← Back to News · Archive

FSU launches legal challenge over Thanet’s ‘free speech gagging’ order

Frederick Attenborough

14 August 2025

When Thanet District Council introduced its sweeping Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) last summer, officials presented it as a tool to tackle antisocial behaviour in Margate, Ramsgate, Broadstairs and Westgate. But the order – giving officers powers to issue £100 fines to anyone “using foul or abusive language in such a manner that is loud and can be heard by others and cause either alarm or distress to any other person in any public place” – quickly ran into trouble.

PSPOs were introduced under sections 59–75 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Intended to help councils tackle issues such as prostitution, loitering or drinking alcohol in specific areas, these wide-ranging and flexible powers allow a “restricted area” to be designated in which certain conduct is prohibited or required.

In theory, section 72 of the Act requires local authorities, when making a PSPO, to have “particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly” under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Yet of the nearly two dozen PSPOs we have assessed, that safeguard is more often honoured in the breach.

Thanet’s was one of the worst we have ever seen. At the time, we warned it was “far too vague and far too broad” and could be used to restrict peaceful protest or street preaching. Legally, the core defect was that someone faced with a prohibition on being “pejorative” could not determine for themselves what that meant. That, we argued, left far too much discretion in the hands of enforcement officers and was incompatible with Article 10 ECHR.

Within weeks, and under threat of legal action, the council dropped the order, later acknowledging publicly it had done so because of our challenge.

Fast-forward twelve months, however, and a revised version is back. While the council has made some minor changes, the core problems remain.

The order still imposes a sweeping ban on swearing, using undefined terms such as “foul” and “abusive” without any safeguard for legitimate political, artistic or satirical expression, and without requiring any intent to harass or threaten. Causing someone to feel “humiliated” or “degraded” is also an offence, where those concepts are left entirely to the perception of the listener, with no objective standard or definition.

Other provisions are so broad they could be used to shut down peaceful protests, vigils or community gatherings if anyone present might be “distressed”. The alcohol restrictions are similarly problematic, drafted in a way that could be read as imposing a blanket ban and still defining “public place” to include licensed venues such as arcades, which Parliament has expressly exempted.

Many of the behaviours targeted by the PSPO are already addressed under national legislation such as the Public Order Act 1986, which includes clear definitions, thresholds and statutory defences. By re-legislating for these behaviours at a lower and vaguer threshold, the Council has removed the legal certainty provided by Parliament, widening the net for criminal liability and increasing the scope for arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.

With these fundamental problems unresolved, we were ready to take our case to the courts. So when councillors challenged us at a cabinet meeting on 24th July to come and make our objections in person, we did just that.

Earlier this week, Lord Young took to Margate’s main beach to announce that the FSU would press ahead with its legal challenge. Sadly, no members of the council turned up – and, as you can see in our video (here), even a visit to the Town Hall drew a blank. But our mobile billboards made the point, spelling out in plain terms how absurd the consequences of the order’s wording could be: “Had the mickey taken out of you? Thanet District Council will fine the joker £100”, read one. “Stubbed your toe? Remember, it's a crime if you swear in Thanet,” read another – and there were others in the same vein.

Passers-by were sceptical of the council’s approach. “Everyone swears, this is England,” said Luke Kelly. “It feels like the intentions are right but the direction they’re going is almost performative.” Another resident, Michael Whittaker, told us: “If you’re going to take offence to something, that's your problem. What’s the next step, going into pubs and stopping people from swearing?”

Speaking to Kent Online, Lord Young said that, if the case goes to court, the council will “just end up wasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds of council taxpayers’ money,” adding: “We will win if it goes to court.”

But then he would f***ing say that, wouldn’t he, the w*****.

More details here.