Tony Wright was fined £80 this week at the Royal Norfolk Show by Norfolk Police for The Tony Wright concerned is presumably not the MP for Great Yarmouth!
PS I'm doing the News 24 Sunday paper review at 11.45pm tonight should you be around!
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Tony Wright Fined for Bollocks to Blair Incident
Tony Wright was fined £80 this week at the Royal Norfolk Show by Norfolk Police for The Tony Wright concerned is presumably not the MP for Great Yarmouth!
PS I'm doing the News 24 Sunday paper review at 11.45pm tonight should you be around!
I was just old enough to recall the Sex Pistols being taken to court over their Never mind the Bollocks album. Bollocks were everywhere, being dragged around the legal system until they came out the other end as being entirely acceptable.
ReplyDeleteIf he contests it, he will win, because the legal groundwork has already been done.
So Bollocks to Blair and Brown and Reid and Alexander and Falconer
Does anybody know under what statutory provision the police have the power to fine Mr Wright? And did anybody complain to the police before they acted that they found the writing on the shirt offensive? If that's deemed offensive, how would the police view the language in the Cameron interview on the Woss Show? And what about the continually insulting references to the Royal Family on most of the so-called comedy shows on the BBC? Does anyone disagree that it's a very sinister business when the police are required to act to protect the sensibilities of Our Great Leader Blair and the New Labour Project and suppress criticism which is, after all, only in the sort of language that was mild in No. 10 when A. Campbell ruled the roost and is used regularly by virtually every modern English person, most of whom would agree with the statement.
ReplyDeleteWhy wasn't Blair fined for saying "Fucking Welsh," then? A complaint was made, but nothing was done.
ReplyDeletePhilip, you touch upon something that I want to bring up with regards to this incident.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it (I am no expert, nor pretend to be), the offence was committed under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This act clearly requires for conduct to be 'likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress', in particular, a person is guilty of an offence if he:
a) uses threatening, abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
Whilst police officers are covered by this 'likely to cause...' factor, it is generally accepted and expected that they aren't as soft-skinned as the general public. So you would expect that, unless a member of the public had complained and was clearly horrified by the sight of a T-shirt, the police officer would have found something better to do.
So the question must be asked- *who* would be offended by such an item?
I can only think back on reading about the Virgin case which was brought against the music publishing firm way back when they released the Sex Pistols' album 'Never Mind the Bollocks'. A clear misunderstanding of what the word 'bollocks' actually means led to the case collapsing, when it was found that the origin of the word wasn't offensive.
I have to ask, how did something like this get so far? Common sense must surely have prevailed, even amongst this officer's superiors, so what is the incentive in arresting and charging for these trivial offences? Is there a quota to fill for particular crimes? Is there a financial incentive for forces with higher crime rates? I suspect something like this is the cause, rather than the will to uphold law'n'order.
If this is Blair's idea of enforcing a 'respect' agenda, then fuck you, Tony. I'll apologise for my use of that word, but I'm increasingly pissed with the micromanagement of people and the country- it's intolerable.
I too would like to know whether the police were responding to a complaint, or whether they had chosen to censor how people express themselves of their own volition.
ReplyDeletePhilip Walling, it is indeed a very sinister business when the police are required/feel they ought to protect the sensibilities of The Leader. In fact, I hope this gets wide coverage and comment.
(Not to dilute the point, but was John Prescott ever arrested for offending the sensibilities of that voter's nose when he punched it?)
I think the real point is that these t-shirts are mindlessly unoriginal and unfunny, seems the dozey right has got about as much to say as the brainless left.
ReplyDeleteAll together now "Bush, Blair, CIA.. ad nauseum"
No you anonymous prat, the point is that we live in a police state where any vague insult to our revered Prime Minister results in someone being arrested or fined.
ReplyDeleteErr, no, Anonymong, it seems *you've* missed the real point.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a state secret that's been advertised on a T-shirt (as Iain points out)- it's JUST a T-shirt with a semi-political statement. JUST that.
That's the best point you can make on the matter?
Apologists like you make me sick. That you stand for so little and say so much is a true reflection of all that is wrong with this country.
As the Septics would say, 'bring it on'- I'll rip your argument to shreds.
Perhaps the most worrying thing is what powers do the police have to fine the poor fellow themselves, without it coming before a court? Perhaps you can enlighten us james?
ReplyDeleteI had a vague idea that it would be classed as a Public Order offence, but when did the police get the power to decide the guilt of their victim, sorry, the accused?
I recall a Scottish motorist (Mr Kinnaird)being acquitted on appeal from the Sheriff's court by the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh for telling a two policemen to fuck off when they tried to arrest him (see: Daily Telegraph 25.4.01). The court felt that the use of the word fuck was commonplace among people of the appellant's generation and its being addressed to two policemen was not behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. That's a different point, though, from this Public Order offence, isn't it? Again, james might be able to help.
It's always someone who hasn't the balls to give his name - or should it be bollocks - who is an apologist for state oppression. It's got nothing to do with right and left as anonymous seems to think but about freedom or tyranny and as he seems to approve of tyranny he's either an aparatchik of this hideous regime or too feeble to be anything other than a slave.
