of those appallling Special type constables and Im not on Police duty at this exact moment I am therefore a simple MOP. As such I find the title of this article offensive!

    There: ive seen something on the internet I don’t like and I wish to make a complaint and I want somebody to do some non specific yet serious thing about it. I fully intend to call the police because I am a pathetic specimen of manhood who doesn’t know how to turn the computer off.

    Your in trouble now gadget!


    • on November 21, 2011 at 11:29 am Henry Brubaker

      Though I will be in trouble with the grammar nazis as I used your instead of you’re. Im sure Justice Mr Bean will understand…..


      • on November 21, 2011 at 11:31 am Quiddity

        You also posted Im, rather than I’m on two occassions and failed to use a semi-colon to delineate two thoughts within a single sentence.

        You also used ‘ive’ rather than I’ve, which constitutes a failure of capitalisation on top of hyphenation.

        Capitalisation is important, Henry. It’s the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.


        • on November 21, 2011 at 11:50 am Henry Brubaker

          I dont live in the country, I find your rural ways mysterious……


        • on November 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm trebuchet

          “Capitalisation is important, Henry. It’s the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse”

          Brilliant…..


          • on November 22, 2011 at 12:24 am Shafted Bluenose

            Which could become a capital offence, surely?


      • on November 21, 2011 at 11:44 am Agent Zig Zag

        Im sure Justice Mr Bean will understand…..

        Will he fcuk!


    • on November 21, 2011 at 11:29 am Quiddity

      I’m offended by your patent lack of grammar and punctuation skills.


      • on November 22, 2011 at 10:04 am Scarlet Pimple.

        Me? I’m impressed with your’s. especially as English is a second language to you, knowing you originate from the from the colonies. :–)


        • on November 22, 2011 at 10:15 am QuiddityJones

          It’s always the way. Non-native speakers are taught the correct way to speak, not the lazy habits of generations of natives.

          – Plus having an English teacher for a grandmother who would correct me faster than a duck on a Junebug whenever I abused the language helped a great deal.


          • on November 22, 2011 at 10:42 am Scarlet Pimple.

            Don’t be so modest, even allowing for Granny, you still bring more than a little literacy to an otherwise illiterate commentary. Hee Hee!


            • on November 22, 2011 at 10:45 am QuiddityJones

              *blush*

              Why thank you, Scarlet. It is very kind of you to say so.

              I try to do my part to counter-balance all the Americans that have to ‘bazooka’ a problem rather than solve it.


  35. on November 21, 2011 at 11:29 am Xam

    I am an avid reader of this “Common Sense” blog and also live in Germany, where respect for the police is enforced by law.

    Attached are 3 links to German web sites to show how much a display of one significant digit (the middle one) can cost. Plus other minor expressions of gratitude to the job you do.

    Use google translator – it does a reasonable job with four letter words!

    http://www.10-top.de/fun/beamtenbeleidigung-top-10-der-schlimmsten-beschimpfungen-samt-kosten/

    http://www.derberater.de/motor-technik/auto-motorrad/know-how/beamtenbeleidigung-was-kostet-die-beschimpfung-eines-polizisten.htm

    http://www.recht-gehabt.de/ratgeber/meine-rechte-bei-der-polizei/beamtenbeleidigung-wie-teuer-wird-es.html

    Xam


    • on November 21, 2011 at 7:04 pm DB

      The Germans are a lovely bunch, if a bit odd. Herr Schmidt will cheerfully drive at 160mph two inches from your arschloch. But give him the finger and he gets all self-righteous and gobs off at the traffic polizei, who, it seems, have nothing better to do than to drive out in the swanky 5-series and give you a bollocking and a fine. Odd priorities.
      Not as bad, mind you, as Czech men, who seem to think that anything faster than them is an insult to their masculinity. Funny until they bump your bike’s back wheel and you cartwheel into a ditch.


      • on November 22, 2011 at 3:48 am militarypoliceman

        On topic though, swear at a German copper and you’ll be nicked, your feet won’t touch the ground (your head might though). The Public Prosecutors’ Office fully supports the police over there, and they have no qualms about issuing fines or custodial sentences.


  36. on November 21, 2011 at 11:29 am Kevin T

    So is it also okay if someone tells Justice Bean to fuck off in his court? Or is that different because he wears a wig and is thus more deserving of respect? I expect you’d be jailed for contempt of court if you spoke to him like that.

    I’m surprised this isn’t a bigger story, what they’re doing here is basically removing the presumption that the police represent authority and should be treated with respect.


  37. on November 21, 2011 at 11:31 am JJW

    I’ve seen plenty of cases (on the telly, I am a MOP) where the threat of an arrest for a public order offence has been a significant factor diffusing a situation involving an unruly individual or a crowd. It’s part of the credibility of the police – they have arrived, are in control, and civil behaviour will commence or people will feel the consequences. At the very least it means that the police have a hope of doing their job without some moron verbally abusing them. (I wonder how the judge would respond under similar circumstances in his court. Presumably he won’t in future be sending anyone down to the cells for contempt if they swear at him in court).


  38. on November 21, 2011 at 11:44 am rfg@ffj.com

    Do you expect anything more from Mr Bean anyways?


  39. on November 21, 2011 at 11:45 am grumpyjohn

    Our local doctor’s surgery has this sign at reception.
    Apparently medical staff and patients do not have to put up with what the police have to (according to our learned friend).

    Violent or Abusive Behaviour
    Please remember that staff at this practice are here to help you.
    Whilst we understand that many of you may be feeling upset or worried about your visit to the surgery, aggressive, abusive, violent or threatening behaviour will not be tolerated by any doctor or member of staff at this practice.
    This includes shouting and swearing. CCTV & sound recording is in operation and all incidents of this nature will be recorded. You may be asked to leave this practice if your behaviour distresses either a member of staff or any of the patients within the building.
    Thank you for your co-operation.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 12:01 pm Agent Zig Zag

      Strewth, where do you live? My local GP’s surgery has no such sign and a very diverse bunch of people attend.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 6:13 pm bruce

        Some thieving bastard stole it?


        • on November 21, 2011 at 7:12 pm Agent Zig Zag

          Brevity is the soul of wit.


  40. on November 21, 2011 at 11:49 am MedDI

    On the other hand – the Judge was doing what he is supposed to. Implement the law – he did, it is unlikley that two Police Officers were in fact caused HAD by swearing – so charge is not proved.
    It is partially our fault as we have long made that act work – as we always do.
    If there is no longer to be any Judicial margin then we need a new law – one that specifies that swearing at Police officers is an offence OR swearing in a public place AFTER a warning is an offence.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 12:11 pm @PCWibble

      “Within the hearing of a person likely to be caused HAD” could mean that despite swearing at a Copper a MoP nearby may be caused HAD and so an arrest could still be effected…I usually put in my evidence the reaction(s) of nearby MoPs… I usually find someone who’d be offended…


      • on November 21, 2011 at 12:16 pm MedDI

        EXACTLY – and that was what happend here – all that’s different is the Judge didn’t play his part in our usual little game.

        We make broken systems work – sometimes it dosn’t help


  41. on November 21, 2011 at 11:52 am Northern Monkey

    What an absolute joke, i’m sick of all the spineless lefties sticking their oar in.. Fcuking cnuts!’


  42. on November 21, 2011 at 11:54 am Mrs Doughnut

    I hate swearing. I accept it can occasionally happen, such has when I hit my thumb with the hammer instead of the nail the other day, but what is going on is different.

    There is a constant dumbing down going on.

    On twitter you can see very eloquent and literate men and women constantly using “ffs” “wtf” and a million other little shorties.

    You tell me how kids can learn it’s not ok to follow their example?

    The judge might have a thug or two occasionally swear at him, but it’s nothing like having to sit on the bus every day ( 50 to work, 50 min home) and having to listen to even well dressed and nicely groomed youngsters swear like they’re a bunch of drunken sailors.

    It seems to be ok these days to call girls “whores”, and let me not start on the word “gay” which the kids seem to regards as great cover-it-all insult.

    Society is getting uglier and uglier, isn’t it?


  43. on November 21, 2011 at 11:56 am Bonzo

    From the look and sound of him I guess Mr Justice Bean must be the progeny of Mr Bean.
    Bonzo


  44. on November 21, 2011 at 11:57 am Agent Zig Zag

    I’ve re-read that Torygraph story and it appears to me that although the ‘yoof’ swore a lot, how much of it was really directed at the police officers? I’d just say it was more in keeping with the ignorance of the ‘yoof’ in that he has a limited vocabulary. He should have read Chaucer and the The Reeve’s tale, when Alain utters these lines about the miller’s daughter,

    For, John,” said he, “as ever I’ll take my luck, As, if I can, that very wench I’ll fuck.


  45. on November 21, 2011 at 12:08 pm Quiddity

    Maybe you could come up with code phrases…

    “Have a nice day” = go f*ck yourself, you useless w*nker

    “Good morning/afternoon/evening” = I hope you get genital warts.

    “Thank you!” = f*ck off

    Etc. I’m sure we could put our imaginations into it.


  46. on November 21, 2011 at 12:18 pm Barty

    I am not impressed by the “but we all swear” argument.

    We all take a dump too. But one would expect to be in some kind of trouble if we did it on a crowded bus.

    Mind you, maybe that will be ok in a few short years?


    • on November 21, 2011 at 12:26 pm Special Dibble

      Buuurrr
      Rillie
      ant


      • on November 21, 2011 at 1:57 pm MarkMyWords

        Is that you Craig? :-)


        • on November 21, 2011 at 2:37 pm Special Dibble

          No, but I mostly likely nicked it off him…


  47. on November 21, 2011 at 12:20 pm Fircombe Hall

    Are the Troll Deflector Sleeves working today???

    I always saw great pre-emptive value in whispering ‘Now Fuck Off or you will be shitting teeth for a week’ into the lughole of our local criminals when they were getting over excited.

    I guess I was one of those ‘Rough Men’ that Orwell wrote about.


