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 AvatarKeith Redwood 27th May - 6:47pm
    Like Dav I was highly sceptical about 16 & 17 year olds voting in the Scottish Referendum last year. I was a teacher in a...
  • User AvatarDavid-1 27th May - 6:40pm
    I see no reason a newspaper could not be owned by its employees. But the question may be moot as there may not be any...
  • User AvatarAlfred Motspur 27th May - 6:38pm
    Whilst I understand your reasoning, Dav, and do understand that it's not having a National Insurance number, being able to live away from home or...
  • User AvatarDavid-1 27th May - 6:37pm
    I suggest voting be optional from 16 to 20, mandatory from 21 to 75, and optional again thereafter.
  • User AvatarRichard S 27th May - 6:28pm
    @David Evans - there is some truth in that, but as a problem its only tangentially related to income inequality - for example all the...
  • User AvatarDavid Evans 27th May - 6:23pm
    On the contrary, anyone who concentrates only on the poor, ignores the massive impact and undue influence that the mega rich have on our society...
Wed 27th May 2015
Thu 28th May 2015
Fri 29th May 2015
19:30
Sat 30th May 2015
Sun 31st May 2015
Mon 1st Jun 2015
Tue 2nd Jun 2015
Wed 3rd Jun 2015
Thu 4th Jun 2015
Fri 5th Jun 2015
Sat 6th Jun 2015
Tue 9th Jun 2015
Wed 10th Jun 2015
Thu 11th Jun 2015
Fri 12th Jun 2015
Sat 13th Jun 2015
Wed 17th Jun 2015
Thu 18th Jun 2015
Sat 20th Jun 2015
Sun 21st Jun 2015