The Metropolis

No Sex Please, We're Chelsea: Little Black Gallery gets raided for its front-window display

Alison Banville | Tuesday 1 June, 2010 22:30

And what was his verdict? From his follow-up letter to gallery director Ghislain Pascal we learn Flynn concluded that the work ‘Tite Street’ appears to show a man having rear entry sex with a woman who is ‘bent double and not wearing any knickers.’—why does the word knickers sound so amusing when used in an official capacity? The inspector could have used the far less ‘seaside-postcard’ word ‘underwear’ but no, Flynn had knickers on his mind. He then recommended the offending image be removed as it was clearly visible from the street and Mr Pascal was warned he ‘might be committing an offence under Section 4A or Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.’ ‘Might’? That’s a bit vague and wishy-washy isn’t it? We never heard Harry Callahan telling the punk staring down the barrel of his magnum that he ‘might’ have given him cause to ‘make (his) day’. Why such ambiguity?
Well, the Public Order Act happens to be rather notorious. Civil liberties campaigners have long complained that its vagueness of definition and sanction for individual officers to use their discretion in any case mean that it has been widely abused, most commonly in the area of public protest. Both sections quoted deal with causing ‘harassment, alarm or distress’ by indulging in behaviour which is ‘threatening, abusive or insulting.’ It has been observed over the years by those attending protests that most police officers quote the ‘distress’ part claiming that passers-by are swooning with shock at a ‘peace’ placard or some such and moving people on under threat of arrest.

In this particluar case, Flynn’s letter highlights the fact that it is up to him, as an individual, if the photograph in question is offensive. ‘Might’ means… well, he hasn’t quite made up his mind. He ‘might’ have to come and have another look. If Flynn happens to be religiously devout he may consider it his moral duty to protect us from such sin. If, on the other hand, he’s a swinger or a dogger on his days off he might let it go. To be clear then; if Inspector Flynn is personally offended then an offence has been committed – if he rather likes the pic then no criminal activity has occured. The law—great isn’t it!

We may feel that Flynn is basically a decent copper who hasn’t come down as hard as he could have in this instance—after all the gallery is in the vicinity of a primary school as he pointed out. But that’s not the issue is it? No policeman, decent or corrupt, should be handed this kind of power. Whether it is used to erode the right to protest (as many believe the act was intended to do) or whether it is wielded by an individual bobby to criminalise anyone who doesn’t share his subjective tastes.
The gallery did not comply with Inspector Flynn’s request, and no more has been heard from him. Perhaps he can’t decide if he’s offended or not? And perhaps, in this case, the principle of challenging unjust legislation overrides the possibility of someone who is easily offended seeing a woman without her knickers?

---