The Free Speech Union is in Margate this morning (August 12) to announce legal action against Thanet council over its latest alcohol and antisocial behaviour Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) for Margate, Ramsgate, Broadstairs and Westgate.
The renewed PSPO was initially approved by Thanet council in July last year but rescinded just weeks later following a threat of costly legal action by the Free Speech Union, largely based around restrictions on the use of ‘foul’ language.
Following amendments it was again approved last month but the FSU claims that although improved, the order “would still have a chilling effect on free speech in the borough (and) is still unlawful.”
The main areas of contention are around the “broad and subjective” language used in the order, with the ‘foul and abusive language’ restrictions hitting the headlines both last year and this year.
A representative of the Free Speech Union contacted the council on July 23, the day before the proposals were to be considered by Cabinet, asking for a for a meeting and outlining suggestions for some amendments to the Order.
After discussion, these were not implemented and the PSPO was agreed by Thanet council on July 24,
On July 31, the Free Speech Union contacted the council by letter again, sent under the pre-action protocol for judicial review.
On August 8, council leader Rick Everitt approved a number of minor alterations to the new PSPO in a bid to clarify the restrictions after instructing the council’s legal team to carry out a further review of its terms.
Changes to the wording for a ban on “excretions of bodily fluids” in public, which the FSU says would criminalise crying or breastfeeding, now highlight it to mean spitting, urinating and defecating.
The restrictions on foul language remain with the order tweaked to clarify “foul language that is abusive within the hearing of any other person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”
Wording for where the PSPO applies to has had ‘pubs and clubs’ removed.
Members of Thanet council at a cabinet meeting on 24th July challenged The Free Speech Union to come to Thanet and make its objections in person.
Last week General Secretary of The Free Speech Union, Lord Toby Young of Acton, posted a video on social media to announce that The Free Speech Union will be on Margate beach at 10.30am today and is pressing ahead with its the legal challenge against TDC.
The FSU says: “Under the revised order, it remains an offence to swear in public or to behave in a way that makes someone feel either “humiliated” or “degraded”. This includes inadvertently and indirectly offending someone in a private conversation if it takes place on the streets of Margate, Broadstairs or Ramsgate.”
Lord Young of Acton added: “Thanet District Council seems to be in the habit of announcing these authoritarian restrictions on free speech, only to back down when the Free Speech Union threatens legal action.
“God knows what this is costing Council Tax payers in legal fees. I hope it will eventually learn its lesson, stop threatening to fine residents for perfectly lawful behaviour and focus on dealing with actual criminal behaviour.”
Today’s media call in Margate was also attended by Independent councillor John Worrow (pictured above).
Thanet council response
A statement from Thanet council says: “The council is proposing some minor amendments to its Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), which was approved by the Cabinet on Thursday 24 July. The PSPO aims to combat antisocial behaviour in Westgate-on-Sea, Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate.
“The amendments are points of clarification around the language and terminology used and do not change the substance of the order in any way.
“The amendments follow legal advice and seek to provide more clarity in relation to the proposed restrictions. They can be found in paragraph 3.2 of the report.
“The clarifications follow feedback from the Free Speech Union (FSU), which has indicated in a letter to the council on Thursday 31 July, that it intends to legally challenge the council’s PSPO.
“The council received overwhelming support for the proposed PSPO in response to its public consultation which closed on Friday 20 June.
“The FSU contacted the council on Wednesday 23 July, the day before the order was due to be discussed by the Cabinet, requesting some changes to the order.
“The council feels the changes proposed provide the clarification required.”
Public Spaces Protection Order to tackle antisocial behaviour given green light by Thanet council
The PSPO restrictions:
Anti-social groups
All persons are prohibited from congregating in a public place as part of a group of two or more persons and from behaving together in such a way as is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any other person.
Misuse of public place
Any person whom an authorised person reasonably believes is not using a public place in accordance with its intended use and is behaving there in such a way as is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any other person shall leave that public place or cease that behaviour on being required to do so by that authorised person.
