Human rights campaigners have slammed town hall bosses for proposing a ban on SWEARING in a town centre.

People could be handed an on-the-spot fine for foul language as part of a wide-ranging crackdown on anti-social behaviour in Rochdale.

Council chiefs are proposing a Public Space Protection Order which could see anyone caught ‘using foul and abusive language’ warned, moved on or fined - to stop 'a small minority spoiling it' for the rest of the town.

The proposal, in its early stages, has been criticised by human rights group Liberty, who say it would be 'a staggering misuse of power' which would 'unjustifiably curb the rights and freedoms of Rochdale residents'.

Begging, playing loud music, loudly revving car engines, street drinking, ‘chuggers’ - unauthorised charity collectors - and skateboarding could also be banned under the move, while under-18s could be barred from the town centre between 11pm and 6am.

A council report states the order is needed to clamp down on a ‘concentration’ of anti-social behaviour and says it will give police and council officers the ‘powers of enforcement needed to make our community a safer, more pleasant place’.

But human rights campaign group Liberty say the PSPO would be a ‘staggering misuse of power’.

Laraten Caten, legal officer for Liberty, said: “These proposals would unjustifiably curb the rights and freedoms of Rochdale residents.

“The swearing ban is so vaguely defined it would prove impossible for anyone to know whether they were breaking the law or not, while a blanket ban on begging will criminalise some of the most vulnerable people in the town.”

But council leader Richard Farnell said the order was needed to ensure a ‘small minority didn’t spoil it for everyone’.

He added: “There have been instances, particularly with people who have been drinking, who have been shouting and swearing aggressively at shoppers.

“When you are shopping with your children, that’s the last thing you want. It’s already a public order offence, but the police have limited resources so we want to give council officers the powers to help them with incidents like this.

“We’re investing £250m in our town centre and we are doing everything in our power to create a vibrant, family-friendly and attractive place for everyone.

“We are also putting measures in place to help homeless and vulnerable people, by directing them to services such as homeless charity Petrus, so it’s not just about moving them on.

“But I must stress that this is at the very early stages of consultation. We’re not ruling anything in or out at this stage. Now we want to have a grown-up discussion to see if these are the right measures.”

In January Last year Salford council was accused of ‘breaching the right to freedom of expression’ by Liberty after introducing a similar swearing ban at Salford Quays.

Residents and workers in the town had mixed reactions to the proposed ban when asked by the M.E.N.

Julie Walmsley, 52, said: “I don’t agree with swearing in public. It's okay if you’re in your own home or with people you know, but if you swear in public and there’s children around you should have the right to say ‘tone it down a bit’ which I would do.”

Alan Bowker, 52, said: “I’ve lived here all my life and you do hear a lot of bad language, especially with the young kids.

“I’ve got respect for my elders and don’t agree with it.

“But I think it’s got a lot better. In the seventies it was effing this, and effing that.

“There’s a lot less of it now. But I don’t see how you can ban in, it’s part of the English language.”

But others questioned how it would be enforced.

Erica Dawson, 35, said: “I just don’t know how they’re going to police it. It’s one thing effing and blinding all the time, but we all swear and I certainly wouldn’t appreciate being fined for it.”

Lewis Taylor, 20, said: “I don’t think it will work. It’s like banning bikes or something which they’ve tried before.

“I think at the end of the day it has the opposite effect and just gives people more reason to do it.”