• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

People Are Entitled to Private Conversations – If They Don’t Offend, Says Minister

by Will Jones
16 April 2025 7:30 PM

People are entitled to hold private conversations in pubs, provided they don’t offend staff and make them feel “unsafe”, Government Minister Lilian Greenwood has said, as she defended Labour’s ‘banter ban’. The Times has more.

Lilian Greenwood, a Transport Minister, said it was an “exaggeration” to say that the rules in the Employment Rights Bill could threaten pubs with closure. She added it was “about getting the balance” between free speech and workers’ rights.

The equalities watchdog has told the Government that measures in Labour’s workers’ rights overhaul could “disproportionately curtail” freedom of expression and be applied to “overheard conversations”.

Ministers have proposed that employers must protect workers from being harassed at work by “third parties” such as customers or clients. If they fail to do so they could be sued.

Lord Young of Acton, a Conservative peer, has tabled a number of amendments that would stop pub and university bosses having to ensure their staff were not subject to harassment by overhearing opinions they did not agree with.

Young, the founder of the Free Speech Union, said that the way the law was drafted would mean an employee could take offence on behalf of another member of staff, even if he or she did not hear the comments made.

His amendments to the bill would exempt opinions on political, moral, religious or social matters from the law as long as that opinion was not “indecent or grossly offensive”.

Greenwood told Times Radio: “People would expect to be able to have private conversations, but that has to be done in a way that isn’t going to affect the rights of other people to work in a safe and secure environment.”

Worth reading in full.

Tags: Banter banCancel CultureCensorshipEmployment Rights BillFree SpeechLabourLilian GreenwoodPubs

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Over £275,000 of Unwanted Electric Cars Dumped on Roadside in Nottingham

Next Post

News Round-Up

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

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.

41 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tyrbiter
Tyrbiter
1 month ago

There is no right not to be offended.

Write out 1,000 lines.

35
0
JXB
JXB
1 month ago
Reply to  Tyrbiter

Not enough: 1 000 000 000 lines.

Last edited 1 month ago by JXB
2
0
MajorMajor
MajorMajor
1 month ago

“People are perfectly entitled to discuss any of the approved subjects as long as they reach the prescribed conclusions”, said Lilian Greenwood.

27
0
Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
1 month ago
Reply to  MajorMajor

Like Climate is controlled by atmospheric Carbon (Dioxide) concentrations, you can Tax to Prosperity, Strength originates from Diversity, in Everything except Thought, and the EU is our Best Friend.

Got it?

21
0
Claphamanian
Claphamanian
1 month ago

Only an ‘exaggeration’; not mistaken to assert such.

‘Unsafe’ being the equivalent of ‘without danger’. In other words, ‘danger’ is a constant state inherent in free speech. Law relating to slander assume that the normal state of free speech is safety, not unsafety.

6
0
Claphamanian
Claphamanian
1 month ago

Who will keep us safe from Government?

19
0
RW
RW
1 month ago
Reply to  Claphamanian

Make that this government because it’s the one acting hic et nunc.

4
0
RW
RW
1 month ago

She added it was “about getting the balance” between free speech and workers’ rights.

There is no such balance. If ‘workers’ have right to demand that other must not talk about things they don’t like, free speech has been abolished in favour of “workers” (or rather, their unions) dictating what other must and must not say to each other.

Greenwood simply states the she wants freedom of speech to be abolished but tries to camouflage that with some hand-waiving about supposed ‘victims’ of free speech. The notion is supposedly intended to mirror the evidence-free babbling about secondary smoke. There’s also secondary free speech which may be harmful to innocent ‘workers’ forced to listen to it, y’know, and their employers must obviously be saddled with a duty of care to prevent that.

Last edited 1 month ago by RW
22
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
1 month ago

“People are entitled to hold private conversations in pubs…”

Oh, Mrs Greenwood thank you so much, we are truly grateful. Can I buy you a drink? I’m not offending you am I? Please…?

15
0
transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Buy her a drink???? I wouldn’t piss on her if she was on fire – to use an expression I learned in one of my first workplaces (I wasn’t offended…).

