Bad Law needs repealing, now

Public Order Act 1986

1986 CHAPTER 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.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F2a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

This is one of the law that crept through Parliament and not a sensible person alive can explain how this benefits or improves the lives of the common man on the Clapham bus?  What possessed the then Conservative Government to enact such a draconian, all powerful and embracing Act with the horrendous consequence to the destruction of Free Speech and political participation can only be called vandalism in its most profound.
Having listened to Peter Thatchell on this morning’s 5 Live breakfast programme, apart from some of his twisted socialist ideals, his courage and conviction on such matters is admirable.  For a confessed homosexual to have the audacity to try and arrest Robert Mugabe whilst the British police stood by and quaked as the murderous tyrants thugs punch Mr Thatchell to the floor was an act of bravado of immense right.  His stance on this awful and anti-British Act is correct and valiant.
Under this Act there is no requirement to prove that the person intended any of the aforementioned likely consequences. Convicted can take place under section 5, regardless of any intention. Surely it wasn’t the intention of Parliament to criminalise innocent words, behaviours or signs unless the paranoia of the political elite was so profound as to be insane.  
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.
As Thatchell argues… “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”.
This immoral Act could be a reason why the once strong and active Free Press has become cowered except when owned by the Moguls Murdoch.  It also put in jeopardy anyone trying to get justice from any system that is abusing power it has obtain either legitimately or even perhaps otherwise.  It is also demonstrative of how the police has become selectively indifferent to certain crimes and interpret their roles according to what they don’t have to do rather than what they ought to do.  The Leveson inquiry, the Yates led investigation in MPs abuse of expenses and the hacking offences are all consequence of proportionality and just badly drafted legislation.  Peter Thatchell covers this issue on the blog and it is a must read.  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-g-tatchell/public-order-act-repeal-section-5_b_1209096.html
One does not have to be a lawyer nor to be legally trained to recognise a series of words to be inappropriate within themselves.  Here is a classic example of a probable good intent going awry because of the poor stewardship of the two Houses of Parliament.  The first priority of an MP is to scrutinised legislation and it appears that it was not done in this instance.  It is time to rectify affairs before more innocent people are criminalised.