Using foul and abusive language
All persons are prohibited from using in a public place foul language that is abusive within the hearing of any other person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
Excreting bodily fluids
All persons are prohibited from urinating, defecating and/or spitting in a public place, other than in a toilet.
Consuming legal psychoactive substances and other legal intoxicants
All persons are prohibited from consuming in a public place a legal psychoactive substance that mimics the effects of illegal psychoactive substances (such as nitrous oxide) or any other legal intoxicant (such as glue or the contents of an aerosol) and from, as a consequence, behaving in such a way within the hearing or sight of any other person as is likely to cause them harassment, alarm or distress.
Causing humiliation or degradation
All persons are prohibited from being abusive in a public place towards any other person, or behaving in such a way towards them, as is likely to cause them to feel humiliated or degraded. This includes in particular abuse or behaviour towards females.
Consuming alcohol
All persons are prohibited from consuming alcohol in a public place (other than in premises or places authorised or permitted to be used for the supply of alcohol, for example a pub or club) and from, as a consequence, behaving in such a way within the hearing or sight of any other person as is likely to cause them harassment, alarm or distress.
On being required to do so by a constable or authorised person, a person shall not consume alcohol or anything the constable or authorised person believes to be alcohol. On being required to do so by a constable or authorised person, a person shall surrender anything in their possession which is, or which the constable or authorised person reasonably believes to be, alcohol or a container for alcohol.
Fines
The PSPO will be in force for a period of three years. Enforcement officers will have the authority to issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN). The penalty is £100 to be paid within 28 days but is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.
Signs will be displayed at key locations.
Two previous PSPOs related to alcohol and antisocial behaviour, first enacted in 2018, came to the end of their three year lifespan in July 2024.
Police backing
The PSPO has been backed by Kent Police’s Chief Inspector Ian Swallow who says it will mean an additional “small army of people” who can use enforcement powers while police officers are dealing with higher level crimes.
He described the PSPO as a ‘tool’ that sits below police powers under the Public Order act but above the extra provision of dispersal orders.
The absence of the PSPO this year made managing incidents of abuse, public drinking and drug taking, aggression and other incidents ‘challenging’ for Kent Police to deal with, said Chief Inspector Ian Swallow.
He previously told councillors: “The fact that there has not been a PSPO in recent months has dramatically impacted our ability to respond to crime and disorder. The PSPO is a most useful tool in our tool kit of responses and without it we see that crime and disorder in the form of anti-social behaviour, increases.
“Neighbourhood policing is the bedrock of our local response to antisocial behaviour and our ability to effectively respond is reduced without the use of the PSPO.”
Approving alcohol, drug and antisocial behaviour PSPO will create ‘small army’ to deal with offenders, says Thanet district commander
Thanet District Commander of Police outlines rise in antisocial behaviour in isle towns due to lack of Public Spaces Protection Order
However, the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner Matthew Scott raised concerns about ‘the consequences for speech and expression’ in regards to the clause about abusive language.
The PCC, Matthew Scott, said: “I do not believe the police or councils should be in the business of regulating what should be considered matters of free speech or expression.”
PSPOs elsewhere
At the Cabinet meeting last month, Council leader Rick Everitt criticised media coverage of the ‘swearing’ clause calling it ‘misleading’ and also hit out at Tory councillor Reece Pugh for describing it as ‘over reaching’ in a radio interview, saying the PSPO clause was first introduced by the Conservative administration.
He outlined how very similar clauses were in PSPOs for Canterbury, Dartford, Hastings, Greenwich and one being consulted on for Westminster.
Cllr Everitt also criticised the Free Speech Union saying the council would not be “bullied” by a third party organisation “funded by wealthy political activists.”
Thanet Tory leader Cllr John Davis said the party does support the PSPO and concerns raised were about the wording rather than the principle.
Support for the PSPO was voiced by Green Party members, Conservatives including Cllr Emma Dawson and Labour Group members.