21
0
Tyrbiter
Tyrbiter
1 month ago
Reply to  transmissionofflame

Too right.

6
0
RichardTechnik
RichardTechnik
1 month ago
Reply to  transmissionofflame

the full version is ” I wouldn’t cross the street to piss on her if she was on fire ” (My first job in the Merchant Navy – I was amused )

11
0
transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  RichardTechnik

I too was amused and thanks for the full version – clearly the Merchant Navy provides an excellent education for life!

5
0
Mogwai
Mogwai
1 month ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

I’d be offended if I found some rude twat not only eavesdropping on my private conversation but then going and snitching to ‘teacher’, like a right sneaky arseweasel. But that’s just me, and I’m obviously an anomaly like that.😳

Also, many comments could be taken out of context. What if the Landlord only heard the part where I said “…a face that could turn milk sour and an arse like a Massey Ferguson” and he thinks I’m referring to his chonky wife behind the bar but I was actually talking about my cat I’ve just put on a diet? It’s all too easy to get the wrong end of the stick and jump to conclusions when you’re privy to only part of the dialogue.

18
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
1 month ago
Reply to  Mogwai

But surely you realised I was being sarcastic Mogs?

2
0
Mogwai
Mogwai
1 month ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Course, lol.

3
0
Tyrbiter
Tyrbiter
1 month ago
Reply to  Mogwai

I assume your cat is instructing his learned friends.

6
0
JXB
JXB
1 month ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Hemlock & tonic?

0
0
Gezza England
Gezza England
1 month ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

So Mrs Greenwood, does being a moron come naturally or do you have to work at it?

0
0
Jeff Chambers
Jeff Chambers
1 month ago

The marxo-fascist haters of our society and us want us gone from our country. But to achieve our destruction they have first to shut us up. The madleft has been working on the project to silence wicked whitie for almost thirty years. Hence the lastest madleft “wheeze”: the attempt to control what we can say in places where we gather with friends and strangers.

6
0
transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  Jeff Chambers

I would say it goes back more than 30 years. The first Race Relations Act was in the 60s wasn’t it?

3
0
Tyrbiter
Tyrbiter
1 month ago
Reply to  transmissionofflame

1965 by the first Wilson government which also pushed through a second such act in 1968.

The slang name for the 50p piece was a Wilson, 7-sided and 2-faced.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tyrbiter
5
0
Jeff Chambers
Jeff Chambers
1 month ago
Reply to  transmissionofflame

I see your point, but I think the decision to replace us dates from the 1980s – when the Labour Party stopped being interested in the white working class, and while the British people kept refusing to elect the Labour Party into government.

5
0
transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  Jeff Chambers

Possibly that was a key moment, but was it not a Labour government that started mass immigration after the war, and a Labour government that passed the 1965, 1968 and 1976 acts which were surely an attempt to force the British people to accept something that many of them did not want.

6
0
NeilParkin
NeilParkin
1 month ago
Reply to  transmissionofflame

True, but with almost full employment and a booming economy, a certain amount of immigration was highly valuable. On the topic of steel, a lot of Somali’s came to work in the steel industry, and people from across the Commonwealth started to come here for better opportunities. At the time I think all peoples of the Empire were ‘British Subjects of the Queen’, and held British Passports, an open door, closed far too late. I believe it well known that after sailing from Jamaica, there were many diplomatic efforts to stop the Windrush from landing here.

0
0
transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  NeilParkin

I’m not at all convinced that immigration at large scale is ever “highly valuable” – especially into a country like ours with outstanding human capital to start with. Temporary solutions have a habit of becoming permanent, and any short term gain is outweighed by the huge damage. Furthermore, economy is not the only measure of value. But yes, I think they were subjects of the Queen (or King).

2
0
EppingBlogger
EppingBlogger
1 month ago

Well that’s big of her.

Shame the new legislation will endanger the speaker as well as e,mployer’s whose staff might overhear such intended private conversations.

Of course, she does not really mean it because many conversations which are or intended to be private are subject to arrest in the UK. It is worse than in Chile except people here are not yet disappearing, except into prison for nothing more than misjudgements caused by anger and frustration with the Government.

