There was a 2011 ruling in England where the judge said that officers were so regularly on the receiving end of the "rather commonplace" expletive that it was unlikely to cause them "harassment, alarm or distress".

The Met continues to arrest people for swearing at police as they rejected the ruling. I know that Police Scotland continue to arrest people for swearing at police but I'm not sure how/if it has affected forces in England and Wales. At the time it was reported that the precedent could likely quash any future charges in similar circumstances.

They tried to include horses too, although the case was dropped: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/46060...

There's 2011 advice provided to the Met which says that courts are unlikely to convict because officers are assumed to be robust: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15816761

It's probably a bad idea to direct insults at officers (because no-one likes being called a fucking facist wanker) and results will vary by location.

>twice

I'm not sure, but I think that after the first time the officer should say "don't use that language at me" and therefore probably tells the citizen that they are causing harassment and distress. Then if they continue to do it, after the warning, it becomes an offence. So perhaps it should be "continues to use offensive language after a warning about the language has been given".

There is no such thing as a "Beamtenbeleidigung" in Germany, though it is a quite common myth. People in office enjoy no special rights in that regard. There is a difference, though, in the law process. Insults as a criminal offense need a personal demand for a penalty to warrant persecution by the state. For people in office, this can be replaced by a substitution demand by the state, supposedly to warrant respect for office in general.

Then, there isn't a catalogue for insults and their penalty. That's because criminal law in Germany is driven by the idea that the thing to be penalised is the individual guilt, rather than an objective action. This has a lot of consequences, one of them being that your action is weighted by what you wanted when doing the potentially criminal action, i.e. the intent.