Lib Dem success as Home Secretary confirms government to back amendment to Public Order Act

The Guardian reports that, following a high-profile campaign, the government has agreed to retain an amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill going some way to implementing Lib Dem party policy (pdf) on the Public Order Act:

In a government climb down, the Public Order Act that covers speech and writing on signs and states: “A person is guilty of an offence if he uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”, will be changed to remove the word insulting. The move follows a high-profile campaign which united Christian and secular groups and was spearheaded by the comedian Rowan Atkinson, the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell and the former shadow home secretary David Davis.

The push to change section five of the act followed a series of headline-grabbing arrests and prosecutions ranging from an Oxford student asking a police officer “Do you realise your horse is gay?” which Thames Valley police described as homophobic and “offensive to people passing by”, to a 16 year old holding up a placard that said “Scientology is a dangerous cult”.

In December, the government suffered a heavy defeat in the House of Lords which voted 150 votes to 54 in favour of an amendment to remove the word “insulting”. Campaigners had complained the clause had been used by police as a “catch-all” offence to arrest people on trivial matters. It will continue to be illegal to use insulting language when an victim is clearly identifiable.

May told MPs the government was “not minded to challenge the amendment” made by the Lords even though ministers “believe that the police should be able to take action when they are sworn at, when protesters burn poppies on Armistice day and in similar scenarios”.

She added: “I respect the review taken by their lordships, they had concerns which I know are shared by some in this House that Section 5 encroaches upon freedom of expression. On the other hand the view expressed by many in the police is that Section 5 including the word ‘insulting’ is a valuable tool in helping them keep the peace and maintain public order.

* Nick Thornsby is a day editor at Lib Dem Voice.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

2 Comments

  • “On the other hand the view expressed by many in the police is that Section 5 including the word ‘insulting’ is a valuable tool in helping them”

    That’s the whole point.

  • Peter Watson 15th Jan '13 - 1:23pm

    Good news for Andrew Mitchell? 😉

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJamesg 25th Jun - 1:28am
    Good lord the neo-puritans want us to feel guilty about playing golf now. What's next?
  • User AvatarJamesg 25th Jun - 1:20am
    As I recall the EFTA was actually set up by the UK after DeGaulle said non. He said that Britain was too internationalist and independent...
  • User AvatarMichael BG 25th Jun - 12:09am
    @ Laurence Cox I think you have missed my point. Having 71,111 electors per MP is a major factor in the failure of our representative...
  • User AvatarGlenn 24th Jun - 11:42pm
    Simon, Corbyn does not have special powers off persuasion. He's the hypnotoad from Futurama
  • User AvatarMichael BG 24th Jun - 11:34pm
    @ Bill le Breton “EEA membership was not alas on the ballot paper – had it been so, then, it would have won.” This is...
  • User AvatarBernard Salmon 24th Jun - 11:24pm
    @Genersis The reason that the idea of having as many policies as possible against immigration to achieve 'success' seems antithetical to liberal values is because...