Why are the free speech union happy for our towns, parks, public spaces to be full of people using abuse language ?
Cant use this language in pubs, sporting events, the work place.
But these numpties are happy for our young kids to hear this language in a public space.
Very strange that the free speech union are happy for young kids to hear this.
Because they don’t care about Thanet residents and our daily experience of seeing drunken louts hurling abuse at passers-by in the streets, or witnessing running battles between groups of kids in Broadstairs.
They are a right wing think tank who want to be able to verbally attack vulnerable groups and worry that this may prevent them from doing so.
It’s a publicity stunt and some of Thanet’s most gullible councillors have happily lined up to be their useful idiots.
I’d love our residents to look past the stupid, lazy ‘swearing’ headlines and collectively stand with our council and tell the FSU mind their own business.
“seeing drunken louts hurling abuse at passers-by in the streets, or witnessing running battles between groups of kids in Broadstairs”
There are already legal powers where the perpetrators can be arrested for doing this.
It was a PR disaster last time TDC tried this and here they are again. Learn something from Starmer and U Turn a bit more often please.
Sadly, they appear to have learnt rather to much from Starmer. As others have pointed out, there are already laws to deal with abuse so the language prohibition is wholly unnecessary. More to the point, under this order there doesn’t have to be any intention to abuse, it being enough for someone to judge that someone else might be offended by an overheard remark.
“Chilling effect on free speech”? What nonsense!
I take issue with the statement “some of Thanet’s most gullible councillors”
Thanet councillors are by turn, gullible, unimaginative, educationally not-too-bright, lazy, bigotted, undemocratic and opinionated. The CUMULATIVE IQ in the council chamber is under 100
Alex Peters- I don’t believe you. And your last sentence is an absurdity.
MM Rees – not one single business brain cell between the lot of them!
All of which can be dealt with by the police without these stupid orders & should be-if they were doing what we pay them to do, just like they did for decades before they did exist.
The problem is in the vague wording, you wish to criminalise fair speech & turn us into an even bigger nanny & police state. All the things you claim they are trying to are already covered by existing laws.
The only ones attacking vulnerable groups are your party-freezing the elderly to death, attacking the disabled, starving children-both here & by your assistance in helping Israel with their Genocide etc.
You must be really proud to have outlawed a group protesting against a genocide-by pairing them with some Russian war criminals & The Maniacs Murder Cult to ensure none of the gutless MP’s would vote against it & to now be locking up 90 year old female vicars & disabled blind 60 somethings in wheelchairs. Your party is totally bereft of socialism, as well as morals & is the Conservative Party
Most kids will have already learned it from their parents.
“Why are the free speech union happy for our towns, parks, public spaces to be full of people using abuse language?” As a paid-up member of the Free Speech Union I am NOT happy with their stance here.
I’d rather not hear obscene language used in public spaces.
100%.
So would I, but we can’t simply ban anything we don’t like. I loath the “music” playing every time I go into a supermarket, but I wouldn’t suggest it be banned by law.
And dogs in restaurants, and kids in pubs!
And you anywhere
Actually, those two I would like to see outlawed.
I think many people would.
You can already charge a person with threatening and abusive behaviour using existing law. Why do I feel the council could use this as a money spinner, it’s a slippery slope in my opinion.
I agree I’ve been on the beach where both young and elderly have been foul mouthed and drunk.its not very nice to see or hear.
As I once sung I’ve been miss treated I’ve been abused!
I have certain reservations about these orders, namely does TDC really have the resources to seriously implement this, will this lapse into “new blasphemy laws” which had been largely abolished and a promise to thoroughly review it after 12 months to iron out any issues that had arisen. If these were included it would effectively remove any worries reasonable folk may have.
How do the Council intend to enforce this? Will they be employing their own officers or will it be a snitches charter …
Are we now living in communist China ??? all these rules are nothing but control!!! taking away people’s freedom !!! what next will it be farting in a public place that is antisocial ???? just where do all these things stop ???
