I have just read an interesting article in The Times today (24th September 2005) about a young lady called Charlotte Denis from Cirencester who was arrested by the local Police for wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the words "Bollocks to Blair". She was released without charge (and I hope without a caution, either) after agreeing to cover the offending apparel with a jacket.
 
It is more likely than not that this incident came about because someone whose views did not coincide with those of Miss Denis made a mean spirited complaint about her T-Shirt. Nevertheless the over officious and humourless Police Constable who made the arrest no doubt received a justifiable "bollocking" from his custody sergeant who refused to be any part of the nonsense and ordered her release (on the basis of a face-saving 'undertaking' on the young lady's part.)
 
I suspect that the arrest was made purportedly on the basis of an offence being committed under s.5 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986: -
 
A person is guilty of an offence if he…displays any writing, sign or ostensible representation which is threatening abusive or insulting…within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
 
Not only Mr Blair, but most of his family, all of the Cabinet, many New Labour fellow travellers and a few others would be 'distressed' by the message printed on Miss Denis' T-shirt, but the rest of us would not. As she was attending a Country Fair (and the "Bollocks to Blair" T-shirt is a Countryside Alliance design) I doubt whether anyone who was likely to have been offended would have been present anyway. That might not be the whole point but any lawyer with half a brain should convince easily a Court that the sort of grown ups that form a Government would not likely be harassed, alarmed or distressed by a message of this nature and nor should anyone else.
 
For a significant section of Society, particularly the Animal Rights lobby, Miss Denis' arrest would have appeared just and reasonable because she was clearly of the pro-hunting lobby and therefore deserved everything she got. However, had the T-shirt for instance been the preferred attire of those protestors demonstrating against the ridiculous new exclusion zone imposed around Parliament, then those same persons who would have no time for Miss Denis because of her political views would have been filled with righteous indignation concerning one of their number being arrested for wearing such a harmless T-shirt.
 
This type of behaviour on the part of the Police has at least one wider implication. It shows a disturbing inability to distinguish between something truly offensive and something that might be politically offensive, alone. To anyone exercising a critical faculty the difference is obvious. The two-fingered sign and its many modern variations is a peculiarly British form of political comment and long may it continue.