ReplyDeleteHeh... Like I said, I'm not an expert in this area- it's just something I take an interest in.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, a fine can be issued for a breach of Section 5, although I would expect that these can be challenged, if the 'offender' wishes.
This is part of Blair's anti-social behaviour drive, which you might recall he talked up when giving police power to give on-the-spot fines.
As for the Scotland incident, I don't think Scotland is covered by the Public Order Act, but if not, will likely have something similar in place. That incident would appear to be similar, though. We're talking about a commonplace word which, like 'fuck', is used in every day vocabulary. Even so, 'bollocks' isn't an offensive word!
That has interesting connotations for the gentleman who called a police horse 'gay' on a night out recently...
Like I say though, I'm not an expert, so perhaps somebody more knowledgeable could point me in the right direction?
Anonymous prat - we are not critiquing the T-shirt or the quality of the sentiments expressed thereon.
ReplyDeleteWe are expressing outrage that it is now, apparently, a punishable offenced to express a candid opinion of the prime minister of Britain. This was the action of a police state. No doubt Mr Wright's details will have been officiously taken down and will appear on an official record somewhere.
What we are commenting on, Anonymous Prat, is the sinister nature of Mr Blair and the unsettling people who surround him.
One asasumes also he is not the MP for Cannock Chase and chair of the Select Committee for Administration
ReplyDeleteI presume the Police will now fine everyone that took a pop at Mrs. T. She has faced down more vitriol than the boy blair has ever had to do... but then, she was attacked from the left... and we can't have the Police annoying Guardian readers, can we.
ReplyDeleteOn another note (but still relevant to the post!), seeing as you're on News 24 doing the reviews this evening, are we allowed to set you a challenge to use a particular chosen word during the spot?
ReplyDeleteI choose 'magnanimous'!
It's essential in a free society to be able to insult people if you want (without threatening or inciting violence) - it seldom gets you anywhere because it usually loses the respect of your listeners, but if Blair and his regime think they're entitled to stop us they can just fuck off!
ReplyDeleteJames, you're a very naughty boy.
ReplyDeleteFollowing James's suggestion - I suggest swashbuckling. My friend managed to (not deliberately) use it in a job interview - sadly he didn't get the job.
ReplyDeleteOh, calm down bed wetters. I think it's stupid to fine him or ban the t-shirt, just a throw away comment on the painful lack of originality on display. "Bollocks to Blair"
ReplyDelete"Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Out Out, Out".
Yawn.
Who, moi? *Wears halo and an angelic smile*
ReplyDelete(This match has warmed up a bit in the past 25 minutes or so! Any further from the edge of my seat and I'll be on the floor!)
If bollocks isn't an offensive word then why use it ostensibly as an insult? And perhaps Iain could get it into his news review tonight - that's a better challenge, perhaps.
ReplyDeleteDie spinnnen, die Englaender.
ReplyDeleteThe Muslim demos are full of placards that I find threatening and offensive. There was one at the end of my street only a few weeks ago.
ReplyDeleteHow many of these demonstrators get fined?
Not too many, I fancy.
But now I know the magic words to use, I'll be complaining about each and every one of them. It'll be interesting to see if the police rush to take action against the demo boys - or me.
One wonders what was the follow-up with our friends fom the friendly religion of peace who promised us all murder, mayhem and hate with their placards, in front of the Danish embassy.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, strange. Maybe it is just the t-shirts that are actually illegal?
Forgive me, but hasn't this been a "Poll Tax" case? Like the imprisoned but bailed grannies, the T-shirt wearer gets huge publicity at relative small personal cost, but Big Brother looks cretinously dim.
ReplyDeleteYour Campaign for Real Policing (or whatever it's called) needs precisiely this sort of Metric Martyr. The last thing thinking libertarians want at this point is common sense from Plod; happily that's the last thing they'll get.
I know it's currently a bete noire in Conservative circles, but surely this is an example of why we need the Human Rights Act?
ReplyDeleteECHR:
Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.
Or would a Conservative government demand similar sanction for 'Bollocks to Cameron'? Under John Major there were several successful prosecutions for 'obscene' band merchandise, namely a Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy t-shirt with the word 'fuck' on it. You either approve of freedom of expression or you don't. One can only imagine what Lord Tebbit makes of all this.
Elduded, aren't you slightly missing the point? We have an HRA now. Yet it hasn;t protected Tony Wright's Freedom of Expression, has it?
ReplyDeleteWe had absolute freedom of speech before the foul HRA wafted its stench around Britain.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I'm not too familiar with the ins and outs of this area (I love these get-out clauses!), but the ECHR, whilst protecting "freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers" in Article 10 as previously mentioned, also includes its own get-out clause in Article 10(2), specifying "the exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of...public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, protection of the reputation or rights of others....".
ReplyDeleteClearly, 'Europe' and 'human rights' isn't all it's cracked up to be by the rabid Daily Mail crowd.
Current legislation and conventions are worthless with shortcomings like that. We either have absolute rights or we don't, but let's not pretend and patronise the people these documents are meant to protect.