  48. on November 21, 2011 at 12:21 pm Hatedbythedailymail

    Well my understanding of all this is that we can now return to the days of speaking to people in a manner they understand. No complaints to be recorded as the court clearly believes this is not uncivil or impolite.

    Lets look at this in a positive light. We can now actually tell those retards Wanye and Waynetta, what we think of them and their “im getting bullied on facebook init, what are you pigs gonna do about it” complaints.

    “Well Mr Wayne, lets put this in a manner which is socially acceptable and in a manner you can comprehend. Take your time wasting complaint and f**k right off, you f*****g waste of oxygen and skin. You are a w****r of the highest order and deserve all the s**t you get, you f*****g idiot. When you stop nicking others peoples property, smashing up their town and kicking them senseless, I might, might just give a hairy rats arse about anything that happens to you. Now f**k off, you c**t”

    I think that is what the Judge deems acceptable in society? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong…….


  49. on November 21, 2011 at 12:25 pm coppers son

    Time place and context- there are very few who do not swear at some point.

    I am sure said judge does not feel that in court is the time or place for swearing, his justification being the lack of respect for him and for the court- not the distress etc – the fact he is incapable of recognising the same applies to a police office says it all really.

    As an aside, I had to share an office with a real, genuine Christian who tried to live the life. After a week he asked me very nicely to turn it down a bit, so I instituted a swear box – and demanded as the major contributor the right to choose the charity to which it went.

    The only time he got upset after that was when, after a particularily vexing visit from the technical director- I paid the box first then said what I really thought.


  50. on November 21, 2011 at 12:26 pm coppers son

    officer … drat


  51. on November 21, 2011 at 12:27 pm Tesrod25er.

    Easy outrage at this one, but there is a difference between swearing AT a police officer, and incidental swearing during conversation, and how that incidental swearing is delivered. I’m not keen on swearing myself, and eventually came round to the idea that enforcing good grammar and correct speech was not part of the police officer’s job. Of course knowing the full nature of what was actually said and done would assist when commenting…and I’m in the dark on that.


  52. on November 21, 2011 at 12:31 pm Fircombe Hall

    I think I’ve been caught in the moderators swear box!!!!


  53. on November 21, 2011 at 12:34 pm Nick

    And perhaps police officers could be trained not to address members of the public as “mate”.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 12:41 pm Hatedbythedailymail

      I never address members of the public as mate. You are not. Just as I remind some drunk idiot at 2am, when they call me mate, that I am not and never would be considered their mate.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 1:04 pm Special Dibble

      Perhaps we could train MOPS not to generalise?


      • on November 21, 2011 at 1:11 pm Hatedbythedailymail

        They still wouldnt be my mate. My mate lives up the road and I drink in the pub with him.


        • on November 21, 2011 at 1:36 pm Special Dibble

          Spot on


        • on November 22, 2011 at 10:16 am Scarlet Pimple.

          Mate… ‘ a sexual partner’

          “They still wouldnt be my mate. My mate lives up the road and I drink in the pub with him.”

          Umm, yeah, I understand,


    • on November 21, 2011 at 7:07 pm DB

      @Nick – No worries, sonny.


    • on November 22, 2011 at 1:41 am Taff Taff

      Well when if thats the case then Nick all members of the public should refer to Police Officers as officer or sir. Anyway this doesn’t apply to me as I’m Welsh and I call everyone “BUTT”.


  54. on November 21, 2011 at 12:36 pm Fircombe Hall

    Calm down fella


  55. on November 21, 2011 at 12:45 pm Fircombe Hall

    Damn these Troll Deflector Sleeves………my reply was to Nick…..but if Nick is short for the female name Nicky all I can do is apologise and say ‘sorry love’


  56. on November 21, 2011 at 12:57 pm venialfed

    I will not change the way I deal with people who swear in public places. If you evidence public order properly as in public not police being offended there shouldn’t be any issues.

    If someone what’s to obstruct a lawful search I’m sure we can all resolve that issue without the need to fall back on a lame public order offence.

    However the court system and judges have yet again proved they are inept and incapable of supporting Police officers on the ground. This judge has clearly bypassed his brain of all decision making responsibility and seems more than happy to spout any old rubbish without the slightest regard as to the long term outcome and perception by the media and public.

    I will try out this new accepted language when next in the box, PSD here I come!


    • on November 22, 2011 at 12:33 am Shafted Bluenose

      Snap, I was saying that in our office just this very day.

      “And how did the suspect’s behaviour affect the situation, officer?”

      “Well your Worships, the two old ladies at the bus stop nearly fainted but I didn’t give a flying fcuk, I’m used to it as you probably know.”

      It’s got to be worth a gamble, I reckon, just to see the looks? It can surely only result in an initial bollocking followed by reasoned debate?


  57. on November 21, 2011 at 1:01 pm Plod & Proud

    No doubt had the foul mouthed little darling stood in the box and sworn at His Honour he would have been sent down for contempt!

    The degredation of society appears to be in full flow and is being supported by the powers that be, but it’s ok because we have the overworked, underfunded, under-equipped police to blame for it all!

    What’s funny is if I went hammer and tongs at these idiots with the language they use I’d get stuck on.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 1:07 pm Hatedbythedailymail

      not anymore my friend. The judge said so. I think His Honour’s ruling trumps any police complaint regulations.


  58. on November 21, 2011 at 1:02 pm JW

    Amazing eh – tell a magistrate of a judge to fuck off and you could go down for contempt of court. Why? For abusing the Crown and the concept of justice.

    Police officers where crowns don’t they, police officers represent the concept of justice don’t they?

    I might find out where Mr. Justice Bean works to drop in a call him a fucking cunt. What a cock.

    [BTW - the Tories are not closing libraries. They are giving councils less money. Councils don't have to close libraries - they could cut what they spend of emoluments and expenses for councillors].


  59. on November 21, 2011 at 1:17 pm Agent Zig Zag

    Language, heh? What constitutes bad language? One could write a whole book on that subject. Are we now living in a fool’s paradise? O, that way madness lies; let me shun that; No more of that! If I were to refer to one as a queynte would thou’st be offended? What if the ‘yoof’ had siad, “Please excuse my french”?


    • on November 21, 2011 at 1:21 pm Quiddity

      I believe several books have been written upon the subject; including the humorously named “Eats Shoots and Leaves.”

      I will take no offence to your term if I may refer to you fondly as that ‘charming pederast’ I know.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 7:19 pm Agent Zig Zag

        Quiddity,

        Is that truly the title of the tome? I take issue with the term pederast. That I most certainly am not, never have been and, indeed, never likely to be.


        • on November 21, 2011 at 9:57 pm QuiddityJones

          *grins* Yes, well, twas as quaint a turn of phrase as thine own.

          And I think in my haste I ommited the punctuation; but I plead distraction.


          • on November 21, 2011 at 10:06 pm Reacher

            Mt Quiddity perchance?
            *c’mon I post the distraction excuse and it goes downhill rapidly. ;)


            • on November 21, 2011 at 10:09 pm QuiddityJones

              Mt (sic) Quiddity is still on night shifts, although he should be distracting me shortly. ^_^


              • on November 21, 2011 at 11:13 pm Reacher

                So only a few hours of self distraction to go then.
                Right…..sure I have something more respectable to be getting on with…. ;)
                * more trouble again Q.


          • on November 22, 2011 at 10:09 pm Agent Zig Zag

            Indeed. Chaucer distracts me, too.


  60. on November 21, 2011 at 1:23 pm East Anglian Constable

    I was thinking about telling my Chief Inspector to **** off. Up to now I’ve only been thinking about it. Oh hang on though – we’re not the same as everyone else. We’ve got Police Regulations. I’ll carry on thinking about it then


    • on November 21, 2011 at 7:50 pm Bill

      Don’t miss out the “you sad tw*t”.


  61. on November 21, 2011 at 1:33 pm Anon

    I have said on here in the past, and il say it again.

    This country, has lost its identity, it is going down like the titanic!!

    And that goes for the UK Police. A sinking ship.

    Thats all i can say.


  62. on November 21, 2011 at 1:42 pm Stonecoldstrats

    Oh well as swearing is now acceptable , that judge is a complete arse and I look forward to hearing the next Chav in the dock where he is sitting telling him to fuck off. Some how I would surmise it will suddenly be not quite so acceptable .When I read this I thought who gives a fuck I will still be nicking em (sec 28 Town and Police Clauses Act ) using profane language to the annoyance of residents or passers by. Sad muppet really but knowledge is power.


  63. on November 21, 2011 at 1:45 pm Reacher

    As an aside it appears that The IPCC have issued a statement rapping the Guardian for their abysmal article on Mark Duggan.
    21 November 2011

    “In response to a question about whether two members of the Community Reference Group had resigned the IPCC responded:

    “The IPCC recognises the importance of wider community engagement in relation to this investigation and we remain committed to maintaining these links.

    “We reduced the size of our original community reference group in October to a more focussed, smaller group involving three members of the community. Over the last fortnight two members have indicated that they no longer wish to be part of the group.

    “It is disappointing that these members no longer wish to be involved in the formal structure, but we are pleased at least one of them has remained in contact with the Commissioner in charge of this investigation to give views and advice about community issues. This was particularly helpful to us following the misleading and irresponsible headline published by The Guardian on Saturday.

    “We will be reviewing over the coming week whether a community reference group is still the best way forward or whether we can identify a better way for us to gauge community views and share information.”

    In response to criticisms from a former member of the Community Reference Group, the IPCC Commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne responded:

      
    “During the early stages of a complex investigation emerging evidence can be confusing and is certainly incomplete. The investigative process rigorously tests all evidence both forensically and through witnesses where possible until we achieve the best possible complete picture of what happened. It is for this reason, amongst others that we are extremely cautious about what we put into the public domain before an investigation is finished. The IPCC reference group has been given information on a confidential basis as part of our efforts to gain community confidence through scrutiny, challenge and dialogue. Part of the reference group’s remit is to advise the Commissioner on the key issues for the community, raising concerns on their behalf. The time to pass judgment on our investigation is when it is complete and the full evidence will be publicly tested. As the Commissioner I have every confidence that this investigation is thorough, robust and independent.”

