Councils Ban Swearing Under New Powers

Published: 29 April 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

A growing number of local authorities across England and Wales are enforcing strict new bans. Recent reports indicate that one in every five councils now prohibits swearing in public spaces. This figure marks a significant rise from one in twenty councils recorded back in 2022. Critics are now describing these increasingly common measures as intrusive and unfair busybody fines. The Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life recently released a detailed study regarding these orders. Their extensive research highlights how Public Spaces Protection Orders are changing our daily public life. These specific orders were originally designed to tackle serious instances of harmful anti-social behavior. However, councils now appear to be using them to criminalize a wide range of activities. Citizens may now face penalties for simply standing in groups or shouting in public. Some areas have even introduced bans against picking up loose stones from the ground. Josie Appleton serves as the director for this influential group tracking these worrying trends. She argues that these councils are introducing a swathe of truly bizarre new bans. Such regulations threaten to turn ordinary and peaceful people into completely unwitting local criminals. Appleton notes that councils use these orders to define any activity with detrimental effects. These powers allow them to restrict anything they judge harmful to the quality of life. The report reveals that councils have introduced over one thousand brand new local laws. Each of these specific orders can contain dozens of separate and very strict restrictions. Furthermore, these orders are often not subject to any meaningful democratic or legal scrutiny. They can be introduced by a single unelected council officer without any public debate. These restrictive measures do not even require the formal assent of the full council. The research involved freedom of information requests sent to three hundred and nineteen different councils. An impressive two hundred and seventy-one councils responded to the survey with valid data. The findings show that ninety-one percent of these councils have active protection orders today. Thirteen councils have even placed strict and controversial restrictions on the feeding of birds. One unfortunate woman in Harrow was even arrested for this activity earlier this year. Penalties associated with these orders are currently sitting at an all-time high level today. Records show that twenty-five thousand fines were issued to the public throughout the year 2025. A large majority of these penalties come from private companies hired by the councils. These firms are paid per fine and have clear incentives to issue many tickets. Appleton stated that this profit motive creates a perverse incentive for these private enforcement teams.

The government currently intends to raise these fines from one hundred to five hundred pounds. This change will occur when the new crime and policing bill passes through parliament. The House of Lords attempted to ban fining for profit within these specific orders. Although the government rejected those amendments, they agreed to update the relevant statutory guidance. Councils introduced a total of one thousand two hundred and sixty-eight new public orders. Each of these individual orders can contain up to thirty separate and restrictive rules. Guildford borough council has explicitly banned the act of intentionally shouting or even screaming. Picking up rocks is now strictly forbidden in certain parts of the Torbay area. Richmond upon Thames and Rugby have banned people from picking up soil or turf. Foraging for blackberries is also strictly prohibited within these specific council boundary zones today. Appleton argues that this research highlights cases used against activities that communities actually welcome. In the town of Bury, a young performer faced significant trouble with local police. Charlie Wilson is a well-known contestant from the popular show Britain’s Got Talent program. He was handcuffed and issued a penalty notice for simply busking on the street. Members of the public were gathering happily to watch and enjoy his musical performance. Wilson questioned the officers about whether cheering people up was actually a real crime. His experience reflects a growing tension between local enforcement officers and the local public. In Leicester, a political campaigner in her seventies was also targeted by this policy. She was among eight people told they would be fined for flying a flag. These individuals were campaigning in public without specific permission from the local council authorities. Activists report that obtaining this permission is often impossible in practical, everyday local life. Many of these orders place enormous discretion in the hands of individual council officers. They can essentially decide on the spot whether a person has broken the law. Several councils have now criminalized the vague act of causing public annoyance to others. This standard is incredibly subjective and could apply to almost any common human behavior. Some officials might find almost anything disagreeable if they choose to enforce it strictly. The town of Gosport prohibits sitting or loitering in a manner causing any public nuisance. This includes any action likely to cause harassment, alarm, distress, or annoyance to others. Lancaster city council bans groups of two or more from causing annoyance to neighbors. A spokesperson for the council claimed that their general approach is always considered proportionate. They stated that swearing or shouting are not specific criminal offenses in themselves today. Action is only taken where behavior causes genuine alarm or distress to other people. Despite these official defenses, many residents feel these measures are far too overly broad. The debate regarding the reach of local government powers continues to grow increasingly intense. Many citizens are calling for a national review of these restrictive and confusing laws. Freedom of expression and the right to congregate remain essential aspects of public life. The English Chronicle will continue to monitor these developments for our dedicated local readers.\

Check our latest news