I've always prized British rudeness, says Cristina Odone - but in recent years, "insulting words or behaviour" have become a criminal offence.

By Cristina Odone

7:11AM BST 09 Jul 2012

I have lived in this country for 25 years now, yet still fail to grasp some basic rules. I was amazed, for instance, when I was threatened with a lawsuit earlier this year. On Question Time, I dismissed a protester against unpaid apprenticeship as “an ungrateful creature”. A lawyer gleefully tweeted that my “insult” was potentially a criminal offence.

I’d been living under two misapprehensions: first, that “creature” was an acceptable rebuke here; second, that I had a right to be rude. That right is under threat. I read with horror that a woman who told off a Muslim gentleman at a supermarket checkout was arrested. Cinnamon Heathcote-Drury, a photographer, watched as the man let his wife unload their trolley on her own, and informed him in no uncertain terms that his behaviour was un-British. She even offered to help the wife herself.

Miss Heathcote-Drury, cleared last weekend, admits that her words could have offended the couple. But it seems extraordinary that under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, “insulting words or behaviour” constitute a criminal offence. This leaves too much room for personal score-settling, not to mention paranoia: had this law been in place in the Thirties, a thin-skinned citizen of Slough could have sued John Betjeman. As it is, a teenager was arrested in 2008 for holding up a placard that called Scientology a cult.

I’ve always prized British rudeness. I relish the vicious attacks in the press on grandees from Bob Diamond to John Bercow; I love to watch Paxo pummelling a politician; and happily trade put-downs with friends, family and foes. Sometimes, it can slide into gratuitous humiliation – but that seems a small price to pay for the intoxicating freedom of rubbishing the powerful.

Thank goodness, an unlikely alliance of David Davis MP, Peter Tatchell and the Christian Institute are campaigning to change Section 5. Until they win, I’ll steer clear of calling anyone a “creature” again.

• Among the many unwelcome opinions I hold is my dislike of Annabel’s. The members-only nightclub in Mayfair has always struck me as more po-faced than posh. It may be chock-a-block with big names from Debrett’s, but there are too many old-timers dancing to cheesy pop songs (Michael Jackson’s Thriller is considered cutting-edge) for my liking.

Now, Annabel’s faces competition from Robin Birley, who has opened a new club around the corner. The Establishment views this as a direct challenge to Richard Caring, Annabel’s present owner, especially since Birley’s father set the place up back in the Sixties.

My tip for Birley, if he wants his new club to succeed, is to get Taki along. The best time I had at Annabel’s was when two women were vying for the playboy columnist’s attention. They shouted unprintable insults at one another (oblivious, it would seem, to Section 5). As for Taki, he tiptoed away from the rumpus in order to squire a third beauty on to the dance floor.

• Just when I’d given up on politicians, I meet one who leaves me in stitches. Stephen Pound, Labour MP for Ealing North, hosted a fund-raiser for the LSE (my husband’s alma mater) at the House of Commons this weekend, regaling the audience with anecdotes from his colourful past. A former shop steward, bus conductor, boxer and hospital porter, Pound has travelled the world and speaks Italian, French and Polish. He must be one of the few who can both quote from Ezra Pound’s Canti and chant Solidarity slogans.

How different from the rest of the professional politicians who fill the corridors of power! I didn’t go to LSE, but still found myself reaching for a chequebook. Another 10 minutes and I’d have handed over all my worldly goods. Another 20 and I’d have been voting Labour.

I am increasingly coming to the belief that actually 'rights' are a man made construct that are a buzzword for avoiding responsibility.

thoreau wrote:
When used in the MSM or politics...yes

andyh wrote:
I am not entirely sure that it is just the msm and politics anymore - I think that individuals nowadays use the 'term' in exactly the same way - as a result of msm and politics most probably - but it has seemed that over my lifetime people have become far more ego centric and reliant on others to hand them whatever it is they want or think they should have on a plate - which is no doubt in the interest of politicians and business - it irks me.

What is sad and depressing is that 'rights' should be a good thing but human nature as always fucks it up.

I think she's confusing the right to be rude with freedom of speech. We're all entitled to have opinions, beliefs and ideas that other people may find offensive, but I think we should at least make an effort to be considerate to one another.

That said, you can't please everyone all the time. People are bound to get offended by something someone says at some point.

Why is she calling somebody a creature?
If she called me a creature i would kick her in her hole
Just sounds like a silly person who's had a privileged life and passes the time by writing boring crap in the paper.

Section 5 Public Order Act 1986 states:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64

Harassment, alarm or distress.

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting 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 thereby.

This legislation is sweeping, draconian and has a chilling effect. There is no requirement to prove that the person intended any of the aforementioned likely consequences. They can be convicted under Section 5, regardless of their intention. Thus innocently intended words, behaviours or signs can result in a criminal record.

The first part of Section 5 is about criminalising disorderly behaviour, and words, behaviour or images that are threatening. Threats and disorderly behaviour are unacceptable. Criminalising them is therefore not unreasonable.

It is less clear that mere abuse warrants criminalisation. What constitutes abuse? Calling someone a “bloody fool” or a “drunken bastard” is abusive but should it be a crime? Different people have different interpretations regarding what level and forms of abuse should be lawful or unlawful. It’s a subjective judgement.

Likewise with insults. When does an insult cease to be a legitimate (if bad mannered) expression of opinion and become a matter for arrest and prosecution? Much satirical comedy and many polemical critiques of religion may be deemed insults by some people.

The second part of Section 5 is equally worrying. A crime is committed if a person is “likely” to be caused “harassment, alarm or distress”. There is no requirement to prove that anyone actually has been harassed, alarmed or distressed. The mere likelihood is sufficient to secure a conviction.