Whether anybody likes Toby Young or not & I don’t, you should thankful for groups like this. The Labour government are a bunch of power mad authoritarian dictators, at both national & local level.
They want only to spoil any fun people might have, censor the internet for their own benefit & to spy on people, under the guise of protecting children & impose vague rubbish like this on people, that has already fallen apart the second somebody with some resources challenged it.
The real question that both The Council and The Constabulary both need to ask themselves is:”How ever did the inhabitants of Thanet exist since the time of George IV without such regulations and enforcement?”
If the answer is, “Dunno” or, pointing to the very peculiar and special rules a century ago in the environs of Selwyn House then, this entire piece of “legislation ” should be binned.
“Political Correctness” is a phrase that first reared its head in the Russian language shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. It was code for, according to the party line. During the past 30 years, varsity Humanities academics have groomed society to believe that it means something else today. It does not and never has.
There have always been laws pertaining to libel, slander, perjury, etc. The laws on blasphemy were repealed, ironically by the predecessors of those who have sold us postmodern political correctness. A functioning democracy requires real freedom of speech. Including the ability to express emotions that are other than positive. Just as all languages include paths and expletives. The ultimate in linguistic emphasis. Shakespeare and Chaucer both include them.
Anyone who disagrees can tup off!
A couple of pubs I frequent used to have a “swear box” on the bar. The landlords, leading by example, didn’t swear, and required trangressors to put a donation in the “swear box”.
The years have rolled on. Gone ate the old landlords, and the “swear boxes”. Each side of the bar, the “f” word is used as punctuation. No allowance is made for any ladies in the bar.
TDC is making a good effort to denormalze the use of expletives and obscenities in the public realm.
“No allowance is made for any ladies…”. Are you seriously suggesting that only men swear?
Cliff I ❤️ you!
In answer to Harry’s question, it seems that the social norms that used to govern our society, where our youths were controlled by values promoted by their parents if they strayed too far, have broken down for a minority of the population. Very often, fueled by alcohol or drugs,it would seem that abusing the public is seen as “fun” by this minority especially when visiting our towns from outside. WE have had PSPO’s in Thanet for many years now as have other areas both within kent and beyond,and according to the Kent Chief Inspector they are a useful tool when required. They enable council officers to assist the police in maintaining order.
Tdc have also farmed out enforcement to various dubious companies over the years, these “officers” especially the in respect of parking enforcement have issued tickets in some rather dubious circumstances, try and challenge one and you enter a world of evasion and blatant dishonesty. Are we to trust such people to make sensible decisions in respect to bad language. One persons foul language is anothers casual punctuation and enhancement, but same words.
Cllr Green, you have hit the nail on the head with these comments.
i’ve been on Margate beach all day and have witnessed 2 TDC Enforcement officers take multiple large gas canisters off of youths.
Well done to them a team of two.
Unfortunately a very busy seafront area and not a Police officer to be seen.
Some people should be gagged as they have a perpetual tendency to speak rot and cause harm while doing so, namely louts of which thanet has many, and politicians which like louts tend to lie when their lips move and speak before engagement of whatever they have as a brain substitute.
Interesting to see Cllr Worrow attending this event.
I’d love to hear why he had literally nothing to say on the matter when he put in a rare appearance at last month’s Overview & Scrutiny Panel.
He could’ve made a stand there and may even have made a positive contribution ahead of the PSPO’s adoption.
Instead – he stayed silent on the matter until there was a photo op for his socials.
If the councillors you describe as “idiots” feel humiliated or degraded by you in this public comments section, would that be covered by this order?
Quite ..
Mr Bright – your point is? Typical Labour individual having ago at another councillor for what reason? No wonder many of us no longer trust politicians at ant level, especially Labour. Totally untrustworthy and our country sinking under their policies.
At least other parties don’t do a ticket allocation for the so called public meeting about law and order in Thanet.
Another great bit of crap from Polly bilington and your labour party Kristian.
All Negroni Talks are ticket-entry events, according to what I read when I looked them up online.
