Teenager fined £80 for swear word in a private conversation, in a public place.

Originally posted by Archerette

Originally posted by DreadNaught
So if you saw like... "Look at the state of him", when you see me walking past with tattoos and stuff... that's ok is it? Even if it causes me/said person offence? Yeh sure it is.
Anyway, this kid wasn't in McDonalds, apparently he was in a town park, "a large public garden in a town, used for recreation", not really an enclosed space, specifically targeted at kiddies then.

Actually, I consider tatooing a form of art and a perfect way for individuals to express themselves. Maybe you have assumed too much about me?

I am still insistent, however, that ANY public area should be void of language such as that young man used. He's probably a very kind and generous person being as how he was headed to work at a volunteer youth program (of course that might be some kind of community service that was court ordered).

Be that as it may, I don't want my 2 yr old or 4 yr old or 6 yr old to hear the F word. If it was a word he wanted to use in his own home, or if anybody wants to use that word in their own home regardless of who else is around, regardless of age, that is their perogative.

This, however, was not in an individual's private home. To use your definition it was in "a large public garden in a town, used for recreation". Tell me, what age group typically frequents a town park? Lots of little kiddies, that's who. And they're in need of their community's support since they're our future and all...

No I've not assumed anything about you, I was making an example.
In most "town parks" I can think of, they can be very wide and open with few kids about at all... I walked through the one in my twn a few times today, actually not one kid at all. But, Not once was it implied that there was a child present when said offender comitted supposed offense.
Even if there had been, a fine? Pleeease, leave it out, it's just a case of Political correctness gone mad... or do I mean "Mentally Unstable" or something?
Saying to the guy "Shut it mate", would have done the trick.

Originally posted by DreadNaught
Saying to the guy "Shut it mate", would have done the trick.

I truly do not believe it would have driven the point across as well.

I do like your point about there being no mention of anyone else (kids) overhearing his conversation. But I doubt he looked around to make sure. I mean, he said it in front of an authority figure...

Sorry but it just brings this to mind...



*EEEHHH* "John Sparten, you are fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality code.."

Originally posted by Archerette
*SNIP*
I am still insistent, however, that ANY public area should be void of language such as that young man used. He's probably a very kind and generous person being as how he was headed to work at a volunteer youth program (of course that might be some kind of community service that was court ordered).

Be that as it may, I don't want my 2 yr old or 4 yr old or 6 yr old to hear the F word. If it was a word he wanted to use in his own home, or if anybody wants to use that word in their own home regardless of who else is around, regardless of age, that is their perogative.

This, however, was not in an individual's private home. To use your definition it was in "a large public garden in a town, used for recreation". Tell me, what age group typically frequents a town park? Lots of little kiddies, that's who. And they're in need of their community's support since they're our future and all...
*SNIP*

I was on the Staten Island ferry (in New York for those who don't know) and some kids, well, I would say early 20s, were using foul language. I was dating a girl, and we had her 9-year old niece along.

The best thing probably would of been to move, but maybe I was trying to impress my girl, so I asked the gentlemen to keep down their language. They seemed embarrassed and apologized, and keep the conversation quiet.

I had two options, either to leave, or ask them to curb the language. Either option did not require government intervention. I can't imagine grabbing a cop to ask him to tell them to keep the language civilized.

I believe that this falls under the level of personal responsibility. The less the government is involved in my personal life, the better.

I also believe that this is a symptom of globalization, of which I support. As new people are thrown together, instead of being active members of our community and addressing strangers, we rely on the government to pass laws to keep strangers further away from us.

Originally posted by curme

I had two options, either to leave, or ask them to curb the language. Either option did not require government intervention. I can't imagine grabbing a cop to ask him to tell them to keep the language civilized.

I believe that this falls under the level of personal responsibility. The less the government is involved in my personal life, the better.

Interesting note about personal responsibility. ...Government policies claim that diseases caused by exposures to widespread contamination and pollution are a "personal responsibility" - even though individuals have very little power to control said exposures.