    It appears that the insinuations present in the original article are being extended further. Who is leaking this information from an on-going investigation? Speculation that the gun was planted! Can anyone see where this is leading?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/20/investigation-mark-duggan-tainted

    No real surprise at the voteofnoconfidence and no I did not count the number of times community was mentioned.
    LOB


    • on November 21, 2011 at 2:35 pm Special Dibble

      Yea expatstu is battling it out but he is quite out numbered….


  64. on November 21, 2011 at 1:53 pm Too Tired

    I once told my HPDS, ‘looking for evidence at any cost’, Acting Inspector that on the grand scheme of things “I didn’t give a f**k.” This was not a proud moment but fully in context with his badgering at the time. I do not swear at the public, I don’t expect to be sworn at. I accept that for some it is impossible to utter a sentence without using some kind of expletive and I duly ask them to stop. If the said expletives are directed towards me, MOPS or any public servant it forms part of the disorderly behaviour and they get nicked. If a magistrate or judge wants to find them not guilty, fine. At the end of the day my job is done.


  65. on November 21, 2011 at 1:57 pm Gary

    the problem seems to be the officers suggested the suspect’s group of friends near by were the people likely to be caused H.A.D and they clearly were not, they were laughing as he told the Old Bill to F#@k OFF.

    Surely there was an elderly woman walking her dog who had to cross the road looking shocked or even a passing nun (genuinely saw a passing nun once).

    We let ourselves down with the way we present s5 Public Order evidence so many times. Statements are 1/2 -1 page long, Mention someone nearby but don’t mention anything else which suggests harassment alarm or distress. Whether it makes sense or not we know the law and the cases on this. PC Plod is unlikely to be caused HAD by simple naughty words so we need someone that is, and John the 6’8 doorman probably isn’t going to either. But there is normally someone shaking there head and mumbling about yobs as you lead them away.

    My favourite of those terms is alarm, nice easy word means anyone getting out of bed and coming to their window at 3am because they are concerned by the shouting of some clown is that person for s5 Public Order because they were alarmed enough to get out of bed, turn the light on and walk over to look


    • on November 21, 2011 at 2:24 pm MedDI

      I got challenged on the ‘passing Nun’ gambit at SWMC once – had to remind the Stipe of the Convent at Tooting Bec – got an appology!


      • on November 21, 2011 at 4:42 pm Broken Bill

        Respect!

        Bill.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 5:46 pm One Time Special

        Then the officers round here are OK – my neighbour behind is a large convent!


      • on November 21, 2011 at 10:10 pm Reacher

        Plenty of mothers with small children and little old ladies. ;)
        *tongue in cheek before the outrage bus starts out.


  66. on November 21, 2011 at 2:24 pm Bobby

    I think the Judge should have thought that it wasn’t perhaps just individual officers being sworn at. He is swearing at the Police, those who try to uphold the law for the benefit of all society, thus a right old dig at society and its values.

    Then again, the country is fucked. I will try from now on to be a ‘hardened’ officer and use the word fuck at least once in every sentence.

    Fuck.


  67. on November 21, 2011 at 2:29 pm PC Angry

    O/T but the met have reported the guardian to the press complaints commission for their rather misleading article over Duggan.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 2:30 pm Mrs Doughnut

      good. not that anything will come of it….


    • on November 21, 2011 at 2:33 pm Special Dibble

      Brillaint! Can you link us?


    • on November 21, 2011 at 2:35 pm Henry Brubaker

      but….but…. its the Guardian! They are the nations moral core. Without the Guardian…..what?

      The Guardian provides its moral core this by demanding in their left leaning way that tax payers money should be sprayed at everything like water, yet take exceptional measures to pay virtually no tax themselves. The chutzpah of this breathtaking hypocrisy is what gives the Guardian its moral high ground.

      Perhaps we should simply get rid of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (why do they investigate these things, was a wind farm involved??) and simply have the Guardian carry out the role of investigating the police.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 2:52 pm PC Angry

      Cant link as its on the met intranet

      ‘The MPS has decided to report to the Press Complaints Commission its concerns about a headline in The Guardian newspaper which stated ‘man whose shooting triggered riots was not armed’.

      The headline on an article about the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan, was inaccurate and misleading based on what is known at this time and despite making this point in the strongest terms to the newspaper, it was not amended.

      The article, but particularly its headline, stated as fact issues that are subject to an ongoing investigation by the IPCC, who have themselves issued a statement expressing similar concerns.

      We would reiterate that it is premature for anyone to draw conclusions prior to completion of the IPCC’s investigation.’


    • on November 21, 2011 at 3:15 pm Reacher

      Classic Op stable door.
      The headline of the abysmal article has now been changed to “New questions raised over the Duggan Shooting”.
      They should have pulled the whole article or better yet not printed it in the first place.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/18/mark-duggan-ipcc-investigation-riots

      “The original headline on this story has been amended pending the investigation of a complaint from the IPCC. The story itself has not been contested and remains as first published.”

      Incitement for a backlash anyone?


      • on November 21, 2011 at 6:50 pm CountyCopper

        http://content.met.police.uk/News/MPS-contacts-Press-Complaints-Commission-re-Guardian-newspaper/1400004732106/1257246745756

        The MPS has decided to report to the Press Complaints Commission its concerns about a headline in The Guardian newspaper which stated: “man whose shooting triggered riots was not armed”.

        The headline on an article about the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan, was inaccurate and misleading based on what is known at this time and despite making this point in the strongest terms to the newspaper, it was not amended.

        The article, but particularly its headline, stated as fact issues that are subject to an ongoing investigation by the IPCC, who have themselves issued a statement expressing similar concerns.

        We would reiterate that it is premature for anyone to draw conclusions prior to completion of the IPCC’s investigation.

        That’ll tell em.


        • on November 21, 2011 at 6:51 pm CountyCopper

          Sorry.. didn’t see someone else had already posted this.


  68. on November 21, 2011 at 2:33 pm south coast plod

    I should be suprised by this decision….. however I have been in the job for too long.
    Yes I have been known to swear, usually at inanimate objects, this does not make me a bad person. The words themselves are not the major issue, it is the context in which they are said.
    Also I can tell the difference between casual swearing in a sentence (the yoof seem to use ‘fuck’ as punctuation) and sweaing at me or another person.
    As mentioned before if you evidence a MOP being HAD in your statement etc there is little comeback.

    On an aside i recently got “words of advice” from our PSD for calling a MOP a prat while giving him some ‘feedback’ during a public order incident. Which he was by the way!


  69. on November 21, 2011 at 2:38 pm 28/30

    Justice Bean must have been an intelligent man once, or how else did he become a judge, but from this case it appears to me that the intelligence of Justice Bean Flickers.


  70. on November 21, 2011 at 2:38 pm jimmy

    We Will tolerate physical or verbal abuse of our staff. – from the management.


  71. on November 21, 2011 at 2:52 pm Jim

    I wonder what would happen if MrJustice Bean was sworn at ?


  72. on November 21, 2011 at 2:52 pm hursty

    This is old news there’s a stated case r v orum from around 1989 that stated police officers couldn’t suffer harassment alarm or distress


  73. on November 21, 2011 at 2:58 pm beirutbeats

    ‘Here’s a thing. We are running out of confidence in society.’

    Well I hope you don’t lose everything too soon.

    If you have a think about it, the majority of society does not swear in your face and has the utmost respect for you.

    I wouldn’t want the chav scum to wind you up to the point that you take it out on your average MOP.

    Because we put up with chav scum as well. Except we don’t get the chance to Taser them.

    Chin up!


  74. on November 21, 2011 at 3:03 pm beirutbeats

    (hmm if my original comment reappears apologies for the repeat)

    ‘We are running out of confidence in society.’

    Well I hope you don’t lose everything too quickly.

    If you think about it, the majority of society does not swear at you and gives you the utmost respect.

    I wouldn’t want you getting so fed up with the chav scum that you take it out on your average MOP.

    Because we have to put up with the chav scum too.

    But we don’t get to Taser them occasionally.

    Chin up!


    • on November 21, 2011 at 4:24 pm beirutbeats

      Bollox.

      Plus, nice Banksy style logo at the top.

      Something to print on your mug? (cup I mean)


    • on November 21, 2011 at 4:54 pm inspectorgadget

      I don’t get to meet ‘average MOP’s’ unless something really bad has happened to someone in their family.

      I spend my whole time on The Swamp Estate trying to hold back the seething, feral criminal masses. Every now and again they escape (last summer) but usually we win.

      If we met MOP’s, both sides would die of shock!


      • on November 21, 2011 at 11:27 pm Reacher

        “Every now and again they escape.”
        Escape to where?
        Sorry IG but LMAO.
        Know it’s serious an’ all but still seriously “die of shock at meeting a true Mop.”
        Still howling.


  75. on November 21, 2011 at 3:06 pm MarkMyWords

    Having had a read of what I imagine is an abbreviated version of the judgement, there was something that struck me as significant.
    What I understand is that the nearby group of MOPs, according to Mr Bean, could not suffer harassment, alarm or distress as a consequence of the arrestee swearing, because they were used to such language and used it as part of their “normal” vocabulary.


  76. on November 21, 2011 at 3:16 pm Doxon of Dick Green

    I await this stupid Judges’ response when someone tells him to ‘Fuck Off’

    Great Britain – RIP.


  77. on November 21, 2011 at 3:30 pm Shafted Bluenose

    First to suggest earlobe swearword deflectors be issued.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 3:34 pm Special Dibble

      We need a HUD on our helmets to filter out visual insults too….


      • on November 21, 2011 at 3:39 pm Fircombe Hall

        A HUD for senior officers to be able to spot actual working villains would be a boon…………


  78. on November 21, 2011 at 3:33 pm George

    Admittedly, I haven’t read every reply, ive been up since early, so am half asleep.

