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.
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.
There is no right not to be offended.
Write out 1,000 lines.
Not enough: 1 000 000 000 lines.
“People are perfectly entitled to discuss any of the approved subjects as long as they reach the prescribed conclusions”, said Lilian Greenwood.
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?
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.
Who will keep us safe from Government?
Make that this government because it’s the one acting hic et nunc.
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.
“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…?
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…).
Too right.
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 )
I too was amused and thanks for the full version – clearly the Merchant Navy provides an excellent education for life!
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.
But surely you realised I was being sarcastic Mogs?
Course, lol.
I assume your cat is instructing his learned friends.
Hemlock & tonic?
So Mrs Greenwood, does being a moron come naturally or do you have to work at it?
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.
I would say it goes back more than 30 years. The first Race Relations Act was in the 60s wasn’t it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
What is this country coming to
God how did we end up with these repulsive mediocrities running western civilisation?
By abdicating responsibility and letting those that turned up run things.
Well we all know what exaggeration means don’t we?
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.
”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.
Seconded
The proposal leaves issues with “indecent or grossly offensive”. Are these clearly defined? I don’t understand why these are left as wrongspeak.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.