Angela Rayner must not cave in to critics such as Nigel Farage over her pub banter crackdown, a union chief has said, saying they are just protecting “their right to be offensive”. The Telegraph has more.
Paul Nowak, the head of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), has urged the Deputy Prime Minister to stand firm in her bid to protect workers from third-party harassment, which forms a key part of her Employment Rights Bill.
That is despite critics arguing that it will encourage people to “sue for hurt feelings”.
Mr Nowak argued that critics such as Mr Farage, who have attacked Ms Rayner’s workers’ rights reforms, are just protecting “their right to be offensive”.
While calling on pub landlords to back the Bill, the TUC boss argued that the third-party harassment clause will not mean monitoring conversations.
He said: “I love going to the pub as much as anyone but I don’t think that the thought police are going to descend on Britain’s pubs.”
His comments come after the Government was warned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) that proposals forcing employers to protect staff from “third parties” could apply to “overheard conversations” among pubgoers.
The protections are set to be introduced under Ms Rayner’s Employment Rights Bill, which is a keystone of Labour’s so-called New Deal for Working People.
Concerns over the Bill were also raised in the House of Lords during a second reading last month.
Lord Young told peers that he was worried it would “accelerate the erasure of the good old British pub”, while Lord Strathcarron called it an “Alice in Wonderland” clause that would “satisfy the whims of the ever-changing, latest version of group think”.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Off-T
Ben Habib launches the Integrity Party.
https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fx.com%2FGSGB01%2Fstatus%2F1911689649740775448%3AZxDNhXr1Z-aBeBIwYOY2E2pjJcg&cuid=7594221
The Peoples Popular Front of Judea, you say.? Now he can agree with himself all day long.
Splitter!
I wouldn’t rely on that.
Just the thing to do to ensure the insurgent party stumbles just as it is about to achieve a remarkable result in the local elections and the by election. I wonder how that could help achieve the aims Mr Habib claims to stand for.
I have not passed comment one way or the other.
Isn’t that microagression Huxley?
Boom
Yes I saw that too. Has Rupert Lowe also joined them? Meanwhile, they’ve got this 2min vid pinned to their page of Farage being very duplicitous and flip-flopping all over the place;
”We thought Farage was on our side, a man of principle, a man of the people… We won’t get fooled again. It is @RupertLowe10
who is going to take this country forward, who will restore what has been lost from British politics… Integrity. Together, we can rebuild Britain.”
https://x.com/Integrity_pol/status/1909963724829360480
Given his education and business career, Farage is a man of the establishment. So was Cromwell. The latter was never a man of the people. The latter were only likely to be represented by the Levellers.
What rock number can we expect at Integrity’s conference? The Who – ‘Won’t get fooled again’?
Just what’s needed for integrity in country, another blinking political party.
Dear Man of Clap. At least Cromwell decapitated the useless Head of State, who certainly wasn’t a man of the people.
Who puts the grit into integrity?
The white column in Integrity’s logo seems, rather clumsily, to be coloured as the flag of St George? It’s not an English nationalist party is it?
I haven’t passed a comment one way or another, simply reporting News.
I skimmed the website and the manifesto. Looks like pretty dire stuff.
Yes, but he didn’t write that. The party has been in existence for a while under different ownership/leadership. Give him some time to update the website, change it from a Limited Company and get good people onboard. I believe he will do this. If he doesn’t, then he can’t be trusted either.
I guess we will see. At the moment it looks like Blue Labour to me. More Big Government policies. Not keen.
Worth reviewing the common definition of a Political Party, perhaps? https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zxnwkty and others.
He hasn’t launched it – it has been in existence for a while. He has taken it over. I presume the website will be updated in the next few weeks and he will convert it from a Limited Company to a proper, member driven political party.
Of course people should be able to sue for hurt feelings… just limit the top award to £50 and see how many can be bothered.
How does one prove hurt feelings?
If I accuse someone of stealing, I’ll have to prove it right? If I accuse them of assault, battery, whatever, you have to come up with some compelling proof.
How do you prove hurt feelings. Or more importantly how do you know the person who claims to have his feelings hurt isn’t making it up, using it to attack someone?
It’s literally impossible.
And how everyone doesn’t understand this and laugh the whole notion of offensiveness as a crime is simply beyond me.
Perhaps you should punch them in the face just to make sure they are hurt?
When they get legal aid and can sue in class actions even £50 might be expensive for the target.
“Offence is taken, never given”.
I’d be bankrupt if all the people that have gotten bent out of shape with my unapologetic opinions over the years sued me.
Yes that’s right. It’s essential to protect the right to be offensive.
If not, then i’ll claim that what this person is saying is offensive. To me. Prove me wrong.
And then what, we all accuse each other of being offensive and that leaves us where?
Goddam idiot. Or worse, goddam would-be tyrant.
Yes that’s right. It’s essential to protect the right to be offensive.
Indeed. Assuming that I state “I’m German” some people are going to find that offensive because they don’t like foreigners in general and some other people because they specifically don’t like Germans. I have had somewhat heated conversations because of both in the past.
I’ve also – in the past – at least once told some woman behind a bar that I thought her name was a very beautiful one. This was meant as a perfectly harmless compliment but apparently, she had chosen to feel harassed because of this.
Looks like Farage will be used as the pantomime villain for UK based issues where using Trump won’t do.
Will it hurt him or help him (as it has Trump)?
Possibly as with Trump most people’s minds are already made up. I tend to think that ultimately this kind of constant obvious overreach will backfire on the left. But of course Trump had a lot more support to start with – the USA seems to have a natural conservative majority or at least a solid 50%. Much less in the UK where six million people voted for the Fake Conservatives. This new “Integrity” party seems like more of the same.
”the TUC boss argued that the third-party harassment clause will not mean monitoring conversations.
He said: “I love going to the pub as much as anyone but I don’t think that the thought police are going to descend on Britain’s pubs.”
Stupid man the thought police are descending on people’s homes already, this just gives them Carte Blanche to go anywhere.
How can it apply without “monitoring conversations”?
Exactly.
I would ban this ar#ehole from public places on the grounds that his presence was likely to cause offence to other customers.
Sorted.
A wise landlord would be on the lookout for this w#nker and ban him as he comes through the door. Take offence at that Nowak.
There is no Right not to be offended.
There is no objective way to define “offence” therefore since we allegedly have the rule of law, no legislation can be written to define objectively what “offence” is and when it occurs.
Offence is a reaction, not an action.
Or, offence is taken, not given.
You mean like “..just words, innit” vs “Give it a rest”?
I find it’s always best to have the courage of your convictions and stay consistent when it comes to one’s stance on freedom of speech. But that’s just me being a principled person.
Dear Mr Nowak,
I am deeply offended by what you say.
Regards
MAk
P.S. Before you push for the creation of any law to hurt your enemies today, imagine your enemies using it against YOU when they get into power tomorrow.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
Indeed. Laws should be good. And all equal under those laws, devil and the rest of us.
But above all, the fewer laws the better. Otherwise, at the very least, they will all begin to contradict each other… which, I fear, is a predicament we already live in.
You’re offending me with your infantile viewpoint. Who do I get in touch with to complain about you, Paul Nowak?
Filthy communist. Anti human freedom scumbag. The civil war can’t come soon enough.
Don’t offensive people have rights too.
“I love going to the pub as much as anyone but I don’t think that the thought police are going to descend on Britain’s pubs.”
Ofcourse not brother!