Last week this blog took issue with the Telegraph's refusal to print swear words even when they are essential to the factual accuracy of a news story. But surely a news report today - Swearing at police is not a crime, judge rules - takes the prize for most nonsensical censorship of a news story, including as it does, this sentence:
"The directive states: “The courts do not accept that police officers are caused harassment, alarm or distress by words such as ----, ----, -------, or ------."
But Telegraph readers, on the other hand, clearly are caused harassment, alarm and distress by those dreadful words.
It's a good thing we know now what words to avoid in the presence of Telegraph readers.
Posted by: Rob Crompton | Nov 21, 2011 at 18:53
But swearing at the general public is?
Posted by: Matt | Nov 21, 2011 at 20:46
There is a difference to 'swearing' and being 'sworn at'.
I and most people that I know personally and professionally do not accept being sworn at. Yet the occasional swear word of f or s nature is not considered offensive.
Posted by: Presh | Nov 21, 2011 at 21:18