Billington wants to know the identity of everyone before agreeing to appear in front of them, in case anyone doesn’t want to queue up to kiss her butt.
That is simply not true, Peter Checksfield. What a disgusting person you are.
Oh yes it is!
She’s behind you!
The meeting to discuss law and order in Thanet probably had tickets issued in order to make sure the venue where it was taking place was not overcrowded.
Why did she ban the local Green mayor then?
She refuses to even write any articles for IOTG unless all comments are disabled (thankfully Kathy refues to kowtow to her demands). She just wants to remain in her little world where everyone pretends to like her.
M M REES – and you believe that load of tosh! Labour Party is now full of control freaks afraid of being censured/ criticised/challenged by the public. Their lies are being found out and they have no answer to financial problems they are creating. Hopefully we will survive next four years and then get rid of these idiots , never to hold office again.
She lives a very sheltered existence.
Just dropped in to see what’s happening to in Thanet and noticed the two comments from Cllr Bright. Maybe he should get some facts right regarding the FSU ‘It is not ‘a right wing think tank’ it is a bipartisan organisation fighting the erosion of free speech and cancel culture in this country and amongst other things have helped through legal advice and direct legal representation individuals who have in some cases been disciplined or in some cases dismissed from their job because of expressing lawful free speech.
You’ve surely figured by now that terms such as “right wing” and “far right” simply mean anyone the self-proclaimed progressives disagree with.
When I was at school the trend was to ascribe nicknames ironically, so that a short lad would be ‘lofty’, or a fat one ‘slim’. I can’t help wondering whether something similar happened with Mr Bright.
Haha!
Eric I figured out many years ago when the term ‘right wing’ is used by such types as Cllr Bright to treat their words with contempt! Cllr Bright needs to do a little more research before he posts on here orshouts his mouth!
Fedup B – yes, I do think that the meeting in the Baptist church in Broadstairs needed to be ticketed, just as concerts etc do, because of the limited space it was being held in. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have written my August 13th comment.
As always private vendettas are at play here from Harry,Fed up etc.I am not sure whether they are trots or reform but the outcome is the same which cobblers. The Starmer govt is not a star performer but it is not as mad as the Johnson or Truss lunatics, neither is as pointless as the Sunak government. A Farage government would be like the Reform councils, un hinged.
Now to the matter at hand.Toby Young has said damn all about the 500 pensioners arrested as terrorists for sitting and carrying a placard, so it seems free speech only extends to scrotes ( and old English term for a drunken lout).Surely nobody is going defend what happened in Broadstairs a couple of weeks ago.There is no such thing as free speech only speech that does not threaten,harm, or abuse.
George, just when are you going to jump in to bed with starmer? I read the same sycophant rants from you every week.
I’d rather people said disgusting words like s-d and bl–dy than supported terrorists.
George Nokes – I do wish you would get your facts right, a difficult task for you I know. What evidence do you have accusing people of having vendettas? I suspect you get befuddled on many occasions and then confused!
Calling bin dippers ‘victims’ gets you a banning order from football grounds as its classed as a hate crime. Yet when the bin dippers sing about Harold Shipman killing 250 mancs this is allowed and not classed as a hate crime.
What’s the fsu views on that ? Seems very one side this hate crime law.
I’ve never heard the term before, but from the context I suspect it refers to Liverpudlians.
If Happy Manc wants to know the FSU’s view on that he could always try asking them. They are a small organisation so I imagine they rely on people bringing such issues to their attention.
There’s swearing and then there’s the use of loud, non-stop, foul language specifically intended to show aggression towards, and intimidate, anyone who passes by.
If, IF, the police can distinguish between this and someone complaining about sweltering in the ‘b….y heat’ or whatever, then it could be quite a useful thing. But the police force just aren’t very good, don’t have the resources or man power etc. etc. to enforce this anyway.
They might have to arrest me next time I react to some idiot treating the roads as a race track or whatever. Probably easier than chasing the driver.