    But what i haven’t noticed from the posts that i have read, is a lack of officers actually saying they are offended by such behaviour.

    I tell you one thing, i was! hearing it every day doesn’t make a statement true, or any less offensive.

    To reverse the situation. If all police officers decided that as of midnight, they would start calling all black people by the n word, would Lord Justice Numpty decree that all black people shouldn’t be offended as the word was back in everyday use?
    Whilst the analogy isn’t perfect, the principle behind it is what i am getting at.

    Why do we even have laws to try and uphold a minimum standard of decency, if judges aren’t going to uphold them?

    Maybe the reason so many people are Police Officer’s is because they are offended by such behaviour, so joined up to try and do something about it? Or is that too far fetched a theory?


    • on November 22, 2011 at 12:40 am Shafted Bluenose

      I enjoy banter with proper villains that I’ve dealt with in the past who want to reminisce, I enjoy chit chat with local toerags who want to show off to their mates by coming up for a chat, and if there is industrial language I’m probably 50% of it. But personal abuse is a different matter. Abuse me, in whatever language, and I’ll be offended and tell you to wind your neck in. Persist, and your’e nicked. Simples.

      As has been said already, it’s not the content but the context, generally.


  79. on November 21, 2011 at 3:54 pm James

    Presumably Mr Justice Bean (really: Mr Bean , a judge) doesn’t think 3 or 4 uses of the F word in reaction to something we don’t like is more or less ok.
    I only have half a dozen words to say to him
    Fuck you, you fuckwitted old fucker.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 6:28 pm Thrustcadet

      What Jimbo so eloquently put!!!


  80. on November 21, 2011 at 4:07 pm SpecialC

    Anyone ever see the episode of Cops with Cameras (or similar) when a little shit called a PC a “ginger twat”. The officer responded “spotty twat”.

    This is the only way to go. Let’s all abuse our prisoners and tell them they are fing c’s.


    • on November 22, 2011 at 12:41 am Shafted Bluenose

      Aren’t we supposed to communicate with people at the level they set and understand, anyway? I always do and it seems to work on every level.


  81. on November 21, 2011 at 4:13 pm soud1

    Another cracking ruling by one of those who would be the first to call the police should one of the children of the night give him a mouthful or abuse.
    We had a RM say the same thing here several years ago when being called “black bastards” was apparently part of the job.
    I always found it was the first step to a disorderly behaviour arrest.


  82. on November 21, 2011 at 4:15 pm Bob

    Swearing like that is often a way of taking the piss out of officers, a way of upping the anti in front of other like-minded idiots. Its a step towards worse behaviour and therefore should be stopped as soon as possible. It can and does lead to disorder, by egging others on.That is what I would anticipate, an inflaming of the situation. Possibly alarming?
    The judge got it wrong. Its all about the context.
    And one other point. I did not realise just how all that confrontational behaviour affected me at the time. After 30 years in uniform, I recovered my will to chat with other people after a couple of years retirement.
    We are not entirely immune.


  83. on November 21, 2011 at 4:28 pm youngJP

    CrimeLine (http://www.crimeline.info) summaries what this case actually means. Unsurprisingly the effect will not be as dramatic as the Daily Mail, or Gadget, think.

    “The conviction was overturned for the following reasons:

    1. The Crown Prosecution Service adduced no evidence at all from the officers that the words had caused them harassment, alarm or distress. The court noted that police officers in particular regrettably hear this language all too frequently as part of their job and are less likely to be affected by it. The case of Southard v DPP is on point.

    2. The same could be said, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, in relation to the group of young people assembled at the time.

    3. There was no evidence that any other persons (eg neighbours) heard the exchange.

    So, this case is not a licence for people to cause police officers harassment, alarm or distress through the use of bad language, it simply reflects the reality that many people, particularly police officers who hear this day in day out, will find it more boorish than alarming. Everything depends on context however and the courts have not, despite what the press are reporting this morning, given people a free reign to abuse police officers.

    Should swearing at a police officer be illegal? Maybe so, but that is a matter for parliament to decide, not the courts.”


    • on November 21, 2011 at 4:51 pm inspectorgadget

      Summary.

      It’s OK to tell a policeman to fuck off if there is no one listening.

      Policemen need to do more recording of exactly how they were alarmed etc thus adding to the burden of paperwork we are not supposed to be doing.

      Nice.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 9:10 pm Sectioned Detection

      In DPP v. Southard 2006 (case law 2) the Judge stated[/u]

      [i]“I find nothing in the contect of the Act of 1986 to persuade me that a police officer may not be a person who is caused harassment, alarm or distress by the various kinds of words and conduct to which section 5(1) applies. I would therefore answer the question in the affirmative, that a police officer can be a person likely to be caused harassment and so on.

      I use this everyone CPS quote R v ORUM at me.


    • on November 22, 2011 at 1:34 am PCLightyear

      ” officers who hear this day in day out, will find it more boorish than alarming.”

      Boorish eh?

      Thats sounds rather ‘disorderly’ to me.

      and disorder certainly causes me alarm.


    • on November 22, 2011 at 9:04 am pjt

      That reasoning sounds surprisingly similar to the idea that it is okay to rape women if it happens all the time, because they’ve got used to it, or should anyway.


  84. on November 21, 2011 at 4:30 pm ACPO_Stink Tank

    So then.

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2011/11/wanted-candidates-for-police-commissioner.html

    Which of you lot are going to put your future where your keyboard is? (hypothetically speaking)

    Obviously some media skills and promotions aptitude is needed to go hand in hand with the vision to turn the local farce around (after all this IS an election). Enquires need to be made as to what remit on hiring and firing are allowed, before throwing your hat into the ring. Procurement and training budgets need to be hacked apart and re-built.

    But most of all, a common sense policy to sell to those voting middle classes (time and time again Gadget has been proven wrong, the feral scum won’t vote and those that do will be outnumbered). Its these middle classes or… normal thinking people who will give you a mandate to run the Police as it should be run. Upholding the law, protecting the public and getting equipped and paid to do the job properly.

    The public are sick of politicians, and you may need to run against Party ‘Sponsored’ appointees, and ACPO jobsworths.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 4:47 pm inspectorgadget

      This is clearly a ‘Whah’

      I guess we can expect the same levels of turn-out that we see for European elections?

      Much less than vote for their X Factor favourite each week.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 4:55 pm ACPO_Stink Tank

        you miss-spelt Wah :o )

        But you could still get elected, those that normally vote for X factor …won’t.

        Having looked at the documents, it states –

        You cannot stand for election as a PCC if:
        • you have ever been convicted of an
        imprisonable offence

        • you are a public servant, including: civil
        servants, judges, police officers, members
        of the regular armed forces, employees of
        councils within the force area, employees
        of a police related agency, employees of
        other government agencies, politically
        restricted post-holders, members of police
        staff (including Police Community Support
        Officers) or members of a police authority.

        Members of the House of Commons, the Scottish
        and European parliaments and the National
        Assembly for Wales may stand, but will need to
        resign their seats before being able to accept the
        post of PCC.
        PCC elections will be held in all police force
        areas in England and Wales, except in London,
        where the City of London will continue to have
        a police authority and the Mayor of London will
        take on the powers of a PCC in relation to the
        Metropolitan Police.

        I am assuming that this would apply to current serving officers.

        Its not a Wah Gadget, by and large I agree with most of what you post (apart from compulsory arming). Its just that I get sick of all the crap and want someone to DO something about it.

        Like I said, its the perfect way to bypass the ACPO and farce authorities that have done nothing but contribute to the mess you’re in.

        Of course, there’s stuff you can’t change, but theres enough to reverse the decades of damage if you had the right plan.

        you do have a Plan right ..?


        • on November 21, 2011 at 5:15 pm MarkMyWords

          So what is the eligibility of councillors and police authority members? I’d like them to be banned for once !


      • on November 21, 2011 at 4:58 pm Special Dibble

        This will further politicize the police. This will be a disaster.


        • on November 21, 2011 at 5:08 pm ACPO_Stink Tank

          you might be right, you might not be.

          The FAQ does ask this but the answer isn’t great.

          The devil is in the detail I suppose

          http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/police-crime-commissioners/questions/pcc-powers/


          • on November 21, 2011 at 5:23 pm Special Dibble

            The elections will be based on the candidate’s political leanings and not what they will do while in office. Also, busy body local council parasites will apply for this, they have ruined local politics with their weekly state paid for dinners and constant infighting that has paralysed any progress locally.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 4:57 pm Special Dibble

      I’ve put myself foward, if i got in, I do nothing, just so some other moron couldn’t have the job and fucking everything up. why don’t we just stop promoting the greasy pole climbers, stop positive discrimination and foster real, raw, natural policing talent?


      • on November 21, 2011 at 5:04 pm ACPO_Stink Tank

        again, this is mainly the police’s fault. You can’t promote people who don’t want to be promoted, and you’ll have to try damn hard at weeding out the greasy pole brigade during selection process without all this ‘sponsorship’ nonsense.

        Didn’t the Army have this problem on numerous occasions up and down the erm, centuries?


        • on November 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm Special Dibble

          Yes I believe the problem was sort of controlled when commissions for sale came to an end. Of course it then became about who you know and still is to some extent


    • on November 21, 2011 at 5:02 pm Given UP (almost)!

      Its official, you are not allowed to stand if you are a a serving police officer.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 8:07 pm GPC

        Another restriction on my personal and private life…

        I cannot stand for Commissioner .. I was thinking of it and taking a career break if I got the job…..

        Along with not being able to strike, not being allowed to take an active role in politics, being squeaky clean in my private life, not being allowed another job without the jobs consent etc etc etc …

        I’m just thankful these restrictions which many would say breach my human rights and fully rewarded in my pay and pension…

        oh .. hang on


        • on November 22, 2011 at 12:46 am Shafted Bluenose

          Stop moaning. Don’t you know you’re no different from any other public servant? Nurse, teacher, bin man, all of whom have the same restrictions placed upon them and their families.