8
0
Mrs.Croc
Mrs.Croc
1 month ago

What is this country coming to

6
0
WillP
WillP
1 month ago

God how did we end up with these repulsive mediocrities running western civilisation?

11
0
Tyrbiter
Tyrbiter
1 month ago
Reply to  WillP

By abdicating responsibility and letting those that turned up run things.

2
0
coviture2020
coviture2020
1 month ago

Well we all know what exaggeration means don’t we?

3
0
RTSC
RTSC
1 month ago

Free speech IS the right to offend.

This woman is in favour of censorship based on someone declaring they’re offended, and that makes her a tyrant.

9
0
Mogwai
Mogwai
1 month ago
Reply to  RTSC

”Free speech IS the right to offend.”

Precisely. But there’s plenty of people on here who demonstrably disagree with this basic principle, as evidenced by their behaviour. Otherwise they wouldn’t attempt to shut down or censor other people’s posts by complaining about the content or length, for instance, all because they’re triggered by somebody’s opinion that doesn’t align with theirs. I would suggest that if people on here cannot respect other posters exercising their rights to freedom of speech then they’re evidently on the wrong website. It would appear that many do not have the basic ability to ‘scroll on by’ and ignore a post that they find offensive and this is where hypocrisy is evident. When push comes to shove, there’s many people that don’t practice what they preach.

8
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
1 month ago
Reply to  Mogwai

Seconded 👍

3
0
deepbee
deepbee
1 month ago

The proposal leaves issues with “indecent or grossly offensive”. Are these clearly defined? I don’t understand why these are left as wrongspeak.

0
0
Purpleone
Purpleone
1 month ago
Reply to  deepbee

And that’s exactly why we should have absolute free speech – no need to define anything, which by nature will always be open to interpretation and legal shenanigans

0
0
Hester
Hester
1 month ago

These people are like programmed robots, they are sub and inhuman, they have zero empathy or knowledge of humans they treat us like circus animals. I think all Politicians should be banned, and we should just have people who run the basic infrastructure across the country, but who have no say over how we think, what we do or say. Lets face it Politicians are mostly as thick as mince and go into the business because they can’t get on anywhere else, they know zero about the office they hold and so have to rely on unelected quangos.
Life would be better if the population looked at each department of infrastructure for example the Police, roads, etc asked for Tenders from various companies to run those things in their area,provided specifications etc and then each company had to make detailed presentations and costings, the public would then vote for which providers they wanted to run the operation for 5 years.
This surely is a better solution than the bunch of fools we have “running” things at present.
I despair they can’t run a country to ensure its borders are safe, its infrastructure works, and facilitates wealth growth, but they want to mess with our bodies and minds.
its not working the current system has had its day

Last edited 1 month ago by Hester
1
0
Pete Sutton
Pete Sutton
1 month ago

Can’t publicans drum into potential bar staff that if they can’t pt up wth lively, robust conversations, it’s not the job for them.

3
0
Howard Arnaud
Howard Arnaud
1 month ago

Just another Labour assault on the white working class (which they hate).

They want to shut down the pubs because that’s where people (especially white men) congregate, and who knows, might even talk politics there, and possibly even realise the Party they thought they gave birth to is hell-bent on destroying them and their country.

1
0
JXB
JXB
1 month ago

If they are private conversations how will anyone else be involved?

Eavesdropping on others is quite impolite.

How is anyone to know what might “cause offence “ to an eavesdropper?

The rule of law means that laws are written to ensure people can know when they are committing one.

Since it is impossible to know what will offend an eavesdropper which some eavesdroppers might find “offensive” others not, then it is impossible to guard against an act of commission which breaches the law.

The only guard, is not to speak freely – self-censorship. This is the most insidious form of censorship used popular with tyrants and authoritarian regimes.

There is no Right not to be offended.

1
0
JXB
JXB
1 month ago

Equal Rights means just that! Equal!

There can be no such thing as workers’ Rights, women’s Rights, Gay Rights, etc as that explicitly means the Rights of some supersede the Common Law Rights of others, and therefore the principle of equal Rights falls.

