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 Thursday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs here.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/32654 for Twitter and emails.
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.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

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

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User Avatarmalc 5th Mar - 12:57am
    You have one of the very few popular UK politicians in Charles Kennedy and you never seem to use him. Whoever is running your campaign...
  • User AvatarHywel 5th Mar - 12:28am
    Al - no they didn't that's the standard 2 question Ashcroft poll. You would expect that will a very well known figure like Charles that...
  • User AvatarAl 4th Mar - 11:55pm
    Actually, what Caron is hiding or is not aware of is that they DID ask what difference Charles Kennedy makes as a candidate. as Prof...
  • User AvatarDan Falchikov 4th Mar - 11:48pm
    Saddam Hussein isn't dead, the American forces are retreating on all fronts, Bagdad isn't under attack... I think it is time for the Scottish Lib...
  • User Avatarmalc 4th Mar - 11:42pm
    Bad news for Labour and the LibDems, but I disagree that it is worse for Labour. If Charles Kennedy was to lose his seat -...
  • User AvatarLittle Jackie Paper 4th Mar - 11:39pm
    Glenn - 'The arguments for stricter immigration control are based in cultural and in some sense tribal instincts rather than economics.' I simply don't buy...