**Council Leader Defends Common Use of Swearing Amid Scrutiny of Public Space Behaviour Ban**
In the wake of controversial headlines, Thanet District Council’s leadership has clarified its position on a newly introduced Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), assuring residents that the use of casual expletives will not be subject to penalties. This comes after a wave of media reports suggesting Thanet intended to ban swearing outright, a depiction council members have firmly rejected.
The debate intensified after national coverage misrepresented the council’s move, with articles accusing Thanet of an overzealous crackdown on language in public spaces. Speaking at a recent cabinet meeting held in Margate, councillors expressed their frustrations over what they called “misleading” portrayals of the order. Labour councillor Heather Keen addressed the issue head-on, arguing that the true purpose of the PSPO has been lost amidst attention-grabbing headlines.
“The new protection order recognises seven specific behaviours that are not permitted in public spaces,” Councillor Keen explained. “The idea that all swearing is banned is simply not true. Restrictions are limited to situations where foul or abusive language leads to harassment, alarm, or distress to others. Everyday or casual swearing isn’t targeted.”
Thanet’s PSPO isn’t unique, with comparable regulations in place in Canterbury, Dartford, and elsewhere across England. Initially adopted in 2018, Thanet’s order recently underwent review following difficulties in renewing its conditions last summer. At that time, threats of legal action emerged, prompting a fresh assessment and broader public consultation.
A significant factor in the PSPO’s revision stemmed from objections raised by local residents. Concerns included fears that vague language could result in undue penalties, particularly for young people and minority communities. Some voiced apprehension that the phrase “causing distress” might be interpreted in a way that suppresses peaceful protest and free expression in public arenas. According to Ms Keen, the council’s latest consultations have demonstrated robust public backing for the revised guidelines, with most respondents supporting all stipulated measures.
The leader of the council, Rick Everitt, openly criticised the accuracy of some media coverage—specifically calling out a report on KentOnline. “The resulting storm of misinformation across the news was built on a fundamentally dishonest narrative,” Everitt asserted. He indicated that important nuances in the PSPO’s intent and application were overlooked, exaggerating the council’s stance on public speech.
Further complications surfaced when the Free Speech Union (FSU), an organisation known for challenging forms of perceived ‘cancel culture’, weighed in on the PSPO. The FSU had previously threatened a judicial review and branded the order “absurd,” arguing it stifled free speech in its entirety.
Despite these critiques, Labour councillor Helen Whitehead pushed back, distinguishing between the right to express oneself and the abuse of others. “Freedom of speech does not extend to harassing or abusing people,” Whitehead stated, underscoring the protective aim behind the PSPO.
After extensive deliberation, the cabinet resolved to bring the new order into effect, confident that it upholds the community’s wishes while safeguarding public spaces. Discussions at the meeting made it clear that, despite the controversy, the council aimed to strike a balance between upholding free expression and deterring genuinely harmful behaviour.
As Thanet prepares to implement its revised PSPO, officials emphasise that the measure is designed to maintain civility without encroaching on personal freedoms. Casual swearing among friends and in everyday situations, they say, is not the target. Instead, the focus rests squarely on behaviour that causes distress and upsets the public order, reflecting community priorities after months of consultation.
The debate serves as a reminder of the complexity involved in legislating for public decorum. While the story has provoked national discussion on the balance between freedom and protection, Thanet’s case demonstrates the importance of clear communication and careful engagement with those most affected by such policies.