Yet government presumes to intervene and control the use of language. ....?!?


Interesting world we live in.


.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by soficrow]

Originally posted by curme
I had two options, either to leave, or ask them to curb the language. Either option did not require government intervention. I can't imagine grabbing a cop to ask him to tell them to keep the language civilized.

I believe that this falls under the level of personal responsibility. The less the government is involved in my personal life, the better.

Thank you Curme, this is basically what I was getting at in a round about kinda way

Originally posted by soficrow
Interesting note about personal responsibility. ...Government policies claim that diseases caused by exposures to widespread contamination and pollution are a "personal responsibility" - even though individuals have very little power to control said exposures.

Yet government presumes to intervene and control the use of language. ....?!?

Which would indicate we have picked some real wieners to represent us.



Perhaps we can surmize that voter incompetance leads to fouling our own nests.

I'm wary of an on-the-spot fine. How do you know the officer doesn't just pocket the money?

"bad" words are useful to vent "bad" feelings, and therefore belong in the vocabularies of all of us. it is just plain silly to expect, much less INSIST, that little kids not hear these words. if little timmy falls down the stairs and gets hurt, why shouldn't he vent by using a choice expletive? it's the OVER use of these words, not their mere existence or occassional airing, that makes for an unpleasant atmosphere. the overuse of government authority does also!

Young people tend to be loud. This is not a slam, just a personal observation. About once a month, I have to ask some group of young people to lower their voices because they are having inappropriate conversations in a public place. This is how the youngsters learn how to get along in the world. I don't need police intervention for this.

Originally posted by Archerette
Actually, I consider tatooing a form of art and a perfect way for individuals to express themselves. Maybe you have assumed too much about me?

So, essentially, what you'd like is for the law to follow your personal preferences? Just because you might not be insulted if some person said "look at the state of him" to you in reference to your tattoos does not mean that everyone else does.

Originally posted by Archerette
He's probably a very kind and generous person being as how he was headed to work at a volunteer youth program (of course that might be some kind of community service that was court ordered).

Now who's assuming things? This amounts to petty snobbery in my books.

The point of having freedom of speech is that we're allowed to say what we want, and that may mean having to hear something you don't like, but that's the price of freedom.

Wow. Looks like the UK isn't that far off from the world of V then we all think... the people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of it's people.

Free Speech or No Speech. Those are the options people. There is no middle ground in Public or in Private.

Do you people who are applauding this really want a Fascist Nanny state to form?

80 pounds, is that all? What a bunch of pikers! The revenue collectors here in the states are much more aggressive. I recently spent over 24 hrs in jail for an (indecent gesture). Never spoke a word. When I took it to court, the Judge simply refused to allow me to question the revenue collector about how holding ones hand in a particular manner was any danger to the public, or any other pertinent issues as to why a class C misdemeanor (the least serious charge extant) should result in incarceration for any length of time.

The municipal courts here in the US are truly 'kangaroo courts', and exist for little else than to create a stream of revenue for the local government. They often require you to make two appearances before any 'trial' takes place, hoping to beat you down with the red tape and get you to just pay the fine rather than miss work.
They can take you jail for even the most minor offence, hoping to intimidate the less cowardly among us into compliance to their outrageous demands. The rules they've come up with are so profligate as to be beyond comprehension, thereby insuring that there will always be someone doing something that they can cite them for, thus increasing revenue and conditioning the lemming masses to servitude.

Once in the USA we had 'peace officers' who were there to make sure no one was getting hurt or ripped-off, and to help out anyone in need. Now we have 'law enforcement officers' who are there to make sure you are toeing the line, and are utterly obedient to the endless government edicts that seek to ever more thoroughly micro-manage your life. 'To protect and to serve' has become ' to collect and oppress'. The training officers receive now paints all citizens as the enemy, which only serves to exacerbate the type of megalomaniacal mindset that the job attracts. The good element in the police force is ever more discouraged by the situation and tend to look for other work, while the bad elements find ever more room to work their evil.

