Campaigners have threatened to drag a council to the High Court – potentially costing tens of thousands - unless it overhauls “anti-swearing” rules.

Thanet District Council (TDC) hoped to hit those using foul language in the pocket in perceived trouble “hot spots” such as Birchington, Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs.

But the Free Speech Union (FSU) revealed it is gearing up for Judicial Review proceedings, arguing the new public space protection order (PSPO) breaches human rights.

Activist Steven O’Grady told a TDC council meeting on Tuesday the FSU “means business” in challenging the “too vague and far too broad” new rules.

Yet in a war of words, councillors branded his remarks "intimidating” and, perhaps more strikingly, an act of “bullying”.

“The terms of PSPO cannot possibly meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights,” argued Mr O’Grady in TDC’s council chamber.

“They are far too vague and far too broad.

“People would not be able to, on seeing a prohibition on being pejorative, be able to determine for themselves what it means to be pejorative.

“That’s an entirely subjective requirement and we say it leaves far too much discretion on the part of enforcement officers.

“We’re very serious in our opposition to this order, we mean business with our letter and we intend to continue with our course of action.”

Under the PSPO, Thanet residents or visitors observed by council enforcement officers or police using offensive language in public could face £100 fines.

The rule came into force on July 31, only to be deactivated days later after the cabinet decision that passed it was ‘called in’ to be reconsidered by the TDC Overview & Scrutiny Panel.

In its current form, TDC’s order states: “All persons are prohibited from 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.”

Cllr Joanne Bright told the meeting she was in favour of the PSPO and found the FSU’s intervention “baffling” and a “waste of time”.

“I voted for this, I was confident with it because in my eyes, this is about limiting and dealing with antisocial behaviour, that we really, really need,” added the Labour representative for Beacon Road.

“It’s not about criminalising free speech at all.

“I also find it slightly intimidating that someone is coming in and is saying, ‘If you don’t approve this, then we’re going to take you to court about it.”

Cllr Phil Fellows (Con), who chaired the meeting, remarked: “We need a PSPO, but what we don’t want is a judicial review that’s going to cost £100,000 - that’s the position we’re in at the moment.”

The Green Party’s Rebecca Wing objected to what she described as “bullying” by the FSU.

“I do take exception to Mr O-Grady coming in here and saying there’s issues here, we shouldn’t have a blanket ban without evidencing his evidence on why we shouldn’t have a blanket ban,” said Cllr Wing.

“He clearly doesn’t live in the area.”

Aside from concerns of inaccuracy, Mr O’Grady also took issue with how TDC engaged in public consultation before rolling out the new policy.

He claimed the pubic was not given sufficient information about the proposal in order to form an informed opinion.

Councillor John Davis (Con) acknowledged the problems raised by FSU and called for the PSPO to be reconsidered by cabinet.

He said: “It cannot be democratic that a group of, let’s say, three people can have a silent demonstration can have a finger pointed at them - and that’s what this says - one individual can turn around and say ‘I don’t like that and it’s distressing me’ and that becomes an offence.”

After a lengthy debate - part of which took place in private with the public and press excluded - councillors voted unanimously to refer the matter back to cabinet, which will make the final call on if, or how, the PSPO should be rewritten.

Speaking after the meeting, Mr O’Grady added:” My intention was not to bully the councillors in any way - but perhaps the fact that they felt that illustrates the problem with reporting that doesn’t have any safeguard against individual perceptions. That is part of the problem with the PSPO - it’s all in the eye of the beholder.”

“We will be watching the outcome of the cabinet decision and will take next steps based on how it turns out.”