          Oh. Hang on…


      • on November 21, 2011 at 9:28 pm guthrie

        Surely a job for retired officers then?


  85. on November 21, 2011 at 4:45 pm Response drone

    Talking of police being polite i shit you not that a certain force is sending ALL response officers on a 3 day course called TACTICAL CUSTOMER SERVICE.

    Brilliant.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm inspectorgadget

      We have already had this, can’t give you the name for obvious reasons.

      It was delivered by drones who haven’t seen a street or a member of the public whilst on duty for ten years.

      Still, a day out and all that.


      • on November 21, 2011 at 7:33 pm Sectioned Detection

        I’m happy to tell all. It’s my force Greater Manchester Police. The course lasts a few days. By the sound of the title you’d think you get to roll over desks and use pens as makeshift weapons. But you don’t :o (


        • on November 21, 2011 at 8:34 pm ob

          We had some useful input at the met during our OST this round.

          Apparently during the olympics we can’t call people mongs or spastics. Thanks for that.


          • on November 21, 2011 at 9:30 pm Sectioned Detection

            Fucktard?


        • on November 22, 2011 at 12:48 am Shafted Bluenose

          IS everyone a customer? Both villains and victims? Or just one or t’other? I’m confused.


          • on November 22, 2011 at 8:53 am Henry Brubaker

            I run a business. Customers are defined as those people who pay for my services.

            Everyone else are just people.

            People whom I pay for products and services either directly or indirectly are not customers.


            • on November 22, 2011 at 9:12 am pjt

              In Finland, the police has long referred to people they deal with as “customers”. First it was an internal, sarcastic joke, but then it somehow became mainstream.

              This joke does not translate to English very brilliantly, but there’s a saying: why do the police always wield their baton in their left hand? Because the customer is always [in the] right.

              (BTW, here most policemen were not armed 20 years ago, and e.g. my American visitors were astonished. Now most carry a Glock, some also a Taser. As a MOP I’m much more worried about other police power misuses (e.g. lawless censorship) than guns or Tasers.)


  86. on November 21, 2011 at 4:55 pm llamas

    Oh, this isn’t going to end well . . . .

    I think that the judge is right.

    The simple use of words that some find offensive (what the US comedian George Carlin called ‘the seven dirty words) should not in-and-of-itself be a criminal offence.

    If the way the words are used, having regard to all the circumstances, tends to incite violence or forms a part of another offence, fine, but the simple uttering of those words should not be a crime. Offensive? Sure. But it’s not a crime to be offensive. Or it shouldn’t be. Because making behaviour that is merely offensive to somebody into a crime is a very slipperly slope indeed. Think hard before you start down it.

    And that goes double for coppers. I’m sorry, but – get over yourselves. Grow a pair. If being cussed out is such an affront to your psyche, I suggest that you might not be in the best line of work.

    Of course, I know it’s not about being offended by those words, which all of us have heard and used a million times and which few (if they look inside themselves) really find offensive. What you’re actually asking for is for it to be made a crime not to show what you feel is the proper respect to a police officer – or, as one person above has already described, to any public official. Once again, this is a very slippery slope – mind how you go. And – at the risk of causing an apoplexy or two somewhere in those foggy isles – you might perhaps want to consider that you are public servants, and you need to take your public as you find them. It’s not for you to try and get your ideas of ‘proper respect for the police’ enforced on the public by criminal sanctions. You are not so special that there needs to be a law to make it a crime to say offensive things to you. You’re essentially demanding that ‘contempt of cop’ be made a crime. The ways that some coppers abuse the public for perceived contempt are bad enough now – making it a crime will only make it worse.

    llater,

    llamas


    • on November 21, 2011 at 5:09 pm inspectorgadget

      Theresa May said we were special this weekend I’ll have you know!

      If some chav tells you to ‘fuck off’ you can lamp him or tell him to ‘fuck off’ back.

      We can’t so we want a law.

      Simple.

      PS Why do you hang around on a police Blog? Just asking (Walt alert)


      • on November 21, 2011 at 5:30 pm coppers son

        IG- it is a law here in Belgium quickest way to find the nearest Polite Station (and that is not a misprint it is how it is spelt- pronounced like “policee”) swear at a cop or even just sound off.


        • on November 21, 2011 at 6:39 pm Bewildered

          “and that is not a misprint” – so it’s not “Politie” then?!


      • on November 21, 2011 at 8:49 pm Kenyon

        ” PS Why do you hang around on a police Blog? Just asking (Walt alert)”

        Look, he has thrashed you soundly in his post. Simply read, inwardly digest and put it down to experience. Life is to short to sulk like this…….


        • on November 22, 2011 at 1:50 am Uniformed Bod.

          Thrashed him soundly? A matter of opinion really, and in my opinion he came across as a holier-than-thou, pompous little oik with an obvious chip on his shoulder and a massive problem with authority. But that’s just my humble opinion, and an opinion is like a clitorus – every cunt’s got one.


          • on November 22, 2011 at 9:42 am QuiddityJones

            And the common man doesn’t know what it is until he’s told. That sounds about right.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 8:06 pm These are not the droids you're looking for

      F**k off c**t

      There, that wasnt so offensive now was it? I might have to do more of this to the public, when I am on duty.

      I am sure you won’t be offended…..


    • on November 22, 2011 at 12:01 am Careca

      Its not that I, as a police officer, give a shit about someone telling me to fuck off. On our own somewhere I’d tell him it back. It is about CONTEXT. If other MOPs are watching it is demeaning to the uniform to be seen to allow people to tell you to fuck off. It makes crowd (drunks) control difficult; if one gets away with it, others push their luck and the situation can rapidly deteriote. So please fuck off.


    • on November 22, 2011 at 12:39 am PCLightyear

      Llamas

      Wwanker


  87. on November 21, 2011 at 4:57 pm ACPO_Stink Tank

    Tactical Customer Service

    Total Chuffing S**t more like.

    still, if a gadget-alike was elected as PCC whats the chances of this going on once they have got to grips with the job?


  88. on November 21, 2011 at 5:02 pm jackthecat

    This is old news.

    No Independedent Witness present, no Charge or PND for S.5 POA.

    PCSO’s are in play though and can dish out their own PND (unlike us).

    Personally if someone tells me to go forth and multiply in a nasty manner
    they’re coming in.

    The Offence still exists in Law as far as i’m aware?


    • on November 21, 2011 at 6:15 pm VerySpecialConstable.

      What about specials? Just wondering.


  89. on November 21, 2011 at 5:05 pm R/T

    But Gadge – surely you only work 2 N/T’s and then get 4 RD’s? No?

    Get a new shift pattern!!!!


  90. on November 21, 2011 at 5:30 pm VerySpecialConstable.

    Thinking about it, since swearing isn’t offensive any more does that mean I can swear at our customers and the IPCC can’t touch me? Wait, thought not.


  91. on November 21, 2011 at 5:51 pm The Seagull

    I don’t understand why this is suddenly “News”. It was old when i joined in 2001. Nothing to see here, move along.


  92. on November 21, 2011 at 5:57 pm One Time Special

    I wonder what other words, uttered in wind-up-the OB-mode, the learned judge would expect you to be used to and therefore not HAD’d by.


  93. on November 21, 2011 at 6:04 pm Whinger

    Reminds me slightly of the time I gave a non endorsable to a bloke using a mobile phone whilst driving his car bout 4 years ago.

    Cue requests from CPS for maps of the road etc, statement from me (he went not out requesting court hearing), and lo and behold it was heard at court.

    Bloke represented himself with no solicitor in sight and the Mags. Found in his favour.

    Never gave a ticket out since and never will!


    • on November 21, 2011 at 6:05 pm Whinger

      Ingenious post by the way Gadget!


    • on November 22, 2011 at 5:15 am ginnersinner

      But that’s really childish Whinger. Have you not learned not to take any of it personally? It’s all part of the game. And where do you stop? ‘I’m not nicking anyone for drugs any more because one bloke I nicked got found not guilty’?
      Now and again someone is going to get off who you think doesn’t deserve to. Forget about it and move on.


  94. on November 21, 2011 at 6:14 pm bernie174

    While, yes, I sympathise withe original point, these things are cyclic, a bit like senior officers ideas.
    In 1979, when I fell out of training school destined for the streets of souf London, the case law was that a Police Officer couldn’t be insulted. So we had to for go using S54 Met Police Act, as insulting words and behaviour was in London at the time, and either refer in out notes to the three Nuns who happened by spooky coincidence to be walking past. or the large crowds of young female school children who were hurried away by their parents, shocked at the filth spouting forth from the accused mouth your worship. Obviously, by the time I had finished dealing with the accused, the witnesses had rushed home for a cup of tea to get over the shock. That is the case for the prosecution, your worship….Quite why there should be nuns and school kids walking past a pub fight at 11.30 in the evening, I’m not sure, but its not for me to reason why!
    Anyway, a few years later, Case law changed, and we suddenly could be insulted.


  95. on November 21, 2011 at 6:20 pm Thrustcadet

    Guv.
    The time is fast approaching when I withdraw my good will. I will continue professionally, but do what I need to and no more. Events like this just make me wonder why we bother.
    I used to love my job and all it stood for!

    5 years 10 months to go (well at the moment)


  96. on November 21, 2011 at 6:25 pm Old'ish Bill

    Anti-Social behaviour expands along with our willingness to put up with it. In this case, the good Judge Mr Justice Bean, has expanded it for us without our consent.

    We think the jobs all gone wrong, with a well worn quote “The Jobs F—ed” I actually think we will look back at this moment and say that THIS was when it all started to go seriously wrong.

    Well done Mr Bean, you may have earned yourself a place in this countries social history for all the wrong reasons!


