"Some people may find them offensive."

Rebellious plaques situated on benches in Chester

Rebellious plaques have been situated on benches in Chester with the intention of highlighting Cheshire West and Chester City council's 'draconian plans' to introduce a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO). [...] Among the scourges already in the sights of the Labour-led Cheshire West and Chester Council are legal highs, street drinking, rough sleeping, begging, busking and feeding birds. The idea is backed by the Tory opposition.

The plaques have now been removed and Maria Byrne, head of place operations for Cheshire West and Chester Council, said: "We have removed the plaques from five benches and although they may appear humorous, some people may find them offensive."

When did this notion take hold that people have some right to not be offended? I'm offended all the time. It's called not being dead yet.

Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.
Tags: , , , , ,

5 Responses:

  1. phuzz says:

    Yes, but the people who were offended by these plaques were the politicians, so they had to go.
    (It looks like this would have been a good place to use some of those one-way security screws, to make them harder to be removed)

    • jwz says:

      The thing I love about stories like this is that nobody ever has the balls to stand up and say "I am the one who is offended by this." It's always some passive-voice pre-emptive strike, because there is a chance that someone somewhere might be offended. So if you're feeling optimistic you can take that as "people are less easily offended than you think" or on pessimistic days, "people are just fucking cowards."

  2. Ben says:

    Could have at least used anti-tamper screws.

  3. MattyJ says:

    Maybe JWZ can get hold of the removed signs for his building lobby.

  4. Joker_vD says:

    Huh. I always thought that the reason for such removal would be not that "somebody would be offended", but "it was placed with the intent to offend some people". Mens rea is necessary, right? Or does this area of law follow strict liability principle?

  • Previously