Do I have a problem with authority? With corrupt, immoral and unconstitutional authority, yes. With proper, moral, Godly authority, no. Unfortunately there seems to be very little of the latter left to submit ones self to.

[edit on 26-4-2006 by resistor]

Originally posted by Archerette

Originally posted by DreadNaught
So if you saw like... "Look at the state of him", when you see me walking past with tattoos and stuff... that's ok is it? Even if it causes me/said person offence? Yeh sure it is.
Anyway, this kid wasn't in McDonalds, apparently he was in a town park, "a large public garden in a town, used for recreation", not really an enclosed space, specifically targeted at kiddies then.

Actually, I consider tatooing a form of art and a perfect way for individuals to express themselves. Maybe you have assumed too much about me?

I am still insistent, however, that ANY public area should be void of language such as that young man used. He's probably a very kind and generous person being as how he was headed to work at a volunteer youth program (of course that might be some kind of community service that was court ordered).

Be that as it may, I don't want my 2 yr old or 4 yr old or 6 yr old to hear the F word. If it was a word he wanted to use in his own home, or if anybody wants to use that word in their own home regardless of who else is around, regardless of age, that is their perogative.

This, however, was not in an individual's private home. To use your definition it was in "a large public garden in a town, used for recreation". Tell me, what age group typically frequents a town park? Lots of little kiddies, that's who. And they're in need of their community's support since they're our future and all...

BTW, maybe you didn't read what I wrote about tolerence, but that whole point I was trying to make is that we should be aware of others around us and this includes people who look different - whether by tattooing, or by deformation, retardation, obesity, hairsyle, clothing choice, handicap, race, size, and the list is endless. The point is, whether by choice or not, some people are not the norm... and they command the same respect as every other individual on this earth. This goes for age as well which is why I think this guy had no right to use innappropriate language in a public place where small children often frequent.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Archerette]

The bottom line is that it goes against constitutional rights to make it a finable offense. It might be true that you don't want kids to hear that kind of language, but your preference does not take away their rights.

This kind of thinking is exactly the kind of attitude that enables the government to eliminate personal rights.

I'm a woman and i have been known to swear with friends and family, but i wouldnt go to a public place and swear so i dont offend anyone.

I dont want the government regulating if i can swear or not either, but i do get offended if particularly a group of guys swear in my prescence, i think that is disrespectull. I'm not a prude by any means, i just think some people should tone it down in the presence of ladies and kids.

I guess the speech police is still patrolling. Where is 'V' when you need him?

Well I think this is f--ing ludicress, its the f--ing thought police gone f--ing mad and the f--ing do gooders, we should string the f--ing lot up thats what I f--ing say.
Fookem and their law, power to the f--ing people and fook the goverment.

As I read it, the individual was being fined not for what he thought, but for what he said.

Originally posted by SlantedFacts
Why don't you people get 100's of people to go there and do the SAME THING as a protest to the loss of Freedom Of Speech!

What are they going to do? Arrest ALL of you for refusing to pay??

I would not put it past them.

It's not the first example of police abusing their powers and certainly won't be the last. I have personally had an instance of this myself. I once had the police called to my house as me and the missus were having a bit of a barny, the lady downstairs stuck her nose in and called the police.

They turned up and entered my house, without a warrant, insisting they had the right due to a complaint being made. After both my missus and me telling them all we were doing was arguing, they persisted in snooping round my house lloking for god knows what.

Eventually, they went to leave and I told them to bugger off and not come back and one policeman pinned me against the wall and threatened me with arrest for "breach of the peace". I laughed at him, saying that breach of the peace does not constitute forcing their way into my house, uninvited, snooping around without a warrant as this was illegal.

Fortunatetly, I was brave enough to stand up to him and told him I would be filing a complaint for an illegal search and harrassment, as no matter what I said, it does not warrant being pinned to my wall with his hand round my neck being threatened with arrest when no offence was committed, to which he grumbled and left my house.