  97. on November 21, 2011 at 6:28 pm deputytothelaw

    slightly off topic, but this guy need to get back in the garage with rest of the tools!

    http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/

    Made my blood boil.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 6:57 pm Moomin

      Dont sweat it. There are 8 billion people in this world. No point getting upset over this one.
      Besides, reading the comments it seems he is alone in his opinion. It appears a lot of balanced and intelligent people have took to his comments section to disagree with him.


    • on November 22, 2011 at 1:22 am PCLightyear

      That fella’s an utter fool.

      Clearly he has never been in a high street on a weekend trying to keep the lid on a group of pi$$ed up individuals each becoming more emboldened everytime one of their number gets away with abusive a copper.

      Another shite spewing lefty


    • on November 22, 2011 at 8:59 am Ex Chief Inspector

      He did get a fair bit of criticism on the comments. There was a reply to his assertions here :http://juleslewis.posterous.com/tarring-all-police-officers-with-the-same-bru
      What strikes me is that commentators of a vaguely left/liberal persuasion who do not like stereotyping with regard to other groups or occupations they favour will quite happily stereotype anyone else. It was a fairly lazy bit of writing from him and in fairness he usually does a lot better.


    • on November 22, 2011 at 10:02 am bruce

      From reading the comments, I guess he did it to wind people up. He’s slipped up.


  98. on November 21, 2011 at 6:31 pm Moomin

    As a police officer, i do hear naughty swear words everyday. Just because i may have become “desensitised”, doesnt make it ok. In fact, that kind of makes it worse because i feel i am being constantly worn down by all of this.
    I dont know the full context of this story, but i agree with what a lot of others have said here…. i suspect the statements the officers submitted were not thorough enough and that is probably what let the case down.


  99. on November 21, 2011 at 6:37 pm Fogo

    It is not just what they say it is the fact that they feel free to say it, especially now. As you say, where will it end? Also Mr Bean seems to have assumed that all police officers are the same. I knew quite a few who were very offended by foul language throughout their service. This represents another surrender to our gradual decline into moral bankruptcy. The law really is an ass.


  100. on November 21, 2011 at 6:38 pm Jimbo

    Burglary of old people is no-longer an offence, it happens so frequently as to be considered the ‘norm’.

    Another out of touch Judge allowing the errosion of social responsibility in this once fine Kingdom.


  101. on November 21, 2011 at 7:05 pm Fed up.........

    Excellent, my god this country gets better and better……….. Can someone lend me a boat. I’m going to find an Island to live on. GOODBYE!!!!!


    • on November 22, 2011 at 10:09 am bruce

      Speeding, parking on pavements, tax evasion, contempt of court… ?


  102. on November 21, 2011 at 7:11 pm IT Guy

    Nah , it’s all cultural .. where I cum fae abiddy ‘kin swears , a lack of a sweary wurd indicates that the sentence it grammatically incorrect . Foookin richt !

    Oh and remember tae rroll yerr arrs .

    Its taken me years to stop swearing now that I live/work in the Eastfolk.


  103. on November 21, 2011 at 7:28 pm Steve at Thin Blue Line UK

    What a load of b*****ks!
    What this is about is not whether or not a police officer feels threatened, harmed or distress by profanity. Police officers are of course hardened to hearing such abuse. That’s not the point M’Lud. The point is that the social fabric of the standards in our society is rapidly being eroded, with ridculous comments from plonkers like you making matters worse.
    Police Officers uphold the Law you so pompously admininster. I wonder how you would respond if one of these oiks walked into your court and called you a F*****G C**T? Would you be offended? Would you feel threatened, insulted or harrassed? Of course you bleeding well would! And I’d bet the offending scrote wouldn’t walk free afterwards.
    Yet another nail in the coffin of UK justice, hammered home by someone who is paid to help restore discipline in our society! Heaven help us.


  104. on November 21, 2011 at 7:34 pm DI Weary

    What would happen if someone told the out-of-touch twonk of a judge to eff off in his court? Once again the clock ratchets closer to moral demise in a society where X factor rules and few people can actually spell “university”. This country has really lost its way. Premier league? Championship? We are barely in the Conference any more and its judges like this twat who are really to blame. 2.9 years and I’m out.


    • on November 22, 2011 at 5:45 pm R/T

      2.11 years and I’m out!


    • on November 23, 2011 at 9:12 pm Wassup man innitt.

      isss spelt “yooonee”.


  105. on November 21, 2011 at 7:41 pm Sntplod

    Here’s my answer to this – they swear at me – they get nicked. Simples!


  106. on November 21, 2011 at 7:53 pm Agent Zig Zag

    Meanwhile, back in Gotham City………….

    I see that the IPCC is in danger of imploding. You have consultants resigning left right and centre over their inability to agree whether or not global warming is due to the human race or not.


  107. on November 21, 2011 at 7:54 pm Whinger

    Well, the good judge will never stop us locking them up. Even if they get nothing when they stand up in front of him.

    We will still have the pleasure of putting cuffs on them and putting them in a van and p…..g them off slightly!


  108. on November 21, 2011 at 7:56 pm Sgt Mooman

    The message is clear. The Police aren’t proper people with feelings or a right to be treated with respect. We should expect to be sworn at and held in contempt by the public as this is the message put out by the judiciary….not to mention politicians and the media.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm presuming ed **

      A clear message, and a convenient and timely one too, given the ‘proposed’ cuts.


  109. on November 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm common sense copper

    I wonder what would happen if you told the judge to f**k off in the court room…..perhaps whilst under oath…..ummm……


  110. on November 21, 2011 at 8:53 pm anon

    Look its an opportunity for a slogan

    Ruralshire Police. Giving a fuck so you don’t have to

    or giving a fuck cos no one else does


    • on November 21, 2011 at 9:19 pm Wee Jock McTavish

      Look good on IG Mugs!


      • on November 21, 2011 at 9:42 pm Special Dibble

        Or coming out of it…


    • on November 21, 2011 at 10:19 pm MercenaryCpt

      Rural shire* Cnut Force

      * insert relevant farce.
      Too far?


  111. on November 21, 2011 at 9:22 pm Shijuro

    I loved Simon on the Today program …missing every opportunity to tell how it is…

    When journo mentioned police canteens and bars being places that are exposed to ‘frank’ language, the appropriate response should have been “what canteens and bars? They have been closed thanks to successive gutless chiefs…”


  112. on November 21, 2011 at 9:53 pm Weary

    llamas makes a good case but misses the point. The issue is not “contempt of cop”. Mention is made of the seven words you can’t say (actually on television, but hey). These are: shit, piss, fuck, c**t, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. That was a 1970′s comedy sketch but the c bomb still retains its power, hence the bowlderization. Do I care if someone uses those words around me? Not one jot. They get thrown around the nick quite freely in this day and age. Does it even bother me on a personal level when members of the public state they’ll rape my children? No, they’re just trying to get a rise and demonstrate what tough guys they are (by threatening to rape children – I know, it doesn’t make any sense).

    Officers don’t nick people because they’ve inadvertently said “shit” when they drop their ice-cream cone. In fact, due to lack of numbers and lack of custody space, you’ll have to work pretty damned (sorry) hard to get nicked due to your revolting behaviour. The section 5 arrest is invariably used to remove people who are spoiling for a fight. Given that the principal duty of a copper is to preserve The Queen’s Peace, I don’t consider that unreasonable. We could arrest for Breach of the Peace but our training is to go to section 5 first. In Scotland (well known for being a fascist state) I seem to recall (from my two weeks as a Scottish copper) that the law permits an arrest for an act to the mere annoyance of a Constable. Poor Scots.

    The issue then is not whether I personally find Drunken Dave, who has threatened to fuck me and my Mrs and my mother, personally offensive. His behaviour is, unquestionably, disorderly. So he joins me for a visit to the cop shop.


  113. on November 21, 2011 at 10:19 pm Messed Worcia

    I’ve been in the job for nearly 15 years, Short Service in the Army prior to that. I don’t like to hear swearing in public. From anyone. I will continue to arrest for it. No-one can tell me that I should no longer be offended by swearing, particularly when on duty, in uniform, carrying a Warrant Card. We have to have SOME standards!


  114. on November 21, 2011 at 10:27 pm Civ_In_The_City

    Most youth, even intelligent ones, think that because cannabis isn`t illegal it`s therefore sanctioned as ‘safe’ by the authorities.

    Same goes for swearing at coppers, now a judge has said it`s o.k. (or not ‘arrestable’ or whatever) you`ll find a lot of people interpret that to mean it`s actually encouraged.

    “If you didn`t want me to do it, you`d have a law against it.”

    Or, as Vyvyan Basterd of ‘The Young Ones” said when he was found putting jam on toast into the video recorder: “Well, there was nothing in the instructions that said DON`T put toast in the video recorder.”

    In the 80`s that was satire, now it`s a public information film.


    • on November 21, 2011 at 10:43 pm CountySkipper

      Or, as Vyvyan Basterd of ‘The Young Ones” said when he was found putting jam on toast into the video recorder: “Well, there was nothing in the instructions that said DON`T put toast in the video recorder.”

      I was ‘reflecting’ on this earlier. We seem to have somehow taken away responsibility from the individual. Some sections of the media feel that there must be an answer for every problem. That our public services, despite being staffed by humans, cannot err. Our ‘Service users’ should be centric to all our problems. Rather than the public who are subject to our ‘Service users’ problems. There seems to be a pervasive attitude, with enough money, time and effort… all can be solved. There is no room for saying “we’re going to give up.”


      • on November 22, 2011 at 7:42 pm Civ_In_The_City

        You make a good point. Our ‘service users’ aren`t the people who keep getting nicked and put before the courts, our service users are actually the silent majority who we are trying to protect and who we rarely get to meet.

        I think you`ve hit the nail on the head when it comes to the question of ‘what`s gone wrong’ with policing.

        It`s a fundamental misunderstanding of why police were invented.

        The thing that has skewed the police role in society is precisely what you said, running policing like a ‘service’. If you do that, over time, you gradually adjust what you do to satisfy and placate the people your service sees most often. Scrotes.

        A lot to think about there.


    • on November 22, 2011 at 12:54 am Shafted Bluenose

      Cannabis has been legalised???


      • on November 22, 2011 at 7:44 pm Civ_In_The_City

        Everything is legal, until you get caught.

        (It used to be ‘until you get to court’ but that doesn`t work these days).


    • on November 22, 2011 at 8:31 am MarkMyWords

      I like the Young Ones analogy, so relevant to today’s attitudes unfortunately.
      However (tell me it’s not deliberate!) cannabis is class B.


  115. on November 21, 2011 at 11:47 pm jerym

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/


  116. on November 22, 2011 at 12:11 am Pants!

    Tell me to F off and I will arrest you. Seeemples.


  117. on November 22, 2011 at 12:16 am Pants!

    Perhaps we can use this on the marches on 30/11 “What do we want? A cure for tourets”
    When do we want it…….FUCK


  118. on November 22, 2011 at 12:27 am Burbage

    “This will soon arrive in the classroom”

    Soon? You’ve clearly not been in a school in the last twenty years.


  119. on November 22, 2011 at 12:33 am Pants!

    Morning prayers tomorrow at a HQ near you:
    C/Supt “We’ve had another distraction burglary”
    Insp. Youre fucking joking
    C/Supt ” we need to have a patrol plan, media strategy, crime prevention strategy, increase visibilty blah de blah
    Insp I only have 4 PC’s available, so get fucked………….
    C/Supt “But we need to crack down on ASB – its a KPI along with detections and VAP
    Insp. They were abandoned by the government 2 years ago you fuckwit

    Just cant see it happening myself!


  120. on November 22, 2011 at 1:43 am Uniformed Bod.

    What is contempt of court if not a measure to prevent a Servant of the Crown from being treated contemptuously whilst undertaking their Crown appointed duties? That being so, given that the office of Constable is as much an office of a Crown Servant as is that of the Judiciary, it should follow that we should be afforded the same levels of respect, and all of the protection in law, as is afforded to the Judiciary. I strongly suspect however, that I have more chance of getting pregnant than I do of ever seeing this be the case…


    • on November 22, 2011 at 7:39 am brian

      ..because it is called contempt of COURT, not contempt of crown, contempt of civil servants etc I suspect. 80^ of the civil servants in the UK deserve contempt from what I have seen of them! I don’t often hear Judges swearing during court but often enough hear officers doing so?


      • on November 22, 2011 at 10:53 am Uniformed Bod.

        Funny, I’ve often heard Judges swear in court. Not using such words as sentence fillers, true enough, but when summing up or quoting evidence. In fact I recall the first time I gave evidence in the Big House, and I actually got admonished by His Honour for not swearing. I tried to describe the language used by the defendant at the time of his arrest without actually repeating those words myself, and the judge told me off for it. “Come on officer” he said, “tell us the words that he used and stop beating around the bush”. That was me told, so I duly obliged.

        That’s beside the point I was making however, and you are missing the point entirely in your tedious efforts to belittle the police. As long as the judiciary in this country is selected in the present manner, and not elected by the public in a manner similar to that of American courts, then judges and their courts are representatives of the Crown. The same thing applies to police. We are not employees, nor are we public servants as is the common misconception. We, along with Judges, are Crown servants. Contempt of court IS contempt for the Crown, the Monarch being the person who invests the judiciary (and the police) with their powers. That judges believe contempt of court is an offence against them personally is another misconception. The offence is that of contempt towards the Crown and it’s appointed servants. Police are Crown servants also. Treat us with contempt and you show the same contempt towards the Crown that you would were you to misbehave in court, the difference being we are now expected to put up with it, whereas Judges have their own little powers to protect them from it. But now that these Judges have started us off down this slippery slope, I suspect it may not be all that long, perhaps only one or two generations, before such conduct towards the judiciary becomes the accepted norm. What ye sow, so shall ye reap…


  121. on November 22, 2011 at 1:45 am PCLightyear

    Great quote from Janet Daley in the Telegraph:

    “Why should the police – of all people – have to accept what most of us would regard as intolerable treatment in the workplace or the street?

    And, as a society, if we force them to accept or ignore verbal defiance and vilification, how long can we expect any standards of public behaviour to be maintained?

    If the police are not worthy of civility in the streets, and teachers cannot command respect in the classroom, and conscientious parents are not supported by the community, we are on the way to creating a country that is not worth living in.”

    Sums it up pretty nicely I think.


    • on November 22, 2011 at 2:04 am Pants!

      As soon as I get my 30 years in, I’m off!


      • on November 22, 2011 at 6:09 pm HajiKoka

        Only another 29.5 years left then, crowbag.


    • on November 22, 2011 at 7:50 am PeterP

      More “wisdom” from Janet Daley re policing:

      Daily Telegraph 13/05/10

      “More good news: Nick Herbert is police minister

      Another very good appointment: Nick Herbert returns to the brief as police minister in the Home Office. This is the post he held before disagreements over policy with David Davis, the then Shadow Home Secretary, caused him to be farmed out (sorry) to the rural affairs department.
      Nick is the former director of the Reform think tank and is tremendously sound on the kind of reforms that are needed to improve the effectiveness of the police. Perhaps he could give some consideration to the extraordinary unhelpfulness of the huge army of police in Westminster who stood by uselessly as tiny groups of demonstrators with loudhailers made it almost impossible for broadcasters – who were trying to inform the nation of the most momentous events in modern political history – to be heard.”


      • on November 22, 2011 at 4:14 pm PCLightyear

        Bugger


  122. on November 22, 2011 at 6:51 am Philologist

    Personally, I find the whole preoccupation with swearing very strange. It’s worth pointing out that, a few hundred years ago anyone using terms such as “blood” (by our Lady), “zounds” (God’s wounds) or “strewth” (God’s truth) would have been whipped in the pillory, while words like “fuck”, “cunt”, “shit” or “arse” wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow.

    Pretty fucking funny really to think about how language changes over time eh?


    • on November 22, 2011 at 11:07 am One Time Special

      1950s – 1960s convent education illustrated the same matter.

      Possession (!) of a copy of even the expuragted edition of Lady Chatterly’s Lover would have resulted in instant expulsion, yet Chaucer unexpurgated was an important part of the English Literature A level, four letter words and all…..


  123. on November 22, 2011 at 9:07 am Hexe Froschbein

    “I’ll leave you with this; how would you feel if next time you asked me something on the street and I looked you straight in the eye, curled back my lip and told you to fuck off? ”

    Not such a bad idea, but, don’t curl the lip, use the cuss words in a polite tone with a smile instead, and if challenged explain that you now are so used to being cussed at that you developed work induced Tourettes syndrome. ;o)

    Basically, the idiocy isn’t going to stop until officers start to develop a stress induced headache every time they get cussed at, which requires them to go home and lie down in bed as they are too sick to work safely, if it happens more than 2x a week, get a sick note for acute depression brought on by employer abetted mobbing conditions at work.

    Or how about organising a national cuss week, where every sentence spoken has to contain at least one cuss words, it’ll be bound to funnier than comic relief.

    (sheesh. you have my sympathy, what next, they’ll make it legal to beat the cops up?!?)


  124. on November 22, 2011 at 9:16 am Broken Bill

    Just for once it’s not really the fault of police management, though.

    It’s stupid Judges, who are surely intelligent enough to see the far reaching consequences of their decisions, saying stupid things and inventing new ways to interpret the Laws that Parliament has passed.

    If they aren’t intelligent enough to see these consequences I don’t really want them sitting up there acting like fools and passing judgement!

    There should be a default clause for judges, not the current guaranteed work ’till you drop, pension ’till you croak affair, but a penalty for stupid speeches and stupid decisions.

    One declaration of idiocy and you are demoted to the Magistrates Court, two and you lose half your pension ( yeah see what it feels like Judgey-Boy!) and three and you are pushed off Brighton in a vinegar barrel.

    What ? …..Seems fair to me.

    Bill.


  125. on November 22, 2011 at 9:17 am Broken Bill

    Stupid edit facility…that was Brighton Pier, of course.

    Bill’s thumb.


  126. on November 22, 2011 at 9:32 am Special Dibble

    The Hulk is on LBC…. He’s just another Yes man….


  127. on November 22, 2011 at 9:42 am Pocket Notebook Boy

    Good fucking morning Mr Justice Bean, you fucking cocktwizzling cumjockey!

    Have a fucking nice day you fuckstump!

    Goodfuckingbye again, all!


  128. on November 22, 2011 at 9:47 am Special Dibble

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/21/how-swearing-got-less-taboo

    More name dropping of the boss….


    • on November 22, 2011 at 10:20 am MarkMyWords

      Omigod! What world does that Grauniad journo live in?
      Most of the newspapers are deliberately missing the point(s) namely context and that it only applies to offence caused to police officers.
      Still, they have to find a way of selling their out of date, out of touch tawdry rags.


  129. on November 22, 2011 at 10:25 am jerym

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8905481/Teenager-justified-in-swearing-at-police-mother-says.html

    If this account of his behaviour is all there is to it I must admit that the the officer was being fucking silly to make an arrest.
    But then we only have newspapers for information.


  130. on November 22, 2011 at 10:45 am Arnica

    The moral of this judgement is to tell the Judge in Court to “Fuck off ” ………..I’m sure he’ll be understanding and forgive you ………or perhaps not!


  131. on November 22, 2011 at 10:45 am Mjolinir

    A bit of humour in all this F***ing angst?

    “Matt” the cartoonist in Telegraph has a simple little drawing of a little-old-lady asking a Copper – “What’s the ****** time”


  132. on November 22, 2011 at 12:09 pm aussie copper

    My god didn’t your country leaders learn anything from the UK riots!? Wasn’t this the type of thing that leaders finally worked out to be the catalyst to Britains decaying society. I sometimes fear our country is slowly following the path of the UK.


  133. on November 22, 2011 at 12:38 pm Spear Dick Macho...Ninja Stealthing the Spam Filter

    My fave version of this when In The Job (as opposed to On It) was a guy who kept saying “take these fornicating handcuffs off you dashed rotter and we’ll see who is the most durable of the gentlemen here presented!”

    My Sergeant unclipped his spray, crouched down and said to the prone Chav (who was being sat on by two other officers) “desist forthwith dipstick or you shall have a visage full of condiment before the minute is over”.

    * Jane Austen-esque poetic license as the spam filter seems to hate my guts this week.


  134. on November 22, 2011 at 4:28 pm Graham Green

    Matt’s, take on this:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/

    (Telegraph, Tuesday 22 November)
    :-)


  135. on November 22, 2011 at 6:07 pm HajiKoka

    Big Judge Bean was entirely correct. The poor little scamp was upset as a result of of being shot in the face a week before, bless. Unless there are some grouse moors on his estate is this not an admission of scroteyness? Do The Yoots drive game across the communal needle parks?
    “In the court of the stupid the one-eyed man is king.”


  136. on November 22, 2011 at 6:15 pm xueta

    You are the enemy and must expect to be sworn at. My cousin swore at Nazis he caught and shot in 1939-45.


    • on November 22, 2011 at 7:38 pm hatedbythedailymail

      sounds like a lovely bloke. Did he do that as he raped and murdered his way through Berlin as part of the Soviet Forces?


      • on November 22, 2011 at 7:51 pm xueta

        One does not murder vermin. New Scotland Yard delenda est.


        • on November 23, 2011 at 5:15 pm These are not the droids you're looking for

          You’re an idiot.


        • on November 25, 2011 at 9:58 am 1878

          This is an idiot called Ron Broxted – ignore him there is clearly a full moon (if only in his head)


  137. on November 22, 2011 at 8:30 pm Grandad

    This judge is merely a symptom of the cancer which is destroying our society.
    As a MOP pensioner I do fear for my grandchildren’s future in this country, in which the legal system exists for the benefit of judges, lawyers and criminals! Justice? Well that is an illusion.


  138. on November 22, 2011 at 8:34 pm hatedbythedailymail

    oh yes, they were all vermin, those young German girls, weren’t they. German, so must have been Nazi, therefore ripe for raping and killing.

    I think we have your measure. IF you had a cousin who fought, I bet he would be real proud of you and all you stand for……….

    You are Melvin T Grey, pontificating lunatic half wit, and I claim my five pounds.

    Dont bother replying, I don’t converse with idiots.


  139. on November 23, 2011 at 9:21 am Don

    “This will soon arrive in the classroom, the local housing office, the benefits office, local swimming pool, the library ( if the Tories have left any in your area) and all areas of public life” Umm.. it already has, and in fact it did some time ago. When I was still working in libraries three years ago, you knew that if you had cause to remonstrate with unruly teenagers, you had a better-than-average chance of getting the F-word tossed back at you. No, it wasn’t very pleasant, but neither did it cause alarm or distress: it was just (another) occupational hazard. The Judge is right in saying that basically, it’s become so commonplace to hear it nowadays that it’s ceased to mean anything much. I suspect that in fact vast numbers of kids are being brought up nowadays in the belief that there’s nothing really wrong with using it in public.


  140. on November 23, 2011 at 10:27 am Pants

    In defence of New Labour (i don’t say that often), they did bring in ASBO’s. Swearing in the street persistantly by a woman enabled me to get an ASBO against her. With the amount of ‘Nanny State’ laws, it is a shame that ‘respect’ agenda didn’t include respect for us.

    Taking aside the corrosive impact it has on us, it doesn’t do much for the ‘offender’. It’s like saying…”we know your scum without morals or self-respect…we can’t make you nice so we will let you off”. It’s a big slap in the face for those being abusive, but they will not be able to grasp that. Have pity for them.

    There is a moral poverty trap and the government should do something to address that. Laws were brought in to tackle racism, sexism, and every other ism. Lets tackle policeism.


    • on November 24, 2011 at 10:12 pm Snake Oil Salesman

      You really shouldnt describe police officers as being without morals or self respect. That would be to sit in judgement on others.


  141. on November 23, 2011 at 8:10 pm Finisterre

    The swearing in this incident wasn’t *at* the officers though, in the sense that the kid involved didn’t tell *them* to fuck off. He was clearly expressing frustration at the search itself, which as a neutral observer is kind of understandable, since they didn’t find anything, although I can appreciate that as police officers you might have a different view.

    I can understand not wanting to be sworn at and I don’t think police officers should have to take abuse for doing their jobs. I would say this is a somewhat foul-mouthed expression of frustration rather than direct abuse though, and while unpleasant, doesn’t really justify a conclusion that it caused either alarm or distress from either a legal or a common-sense perspective. Being searched is probably pretty unpleasant – personally, I’d find it a lot more distressing than being sworn at.


    • on November 23, 2011 at 10:36 pm Snake Oil Salesman

      I agree.


  142. on November 23, 2011 at 10:35 pm Snake Oil Salesman

    327th!

    Okay I hear you all yawn, Snakey is back.

    I think what was missing in that case was evidence that the police officer concerned had suffered any harassment, alarm or distress. Frankly I doubt that he would have been and arguably if you are upset by such words you might be in the wrong job.


    • on November 24, 2011 at 3:32 pm No Light at the End of the Tunnel

      The reason why we need a seperate offence of swearing at a Police Officer, just because you are not offended doesn’t make it right or acceptable.


  143. on November 24, 2011 at 12:23 pm No Light at the End of the Tunnel

    So, I assume it will be alright for me to swear at court staff including judges???


  144. on November 24, 2011 at 12:34 pm No Light at the End of the Tunnel

    Forgot to mention on last post, in my force we were told by CPS about two years ago (having a case withdrawn of my own), not to bother charging anyone who swears when only Police are present and are the only recipients of the swearing/abuse! The same reason was given, that we should not feel offended, this country’s F–ked!!!


  145. on November 24, 2011 at 9:01 pm Snake Oil Salesman

    Well ‘no light’ I think you have missed the point somewhat.

    If you want the CPS to proceed with a s5 then the ingredients of the offence must be made out. Who you choose to swear at is a matter for you. I am not a member of the court staff nor am I a judge. I am a Solicitor of the Supreme Court. I imagine that an outburst in a court building may result in being held in contempt. I worked in industry before I joined the police and as a young apprentice I was initially shocked at what was accepted as workshop language.
    I might be offended if someone swore in the presence of someone else. The question would however be, were they were caused harassment, alarm or distress?

    I do however think that police officers should be able to live with such language very much in the same way that they deal with fatal accidents, murders and sudden deaths. In the same way that they attend post mortems without complaint.

    It is all part of the very special job which police officers do on behalf of the community. But respect must be earned and sadly the public do not appear to have the same level of respect which they had when I joined way back in 1975.

    Something needs to be done by the Police to improve their image. They need to get across the important message that without laws and without a police service tio enforce them, no one would be able to live in what is still a very safe society.

    i am on your side even if I do sell snake oil. I’ll defend anyone.


    • on November 25, 2011 at 9:55 am 1878

      I think I have brought this to your attention before:-

      Not according to the Home Office’s British Crime Survey data. Since 2004, this has recorded public perceptions of how effective the police are at doing their jobs. General confidence in the police has risen steadily from 50 per cent in 2005/06 to 56 per cent in 2009/10, whilst there has been a comparable increase in perceptions of local forces, rising from 63 per cent approval to 69 per cent over the same period.

      http://fullfact.org/factchecks/police_trust_public_confidence_the_times-2675

      Now, continuing to assert that police need to address a image problem that dosn’t exist begins to look dangerously like bigotry.


  146. on November 25, 2011 at 8:38 pm Geoff

    Simples.Next time anyone goes into court just call the Judge a “Fucking cunt” and quote the ruling.

    I am sure he will be fine with that…………………



Comments are closed.

  • Blog Stats

    • 9,002,426 police pay cuts
  • Gadget Twitter

    • @JonnieMarbLes Yes, should be in Waterstones with the first two. 21 hours ago
    • This is the kind of research Tom Winsor said he did, but didn’t really do. 22 hours ago
    • For the public,this book will once again do what Monday Books does best;explode the myths about the best job in the world. 22 hours ago
  • Gadget Bargains

    • Ruralshire Supplies
    • Ruralshire Supplies 002
  • Gadget Books

    • Available fro Amazon, Waterstones, Borders and Monday Books.
    • Wasting More Police Time
  • Gadget Media

    • A Guardian review
    • A Sun review
    • A Times Top 40 Blog
    • Daily Mail article
    • Daily Mirror (2007)
    • New Statesman
    • Telegraph article
  • Gadget Minds About

    • Blue Lamp Foundation
    • Help For Heroes
    • Police Memorial Trust
    • Royal British Legion
    • RUC Widows Assn.
  • Gadget Reads

    • 200 Weeks
    • A Blog from rural England
    • Alice the Architect
    • Area Search No Trace
    • Big Fella In Blue
    • byways by railway
    • Dan Collins
    • DCI Gene Hunt
    • Frank Chalk – Teacher
    • Freelance Photographer
    • Gadget's Other Blog
    • Lurcher Blog
    • mental health cop
    • Not George Dixon
    • Pensions petition
    • Prague Tory
    • Randon Acts of Reality
    • Special Dibble
    • Stonehead
    • The Last Ditch
    • Theodore Dalrymple
    • Thin Blue Line
    • Which End Bites?
    • Winston Smith
    • WPC Bloggs 21st Century
  • Recent Posts

    • Wasting More Police Time
    • When practitioners are not consulted….
    • I do not discuss these things at home.
    • More nonsense from the keyboard-rattlers SHOCK
    • UK Police – Mission Accomplished.
  • Meta

    • Register
    • Log in
    • Entries RSS
    • Comments RSS
    • WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

Theme: MistyLook by Sadish.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,023 other followers

Powered by WordPress.com