The origin of the current use of that slogan was in the campaign against the Hunting Act. The Countryside Action Network sold over 40,000 x 4inch red enamelled badges through 2002-3 that simply said 'Bollocks to Blair'. I was threatened with arrest in Stafford whilst barracking John Prescott on his visit to Staffs Police Headquarters during the 2005 GE campaign for wearing one. About a dozen of us were wearing them and were given the option 'take them off/remove from view or you will be arrested'. There have probably been a similar number of the tee shirts sold in the same period. I am aware of many such threatened arrests/prosecutions but this is the first 'fixed penalty' ticket (if that's what it is) to my knowledge.
ReplyDeleteClearly, we need to make it easy for people to obtain these T-shirts for a day of 'civil understanding' (ie, reconcile the Government with the feelings of the people). I suggest making it possible for people to download the slogan and print it on iron-on transfer paper, or have a network of people volunteer to clandestinely (ooh, it's like the Samizdat all over again!) hand out freebies (T-shirts can be made and printed on for about 50p these days) at suggestible events, to be worn en masse.
ReplyDeleteIt's a message that needs to be synonymous with the ordinary man who is angry at all the small things that are wrong in this country- things like why council tax is so high; why driving is so expensive; why education for their children is of such derisible quality and why they no longer feel the police are there to protect them. Only then will the message be taken up to symbolise how we, the majority, truly feel.
I for one am tired of being beaten with the moral stick by Nanny and the Safety Elephant- "do this, don't do that... Tony won't like it when you say those things".
I'll do my bit- will you do yours?
By the way, Iain- unless anybody else objects, the most popular word to use this evening would appear to be (in order):
1. Bollocks- the clear favourite!
2. Swashbuckling
3. Magnanimous
I have a Stiff Little Fingers T Shirt with the F word on it. I could be in trouble here!!
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, if Norfolk Police have so many police officers that htey can afford to Police this rubbish, can I ask that htey transfer some money over here, because our police can't even respond to routine calls and incidnets.
Balls to Blairs Bobbies!
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the challenge to Iain is to get "bollocks" into his news review tonight. And the tee-shirt campaign is compelling - i'm sure there'd be thousands of people who would join in. If we don't stand up now we might as well forget it and write the country off.
ReplyDeleteWAHEY!!!
ReplyDelete"Magnanimous towards the Portuguese..." indeed :)
Good on ya, Iain!
(Oh, excellent review piece as well, of course! That Torode bloke didn't leave you much room for comment though, did he?)
I can't pretend that as a 'poll tax veteran' I don't find this hilarious. I don't give a toss about the issue, I just find it hilarious.
ReplyDeleteGet yours here http://www.splashclothing.com/
ReplyDeleteThe Sex Pistols got a historian to say that a bollock was some sort of medieval overcoat.
ReplyDeleteOvercoats to Blair, cement ones for preference.
I wonder if saying "Saddam Hussein desreves the death penalty" would be equally insulting or is it only our own glorious leader who is protected.
I hope the Freedom Association or somebody finance an appeal.
If anyone thinks that Downing Street has sent an edict out to plod to prosecute thought criminals, then they are more paranoid than usual. This is all about context - wearing an offensive t-shirt in an adult environment is one thing, but it is clearly different at a public, family event.
ReplyDeleteAs it goes, I think that the copper probably did overstep the mark when a quiet word would have been more appropriate.
If the person concerned feels so wronged, then he should use the legal route to challenge his fine and cite the HRA in defence. The HRA only comes into play when an action or piece of legislation is tested against it by the judiciary. Clearly, it makes sense for governments to consider HRA impact on all legislation before enacting it, but issues are not always foreseen.
If that's what the forces of darkness do for one t-shirt, what would they do if everyone pitched up in Parliament Square dressed in wide brimmed hats, long black cloaks and Guido masks?
ReplyDeleteRM
PoliticalHack, we aren't looking at this incident on its own, we are looking at it as a broader indication of how trivial 'speech'-related incidents are being treated at large, particularly when compared to non-political comparisons.
ReplyDeleteI live in Blackpool which, although hosts a large number of stag and hen parties at weekends, still has a respectable number of families and elderly people visit the town. I cannot begin to put a number on how many times I've seen 'inappropriate' clothing worn in public, which includes words like 'fuck' and 'shit', or how often I've seen weathered, old hags on hen weekends waving dildos around. I can't recall ever hearing about tourists being done for this sort of attire, so what makes a more justifiable political statement more of an offence?
I'd rather we weren't using legislation to enforce other people's morals and tastes on others, as I think social 'pressure' (ie, what is socially acceptable) works far better.
From what I'm told, a single complaint was made preceding the decision to fine.
ReplyDeleteEven so, you have to wonder if it's in the public interest to heel to the whimpers of a handful of busybodies who claim such things are 'offensive'.
I still feel there were other factors motivating the police to go ahead with their choice of action. Nobody in their right mind would take such regressive action otherwise.
You have to wonder how outlandish complaints have to be before the police take no action. I wonder what we could do?