It is a fundamental principle of Common Law that the Rights of one person may not be enjoyed at the expense of the Rights of another: A’s Right to swing his fist stops where B’s nose starts.

Freedom of speech is limited ONLY by its use for the incitement of others to hatred and violence – which has to be proven in a Court of Law, not assumed.

And who decides what is indecent and grossly offensive? Most of what we see and hear these days was grossly offensive and indecent last century.

Last edited 1 month ago by JXB
2
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

The Sceptic EP.37: David Frost on Starmer’s EU Surrender, James Price on Broken Britain and David Shipley on Lucy Connolly’s Failed Appeal

by Richard Eldred
23 May 2025
6

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Doctor Who Star Ncuti Gatwa “Axed” and BBC Show to be “Put on Pause” Amid Falling Ratings and Woke Storylines

23 May 2025
by Will Jones

Spanish Scientists “Were Experimenting with How Far They Could Push Renewable Energy” Before Countrywide Blackout

23 May 2025
by Will Jones

We Were Too Polite to Stop the Woke Takeover

23 May 2025
by Mary Gilleece

News Round-Up

24 May 2025
by Toby Young

Trump Slaps 50% Tariffs on EU – as He Tells Starmer to Get Drilling for Oil

23 May 2025
by Will Jones

Trump Slaps 50% Tariffs on EU – as He Tells Starmer to Get Drilling for Oil

31

We Were Too Polite to Stop the Woke Takeover

26

News Round-Up

24

Spanish Scientists “Were Experimenting with How Far They Could Push Renewable Energy” Before Countrywide Blackout

20

Doctor Who Star Ncuti Gatwa “Axed” and BBC Show to be “Put on Pause” Amid Falling Ratings and Woke Storylines

30

Do Researchers’ Views on Immigration Affect the Results of Their Studies?

24 May 2025
by Noah Carl

Starmer’s EU Reset Tethers the UK to the EU’s Green Dystopia

24 May 2025
by Tilak Doshi

We Were Too Polite to Stop the Woke Takeover

23 May 2025
by Mary Gilleece

The Tweets Cited by the Judge to ‘Prove’ Lucy Connolly is “Racist” Do Nothing of the Sort

23 May 2025
by Laurie Wastell

Starmer Has No Intention of Cutting Immigration

22 May 2025
by Joe Baron

POSTS BY DATE

April 2025
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  
« Mar   May »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

POSTS BY DATE

April 2025
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  
« Mar   May »

DONATE

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Doctor Who Star Ncuti Gatwa “Axed” and BBC Show to be “Put on Pause” Amid Falling Ratings and Woke Storylines

23 May 2025
by Will Jones

Spanish Scientists “Were Experimenting with How Far They Could Push Renewable Energy” Before Countrywide Blackout

23 May 2025
by Will Jones

We Were Too Polite to Stop the Woke Takeover

23 May 2025
by Mary Gilleece

News Round-Up

24 May 2025
by Toby Young

Trump Slaps 50% Tariffs on EU – as He Tells Starmer to Get Drilling for Oil

23 May 2025
by Will Jones

Trump Slaps 50% Tariffs on EU – as He Tells Starmer to Get Drilling for Oil

31

We Were Too Polite to Stop the Woke Takeover

26

News Round-Up

24

Spanish Scientists “Were Experimenting with How Far They Could Push Renewable Energy” Before Countrywide Blackout

20

Doctor Who Star Ncuti Gatwa “Axed” and BBC Show to be “Put on Pause” Amid Falling Ratings and Woke Storylines

30

Do Researchers’ Views on Immigration Affect the Results of Their Studies?

24 May 2025
by Noah Carl

Starmer’s EU Reset Tethers the UK to the EU’s Green Dystopia

24 May 2025
by Tilak Doshi

We Were Too Polite to Stop the Woke Takeover

23 May 2025
by Mary Gilleece

The Tweets Cited by the Judge to ‘Prove’ Lucy Connolly is “Racist” Do Nothing of the Sort

23 May 2025
by Laurie Wastell

Starmer Has No Intention of Cutting Immigration

22 May 2025
by Joe Baron

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences