FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Speech
Jump to: Newest in thread
Under article 10 of the human rights act, in the UK you have the legal right to hold your own opinion and share that opinion with others, either in written form or verbally, including via the internet.
The government have the right to restrict or remove that right under certain circumstances. The most common being hate speech & national security.
But one other circumstance is to protect health. I’m gonna hazard a guess that the intention behind this to stop the spread of lies regarding medical treatments, vaccines etc. but what if your words cause anxiety?
Anxiety is a medical condition so causing anxiety could be deemed as impacting someone’s health. But anxiety is also impossible to prove. Anyone can claim something makes them anxious with no grounds and zero proof. A trip to your GP and a prescription for anxiety meds would probably be enough to satisfy a court.
With the police seemingly more interested in non crime hate incidents than they are r@pe gangs, and the government’s workers rights bill including the right to not have to hear anything you don’t like, is the future of free speech under threat? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Under article 10 of the human rights act, in the UK you have the legal right to hold your own opinion and share that opinion with others, either in written form or verbally, including via the internet.
The government have the right to restrict or remove that right under certain circumstances. The most common being hate speech & national security.
But one other circumstance is to protect health. I’m gonna hazard a guess that the intention behind this to stop the spread of lies regarding medical treatments, vaccines etc. but what if your words cause anxiety?
Anxiety is a medical condition so causing anxiety could be deemed as impacting someone’s health. But anxiety is also impossible to prove. Anyone can claim something makes them anxious with no grounds and zero proof. A trip to your GP and a prescription for anxiety meds would probably be enough to satisfy a court.
With the police seemingly more interested in non crime hate incidents than they are r@pe gangs, and the government’s workers rights bill including the right to not have to hear anything you don’t like, is the future of free speech under threat? "
What would the police in the UK do about Kanye West's latest video/song (to do with Hitler)...? Interesting conundrum for them.
(N**** Heil H*****) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Under article 10 of the human rights act, in the UK you have the legal right to hold your own opinion and share that opinion with others, either in written form or verbally, including via the internet.
The government have the right to restrict or remove that right under certain circumstances. The most common being hate speech & national security.
But one other circumstance is to protect health. I’m gonna hazard a guess that the intention behind this to stop the spread of lies regarding medical treatments, vaccines etc. but what if your words cause anxiety?
Anxiety is a medical condition so causing anxiety could be deemed as impacting someone’s health. But anxiety is also impossible to prove. Anyone can claim something makes them anxious with no grounds and zero proof. A trip to your GP and a prescription for anxiety meds would probably be enough to satisfy a court.
With the police seemingly more interested in non crime hate incidents than they are r@pe gangs, and the government’s workers rights bill including the right to not have to hear anything you don’t like, is the future of free speech under threat?
What would the police in the UK do about Kanye West's latest video/song (to do with Hitler)...? Interesting conundrum for them.
(N**** Heil H*****)"
Not a fan so can’t say I’ve heard it. A lot of rap lyrics contain the N word but they don’t broadcast them on the radio, I assume it’s the broadcasting that creates the crime |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
What would the police in the UK do about Kanye West's latest video/song (to do with Hitler)...? Interesting conundrum for them.
(N**** Heil H*****)
Not a fan so can’t say I’ve heard it. A lot of rap lyrics contain the N word but they don’t broadcast them on the radio, I assume it’s the broadcasting that creates the crime "
It was released yesterday and is... Hateful, if not hate speech. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
What would the police in the UK do about Kanye West's latest video/song (to do with Hitler)...? Interesting conundrum for them.
(N**** Heil H*****)
Not a fan so can’t say I’ve heard it. A lot of rap lyrics contain the N word but they don’t broadcast them on the radio, I assume it’s the broadcasting that creates the crime
It was released yesterday and is... Hateful, if not hate speech."
Just about anything can be called hateful these days tho, which is kinda why I asked the question.
“You’ve made me anxious so you’ve committed a crime”. Some people believe this to be the law and the police are acting upon these complaints.
I used to photograph university graduates and would often hear “I’m really anxious about the photos”. They came voluntarily so could hardly claim it way my fault they were anxious.
I guess the question is at what point should people be held responsible for keeping themselves away from stuff that makes them anxious and at what point should the police step in?
You can’t complain about hearing anti Israel speech at a Palestinian rally for example. But you see people arrested for counter protest for saying exactly the same things in a different place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.
I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.
So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
What would the police in the UK do about Kanye West's latest video/song (to do with Hitler)...? Interesting conundrum for them.
(N**** Heil H*****)
Not a fan so can’t say I’ve heard it. A lot of rap lyrics contain the N word but they don’t broadcast them on the radio, I assume it’s the broadcasting that creates the crime
It was released yesterday and is... Hateful, if not hate speech."
if he has released it in america no problem they can pretty much say what they want |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The freedom of speech rights article in the human rights act/ECHR is as useful as a condom made out of paper.
Even the American first amendment has exceptions for free speech. But they very clear and in case of doubt, the courts are expected to lean more in favour of free speech than to arrest people.
Here are the list of exceptions in Europe's human rights law:
-protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or -public safety
-prevent disorder or crime
-protect health or morals
-protect the rights and reputations of other people
-prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
-m aintain the authority and impartiality of judges
Many of them in the list are dubious. The most ridiculous one here is "protect health and morals"
Morals are different in different societies. Basically a political party can pass any law against free speech and defend it by saying it's for moral reasons. So in practice, the human rights act doesn't do anything to protect your freedom of speech.
This is the reason why many European countries including the UK during Blair era managed to pass laws against free speech and ECHR did nothing to stop. We practically have blasphemy laws in UK today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.
I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.
So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!"
Apply your second paragraph to your first, clearly whoever it was who got two years didn't get time for something stupid..
And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.
I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.
So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!
Apply your second paragraph to your first, clearly whoever it was who got two years didn't get time for something stupid..
And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc .."
The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..
The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested. "
aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..
The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.
aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip "
No, not in school, but they are indoctrinated in universities along those lines |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..
The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.
aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip
No, not in school, but they are indoctrinated in universities along those lines "
what garbage!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.
I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.
So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!
Apply your second paragraph to your first, clearly whoever it was who got two years didn't get time for something stupid..
And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..
The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested. "
Since when have either of them been left or right, they're written to appeal to all political perspectives of whichever their followers are ..
Not saying one can't Google and find something specific to try and show one leaning but equally there'll be other examples etc .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..
The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.
aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip
No, not in school, but they are indoctrinated in universities along those lines "
Some throughout history have used whatever book to persuade those who they seek to manipulate..
Some in this country even had books rewritten and used that to steal wealth and burn people..
It's not only one religion, never had been but it's also never been all who are one faith either.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..
The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.
aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip
No, not in school, but they are indoctrinated in universities along those lines
Some throughout history have used whatever book to persuade those who they seek to manipulate..
Some in this country even had books rewritten and used that to steal wealth and burn people..
It's not only one religion, never had been but it's also never been all who are one faith either.."
The faith or religion is never the issue, it’s people that are the issue. People of all faiths and people of no faith. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..
The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.
aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip
No, not in school, but they are indoctrinated in universities along those lines
Some throughout history have used whatever book to persuade those who they seek to manipulate..
Some in this country even had books rewritten and used that to steal wealth and burn people..
It's not only one religion, never had been but it's also never been all who are one faith either..
The faith or religion is never the issue, it’s people that are the issue. People of all faiths and people of no faith. "
No one should be allowed to join a religion group until the age of 16 or 18, let them make their own mind up instead of brainwashing them from birth |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.
I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.
So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!
Apply your second paragraph to your first, clearly whoever it was who got two years didn't get time for something stupid..
And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..
The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.
Since when have either of them been left or right, they're written to appeal to all political perspectives of whichever their followers are ..
Not saying one can't Google and find something specific to try and show one leaning but equally there'll be other examples etc .."
It's not about the content of the book itself. It's about people who get pissed when each of these books are burnt. Left wingers in the west, for some weird reason believe burning Quran is racism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Either way, as I mentioned in the previous post, the human rights act does absolutely nothing to protect your freedom of speech. It just creates an illusion that it does. The fact that they have an exemption that allows governments to pass laws against free speech for "protecting morals" basically nullifies everything the article says about protecting free speech.
Politicians being power hungry fucks do everything possible to exploit this and pass authoritarian laws to take away our rights |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..
The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.
aye, coz as everyone is taught in school, the bible is fascist and the koran is trotskyite ... ffs get a grip
No, not in school, but they are indoctrinated in universities along those lines
Some throughout history have used whatever book to persuade those who they seek to manipulate..
Some in this country even had books rewritten and used that to steal wealth and burn people..
It's not only one religion, never had been but it's also never been all who are one faith either..
The faith or religion is never the issue, it’s people that are the issue. People of all faiths and people of no faith. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.
I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.
So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!
Apply your second paragraph to your first, clearly whoever it was who got two years didn't get time for something stupid..
And the law is not about right wing or left wing or in the middle etc ..
The law doesn't openly say left wing or right wing. But it is left wing the way it is applied. You will get arrested if you burn a Quran in public. But people who burn the Bible are never arrested.
Since when have either of them been left or right, they're written to appeal to all political perspectives of whichever their followers are ..
Not saying one can't Google and find something specific to try and show one leaning but equally there'll be other examples etc ..
It's not about the content of the book itself. It's about people who get pissed when each of these books are burnt. Left wingers in the west, for some weird reason believe burning Quran is racism. "
Behaviour is always going to be driven by motivation. Look at the context, so you understand, as well as motivations and behaviour. A lot of law is going to be based on what you can reasonably conclude, from the available evidence, which may or may not include admissions.
I think what's being presented here is that nothing has changed recently but there's a claim of limitations to free speech. There will always have been limits, which society will flex over time. Surely, this is common sense? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's not about the content of the book itself. It's about people who get pissed when each of these books are burnt. Left wingers in the west, for some weird reason believe burning Quran is racism.
Behaviour is always going to be driven by motivation. Look at the context, so you understand, as well as motivations and behaviour. A lot of law is going to be based on what you can reasonably conclude, from the available evidence, which may or may not include admissions.
"
When it comes to free speech, any law that leaves too much to interpretation will be misused by police and politicians. Recently, in London, a Turkish guy was arrested for burning Quran outside the Turkish embassy. He was doing it as an act of protest. Is his motivation wrong? Religion is an ideology at the end of the day. If it's ok to burn the "Wealth of nations" or the "Communist Manifesto", it should be ok to burn the Quran or the Bible..
"
I think what's being presented here is that nothing has changed recently but there's a claim of limitations to free speech. "
The human rights law has been there forever. But it doesn't do anything to protect free speech because any government can pass a law and claim the "protecting morals" exemption. This is how Tony Blair managed to pass these anti free-speech laws.
"
There will always have been limits, which society will flex over time. Surely, this is common sense?
"
If a far right government wins the election, they can pass a law that bans any discussion about LGBTQ issues. Will you fight for free speech or will you brush it off using the above excuse? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *abioMan 4 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Why is the fact not understood that if you break the law's of the land you take the risk that if caught you'll be dealt with..
"
They complain about it being a “freedom of speech” issue when what they want is freedom from consequences….. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why is the fact not understood that if you break the law's of the land you take the risk that if caught you'll be dealt with..
They complain about it being a “freedom of speech” issue when what they want is freedom from consequences….. "
That's quite a spicy take on Charlie Hebdo |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I have mentioned this before. But the "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" line that the progressives use is very evidence that they are all authoritarians.
Freedom to do something means freedom from legal/violent consequences after doing that thing. If you get arrested for speaking something you don't have freedom of speech. If you face violence for speaking something, you don't have freedom of speech. It's like saying you have freedom to be gay, but you maybe arrested for being gay.
Funnily enough, the line is just paraphrasing Idi Amin's famous quote "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom after speech". Given that the biggest challenge for modern day progressives is to pretend like they aren't authoritarian, wouldn't it be better to stay away from a dictator's quotes?
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Recently, in London, a Turkish guy was arrested for burning Quran outside the Turkish embassy."
He wasn't arrested for burning a copy of the Quran, he was arrested under section 5 of the Public Order Act, for "behaving in a disorderly manner, with the intention to harass, intimidate or distress others".
No one gets arrested for burning a book. They get arrested for attempting to draw attention to their cause by claiming that an entire ethnic group is to blame. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Recently, in London, a Turkish guy was arrested for burning Quran outside the Turkish embassy.
He wasn't arrested for burning a copy of the Quran, he was arrested under section 5 of the Public Order Act, for "behaving in a disorderly manner, with the intention to harass, intimidate or distress others".
No one gets arrested for burning a book. They get arrested for attempting to draw attention to their cause by claiming that an entire ethnic group is to blame."
That's a ridiculous excuse. Who does a protest become harassment or intimidation? Today, if you go out and burn the Quran in public, you will be arrested no matter what your intentions were. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Recently, in London, a Turkish guy was arrested for burning Quran outside the Turkish embassy."
"He wasn't arrested for burning a copy of the Quran, he was arrested under section 5 of the Public Order Act, for "behaving in a disorderly manner, with the intention to harass, intimidate or distress others".
No one gets arrested for burning a book. They get arrested for attempting to draw attention to their cause by claiming that an entire ethnic group is to blame."
"That's a ridiculous excuse. Who does a protest become harassment or intimidation?"
It becomes harassment when you choose to protest in a way that you know will offend people, and you do it that way specifically to gain attention by causing that offence.
The guy you are talking about was protesting against the Turkish president. How does burning a Quran achieve that? It doesn't, he was just aiming to get attention.
"Today, if you go out and burn the Quran in public, you will be arrested no matter what your intentions were."
Not true. I could go out into the local car park now and burn a Quran, and no one would care. If I went and did it in front of a mosque, I'd be arrested, because the only reason for choosing to do it in that place is to deliberately cause offence to a minority group.
If a Muslim went into a CofE church and burned a bible, he would also be arrested under the same law. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's not about the content of the book itself. It's about people who get pissed when each of these books are burnt. Left wingers in the west, for some weird reason believe burning Quran is racism.
Behaviour is always going to be driven by motivation. Look at the context, so you understand, as well as motivations and behaviour. A lot of law is going to be based on what you can reasonably conclude, from the available evidence, which may or may not include admissions.
When it comes to free speech, any law that leaves too much to interpretation will be misused by police and politicians. Recently, in London, a Turkish guy was arrested for burning Quran outside the Turkish embassy. He was doing it as an act of protest. Is his motivation wrong? Religion is an ideology at the end of the day. If it's ok to burn the "Wealth of nations" or the "Communist Manifesto", it should be ok to burn the Quran or the Bible..
I think what's being presented here is that nothing has changed recently but there's a claim of limitations to free speech.
The human rights law has been there forever. But it doesn't do anything to protect free speech because any government can pass a law and claim the "protecting morals" exemption. This is how Tony Blair managed to pass these anti free-speech laws.
There will always have been limits, which society will flex over time. Surely, this is common sense?
If a far right government wins the election, they can pass a law that bans any discussion about LGBTQ issues. Will you fight for free speech or will you brush it off using the above excuse?"
.
The whataboutery has to be tackled should things arise.
Sure governments should draft laws that are precise and clear. But circumstances will change and review is needed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It becomes harassment when you choose to protest in a way that you know will offend people, and you do it that way specifically to gain attention by causing that offence.
"
There are lots of things religious people consider offensive. Should we arrest everyone for that? It's a lame excuse for authoritarianism taking away right to expression. Going by your criteria, you can never mock any religion.
"
The guy you are talking about was protesting against the Turkish president. How does burning a Quran achieve that? It doesn't, he was just aiming to get attention.
"
The whole point of a protest is to get attention. No one was physically attacked or injured.
"
Today, if you go out and burn the Quran in public, you will be arrested no matter what your intentions were.
Not true. I could go out into the local car park now and burn a Quran, and no one would care. If I went and did it in front of a mosque, I'd be arrested, because the only reason for choosing to do it in that place is to deliberately cause offence to a minority group.
"
Facts say otherwise. Here is a guy getting arrested for doing it in city centre
https://news.sky.com/story/man-arrested-after-koran-burned-in-manchester-city-centre-13301511
People have been arrested for burning Quran behind a pub or even posting it on social media
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/25/girl-arrested-allegedly-burning-quran
"
If a Muslim went into a CofE church and burned a bible, he would also be arrested under the same law. "
Search for Shneur Odze burning Bible. He wasn't charged for it.
If you really want such laws, that's fine. But it is authoritarianism and is applied disproportionately.
If burning a book would result in some extremists to resort to violence and disrupt public order, it's only those extremists who must be arrested, not the one who burned the book. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If a far right government wins the election, they can pass a law that bans any discussion about LGBTQ issues. Will you fight for free speech or will you brush it off using the above excuse?.
The whataboutery has to be tackled should things arise.
Sure governments should draft laws that are precise and clear. But circumstances will change and review is needed "
That's a cop out. People like you enjoy anti free-speech laws as long as you it's your opponent whose opinion is being suppressed. You don't even want to imagine a world where the opponent gains political power and starts suppressing your opinions.
Expressing one's views is a fundamental aspect of humanity. We shouldn't let power hungry politicians, from the left wing not from the right wing, to take away our right to expression. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.
I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.
So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!"
. Sadly we no longer have freedom of speech in this country if your opinions do not meet the narrative of the woke loving liberal elite who will not tolerate any opinions that differ to theirs. Most people will not risk losing their jobs so have no alternative butto keep quiet and suppress their opinions.
The recent opinion polls tend to express a very different opinion. Assuming they are correct victory may go to the silent majority at the next election. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The recent opinion polls tend to express a very different opinion. Assuming they are correct victory may go to the silent majority at the next election. "
we can safely ignore opinion polls, what matters is what happens on the day. and on the day of the last general election, the silent majority won. i hope that helps. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The recent opinion polls tend to express a very different opinion. Assuming they are correct victory may go to the silent majority at the next election.
we can safely ignore opinion polls, what matters is what happens on the day. and on the day of the last general election, the silent majority won. i hope that helps. "
. You might wish to ignore opinion polls but to many people they are good indication of the direction of travel. Not many people have indicated any enthusiasm for the current government. They do not appear to have any achievements and simply surrended to the rail unions in oder to achieve a pay settlement and likewise with junior Doctors.
Any enthusiasm for Kier Starmer is in freefall. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Today, if you go out and burn the Quran in public, you will be arrested no matter what your intentions were."
"Not true. I could go out into the local car park now and burn a Quran, and no one would care. If I went and did it in front of a mosque, I'd be arrested, because the only reason for choosing to do it in that place is to deliberately cause offence to a minority group."
"Facts say otherwise. Here is a guy getting arrested for doing it in city centre
https://news.sky.com/story/man-arrested-after-koran-burned-in-manchester-city-centre-13301511
People have been arrested for burning Quran behind a pub or even posting it on social media
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/25/girl-arrested-allegedly-burning-quran"
In both of those cases they weren't arrested for burning the Quran, they were arrested for posting the footage to social media sites along with messages disparaging Islam, or 'inciting racial hatred'.
"If a Muslim went into a CofE church and burned a bible, he would also be arrested under the same law."
"Search for Shneur Odze burning Bible. He wasn't charged for it."
He's a rabbi, who burned a Christian bible that had been hidden in his synagogue. Not the same thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There's little enthusiasm for any of the political leaders and that's been the case for decades, often it's the party in power become so bad the other options are taken because as is often said 'this lot are less shit than the other lot'..
We've seen what populism and an easily (one might even say gullible) convinced by clichés and hollow false promises electorate can lead to with both Brexit and Boris and his empty words..
I don't need to be enthusiastic about any leader, like millions of others I just want effective competent governance but the cult of divisive populist snake oil sellers is not the answer.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Today, if you go out and burn the Quran in public, you will be arrested no matter what your intentions were.
Not true. I could go out into the local car park now and burn a Quran, and no one would care. If I went and did it in front of a mosque, I'd be arrested, because the only reason for choosing to do it in that place is to deliberately cause offence to a minority group.
Facts say otherwise. Here is a guy getting arrested for doing it in city centre
https://news.sky.com/story/man-arrested-after-koran-burned-in-manchester-city-centre-13301511
People have been arrested for burning Quran behind a pub or even posting it on social media
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/25/girl-arrested-allegedly-burning-quran
In both of those cases they weren't arrested for burning the Quran, they were arrested for posting the footage to social media sites along with messages disparaging Islam, or 'inciting racial hatred'.
"
What disparaging thing was said about Islam? I don't see it in the article.
And why is saying disparaging things about Islam a punishable crime? I have seen people post horrible things about Christianity and Jesus. What you are saying isn't "inciting racial hatred", but blasphemy laws, because there is no race involved here but just mockery of religion.
"
If a Muslim went into a CofE church and burned a bible, he would also be arrested under the same law.
Search for Shneur Odze burning Bible. He wasn't charged for it.
He's a rabbi, who burned a Christian bible that had been hidden in his synagogue. Not the same thing."
Doesn't that show "hatred" towards Christianity? There was also a bible torn into pieces in the Speakers Corner in London last year. No arrest was made. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
People have the right to believe whatever fairytales they want. And they enjoy the right to shout about their chosen fairytale.
Not believing has the same protected status but shouting about not believing in some fairytales seems to be frowned upon.
I think a certain amount of common sense needs to be applied to the notion of free speech, but the race card is often played when there is no racism. And anti white racism doesn’t seem to get the same response.
I remember at the height of the BLM movement after George Floyd died, many of my white liberal friends were posting their support on social media. But then saying shit like “if anyone else sends me a message saying white lives matter as well, they are getting blocked”
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In both of those cases they weren't arrested for burning the Quran, they were arrested for posting the footage to social media sites along with messages disparaging Islam, or 'inciting racial hatred'."
"What disparaging thing was said about Islam? I don't see it in the article."
Of course you don't see it in the article. If the words used were inciting radial hatred, it would be illegal to re-print them.
"And why is saying disparaging things about Islam a punishable crime?"
It isn't. Is illegal to display hatred based on religion or ethnicity, or to encourage others to do so. Saying "Islam is evil" in a video of you burning a Quran is illegal. Simply burning a book without making a fuss of it isn't illegal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In both of those cases they weren't arrested for burning the Quran, they were arrested for posting the footage to social media sites along with messages disparaging Islam, or 'inciting racial hatred'.
What disparaging thing was said about Islam? I don't see it in the article.
Of course you don't see it in the article. If the words used were inciting radial hatred, it would be illegal to re-print them.
"
If something written in the post was the reason why they were charged, they would have clearly said it. The arrests were because they burned the book. The act of burning the book itself is deemed as "inciting racial hatred". Today, if you go out in public and burn a Quran, you will be arrested for the same reason.
The funny thing is there is no "race" involved here, only religion. So practically, UK has blasphemy laws.
"
And why is saying disparaging things about Islam a punishable crime?
It isn't. Is illegal to display hatred based on religion or ethnicity, or to encourage others to do so. Saying "Islam is evil" in a video of you burning a Quran is illegal. Simply burning a book without making a fuss of it isn't illegal."
You are doing some serious mental gymnastics here. Lots of people have publicly said "Christianity is evil". Why is saying "Islam is evil" deemed as hatred? Religions are just ideologies at the end of the day. Why is saying that an ideology is evil deemed as a crime?
The 2003 communications act and the 2006 Racial and religious hatred laws were passed by Tony Blair. Both the laws are so vaguely worded to ensure that politicians and police have the power to arrest people for wrong think. That's why we see so many cases of these laws being applied inconsistently. All this while people are given an illusion that they have protections for freedom of expression.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Concerning story in the Telegraph today. I can see a push back coming.
What story?"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-officer-arrested-over-thought-crime-tweet/
Seem his book collection came under scrutiny as it had Brexit books as well.
Glad it was sorted but shouldn’t have been reported in the first place.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Concerning story in the Telegraph today. I can see a push back coming.
What story?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-officer-arrested-over-thought-crime-tweet/
Seem his book collection came under scrutiny as it had Brexit books as well.
Glad it was sorted but shouldn’t have been reported in the first place.
"
Yeah I saw that. This is what happens when you have vaguely written laws around free speech. Police will start enforcing them arbitrarily and they will make mistakes like these.
It's also interesting that the same police force that complains about not having enough resources to investigate serious crimes like burglaries seem to have a lot of time to police tweets |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The recent opinion polls tend to express a very different opinion. Assuming they are correct victory may go to the silent majority at the next election.
we can safely ignore opinion polls, what matters is what happens on the day. and on the day of the last general election, the silent majority won. i hope that helps. . You might wish to ignore opinion polls but to many people they are good indication of the direction of travel. Not many people have indicated any enthusiasm for the current government. They do not appear to have any achievements and simply surrended to the rail unions in oder to achieve a pay settlement and likewise with junior Doctors.
Any enthusiasm for Kier Starmer is in freefall. "
hi and thanks for the reply. It's safe to ignore opinion poles as the only thing that matters is what happens on the the day. On the day of the last general election the current government won with a whopping 412 seats, completely annihilating the conservative and unionist party, mostly because the silent majority disliked sunaks cabinet's self indulgent toxic far right nonsense. I prefer to do my own research rather than pay credence to the polls and focus on the facts. Hope this helps. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don’t take much notice of the opinion polls, the proof of Reform UK over taking the LabCon was cemented by the recent election results. Too far ahead to be any kind of fluke, or to be explained away as a protest vote. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On the day of the last general election the current government won with a whopping 412 seats, completely annihilating the conservative and unionist party, mostly because the silent majority disliked sunaks cabinet's self indulgent toxic far right nonsense."
I don't recall the people that voted for Labour being silent about their dislike for the Tories. In fact, I seem to remember them being quite vocal about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Concerning story in the Telegraph today. I can see a push back coming.
What story?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/10/retired-police-officer-arrested-over-thought-crime-tweet/
Seem his book collection came under scrutiny as it had Brexit books as well.
Glad it was sorted but shouldn’t have been reported in the first place.
"
Can’t control what people report unfortunately. What should have happened is the police tell the person who reported it, “this isn’t a crime, the police only deal with crime, not hurt feelings”. If this happened the whole nonsense of hurty words would die out.
If you watch any of the PINAC videos on YouTube where they are taking video of a business, the police always come out yet there’s no crime.
Why are the police wasting so much time on “non crime” events and at the same time if you report a crime they ain’t interested in doing anything other than issuing a crime number. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can’t control what people report unfortunately. What should have happened is the police tell the person who reported it, “this isn’t a crime, the police only deal with crime, not hurt feelings”. If this happened the whole nonsense of hurty words would die out."
The problem is that the laws have been worded so that it is the complainant that decides whether the action was motivated by hate or not. If the complainant thinks that it was a hate crime, the police have to investigate it as if it was. They don't have any discretion to say "don't be so silly". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 3 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
Was it last years riots sparked by the tragic events in Southport that have increased scrutiny towards online messages by the police and public, or was it always there just less known about.
I feel something has changed but can't put my finger on the "what". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can’t control what people report unfortunately. What should have happened is the police tell the person who reported it, “this isn’t a crime, the police only deal with crime, not hurt feelings”. If this happened the whole nonsense of hurty words would die out.
The problem is that the laws have been worded so that it is the complainant that decides whether the action was motivated by hate or not. If the complainant thinks that it was a hate crime, the police have to investigate it as if it was. They don't have any discretion to say "don't be so silly"."
But the complainant doesn’t know if there is hate or not so how can they objectively decide? “I think” or much more commonly “I feel” are the first words out of their mouth.
And “don’t be silly” is not the same as “what you’ve described isn’t a crime, we suggest you block the other individual and if it happens again it could well be harassment, in which case we’ll investigate”
But let’s assume a message posted online sails a little close to the wind and the police go visit the person who posted it. If they say “well there was no hate or malice or intention to cause alarm or distress on my part”…. What next? Court? The police only collect evidence, it’s the courts who decide guilt. But they don’t want to take that route, they pressure the people to admit a non crime hate event and get them to sign community resolution orders to “make it go away”.
I’m gonna bet these stay on the national crime database and possibly show up on an extended DBS search as it’s information held by the police. I don’t know. But that could affect a persons ability to get work in a few professions when all that’s happened is someone has claimed hurt feelings. How is that reasonable?
Much of UK civil law and low level crime centres around what a reasonable person would think or do. In my opinion, what’s considered “unreasonable” is including a lot more now than it used to.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem is that the laws have been worded so that it is the complainant that decides whether the action was motivated by hate or not. If the complainant thinks that it was a hate crime, the police have to investigate it as if it was. They don't have any discretion to say "don't be so silly"."
"But the complainant doesn’t know if there is hate or not so how can they objectively decide? “I think” or much more commonly “I feel” are the first words out of their mouth."
Agreed, but that's the way the laws are written.
"And “don’t be silly” is not the same as “what you’ve described isn’t a crime ...”"
But what they've described *is* a crime, if it was motivated by hate. That's the impossible situation the police are in where they have to investigate even the smallest of offences, but can have no hard evidence for motivation, and therefore no proof of whether a crime has actually been committed.
"But they don’t want to take that route, they pressure the people to admit a non crime hate event and get them to sign community resolution orders to “make it go away”."
Exactly. Otherwise it would go down as another unresolved crime and it would make the stats look bad.
"I’m gonna bet these stay on the national crime database and possibly show up on an extended DBS search as it’s information held by the police. I don’t know. But that could affect a persons ability to get work in a few professions when all that’s happened is someone has claimed hurt feelings."
They do show up on an extended DBS search, and they already have prevented some people from advancing in their careers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A crime without evidence?
You saying that reminded me of when my bike got nicked when I was about 17. I’d cycled to a mates house but when it was time to leave it was hammering it down so his dad gave me a lift home in his car. My bike was in his garage and he left the garage door open so he could drive back in without getting soaked. But when he got back my bike was gone.
When I called the police to report it, they wouldn’t accept the report because I hadn’t seen it was no longer there. I got their point but I just waited an hour and said I’d been down there to see it wasn’t there.
Pointless to report a nicked bike even back then, but now got more chance of them taking it seriously if I say the bike has been offended by a Facebook post than it being nicked |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’ve known people get prison for ‘incitement’ when they posted something a bit stupid on a private internet forum, that was seen by someone who had infiltrated said forum. I wasn’t a member of said forum, but what was posted came out in court, and one man got two years. That was over ten years ago, and it’s gotten worse.
I don’t believe we have freedom of speech in the UK. I think there is a narrative that we all have to adhere to, otherwise jail is a probability.
So if you are right wing in particular, be careful what you say. If you wouldn’t say something in front of a police officer, then don’t post it on the internet. Social media is the absolute worst of all. You can even get two years for spreading misinformation!. Sadly we no longer have freedom of speech in this country if your opinions do not meet the narrative of the woke loving liberal elite who will not tolerate any opinions that differ to theirs. Most people will not risk losing their jobs so have no alternative butto keep quiet and suppress their opinions.
The recent opinion polls tend to express a very different opinion. Assuming they are correct victory may go to the silent majority at the next election. "
--------------------------
Presumably you supported the Islamist who was arrested, convicted and fined for burning poppies during an Armistice Day protest in London?
As a signed up member of the 'woke loving, liberal elite', I was delighted he was dealt with through the criminal justice system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Under article 10 of the human rights act, in the UK you have the legal right to hold your own opinion and share that opinion with others, either in written form or verbally, including via the internet.
The government have the right to restrict or remove that right under certain circumstances. The most common being hate speech & national security.
But one other circumstance is to protect health. I’m gonna hazard a guess that the intention behind this to stop the spread of lies regarding medical treatments, vaccines etc. but what if your words cause anxiety?
Anxiety is a medical condition so causing anxiety could be deemed as impacting someone’s health. But anxiety is also impossible to prove. Anyone can claim something makes them anxious with no grounds and zero proof. A trip to your GP and a prescription for anxiety meds would probably be enough to satisfy a court.
With the police seemingly more interested in non crime hate incidents than they are r@pe gangs, and the government’s workers rights bill including the right to not have to hear anything you don’t like, is the future of free speech under threat? "
Of course it's under threat from tyrannical politician's, civil servants and judges bigging it up anarco style,
Also the echr has missed out stuff like no explicit right to sunlight or an health environment, like theysay if it ain't written down it ain't worth having.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why what do you think we can't say?"
If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.
So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.
If enacted this could be the death of the British pub. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why what do you think we can't say?
If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.
So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.
If enacted this could be the death of the British pub. "
Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Hateful, if not hate speech."
Just had a quick listen to it. Clearly like his Twitter posts intended for shock factor.
That said, he's rapping that people misinterpret what's he's trying to say on his social media. He's also mentioning that despite his fame and fortune he can't see his kids. So that goes towards him acting like a dick for shock factor.
Of course it's understandable you would assume he's some sort of brown shirt because that's what media is programming you to think. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why what do you think we can't say?
If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.
So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.
If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.
Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it. "
Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.
What if for example, two parents were talking about the school bully and the staff member happens to be their mother. Precious little Jonny is now bullying the parents by proxy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why what do you think we can't say?
If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.
So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.
If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.
Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.
Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.
"
They absolutely have the right to do so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why what do you think we can't say?
If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.
So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.
If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.
Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.
Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.
They absolutely have the right to do so."
Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why what do you think we can't say?
If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.
So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.
If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.
Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.
Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.
They absolutely have the right to do so.
Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to "
Sounds unenforceable and impractical, no landlord is going to be keeping on staff who kick customers out because they didn't like what the punters were talking about..
The staff will be out the door and word get round they are trouble..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why what do you think we can't say?
If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.
So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.
If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.
Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.
Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.
They absolutely have the right to do so.
Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to
Sounds unenforceable and impractical, no landlord is going to be keeping on staff who kick customers out because they didn't like what the punters were talking about..
The staff will be out the door and word get round they are trouble..
"
Really? There’s a reform pub in Blackpool. How long would a few lefty activists last if they wanted a nice pint in there?
We all have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequence.
I’m dealing with a case at work where someone has posted some pretty nasty stuff on social media against LGBTQ+. Which is fine, except their employer is in their bio, and they even doubled down when someone included the company’s account in a response to them.
They’ll face disciplinary action and rightly so. The colleague was free to say those things, and the company are free to discipline them as a result.
I believe it’s called ‘fuck around and find out’ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 6 days ago
Terra Firma |
"Why what do you think we can't say?
If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.
So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.
If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.
Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.
Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.
They absolutely have the right to do so.
Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to "
This is not the essence of the bill for this particular part of the proposal.
It is basically improving the equality act, taking reasonable steps to protect workers from abuse and harassment.
Reasonable steps would be signs to say abuse is not tolerated, policies in place for staff to follow, training staff on how to deal with abusive customers etc.
This is aimed more at customer facing staff such as retail, hospitality etc.
The bill doesn't allow staff to say they are not happy with what customers are talking about to have them closed down and removed, unless the conversation led them to being abusive or harassing the worker. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why what do you think we can't say?
If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.
So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.
If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.
Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.
Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.
They absolutely have the right to do so.
Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to
Sounds unenforceable and impractical, no landlord is going to be keeping on staff who kick customers out because they didn't like what the punters were talking about..
The staff will be out the door and word get round they are trouble..
"
That’s the point of the bill. If the staff are fired because they are constantly “annoyed and offended”, they have legal protection and the employer will be hauled before an employment tribunal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why what do you think we can't say?
If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.
So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.
If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.
Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.
Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.
They absolutely have the right to do so.
Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to
Sounds unenforceable and impractical, no landlord is going to be keeping on staff who kick customers out because they didn't like what the punters were talking about..
The staff will be out the door and word get round they are trouble..
Really? There’s a reform pub in Blackpool. How long would a few lefty activists last if they wanted a nice pint in there?
We all have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequence.
I’m dealing with a case at work where someone has posted some pretty nasty stuff on social media against LGBTQ+. Which is fine, except their employer is in their bio, and they even doubled down when someone included the company’s account in a response to them.
They’ll face disciplinary action and rightly so. The colleague was free to say those things, and the company are free to discipline them as a result.
I believe it’s called ‘fuck around and find out’ "
Yes really..
Regardless of what memo the area manager sends out about staff doing this that or the other in relation to the changes in the legislation the management are judged on sales and turnover..
If footfall drops off because the staff are acting like someone out of 1984 then who do you think in the reality of any financial situation is going to be moved on..?
Tbh if anyone goes into any type of pub or establishment for a drink and they start using language or being disrespectful etc then other punters will probably make sure they leave and not have them spoil their enjoyment..
What's a reform pub?
Do they serve gammon and chips ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why what do you think we can't say?
If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.
So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.
If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.
Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.
Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.
They absolutely have the right to do so.
Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to
This is not the essence of the bill for this particular part of the proposal.
It is basically improving the equality act, taking reasonable steps to protect workers from abuse and harassment.
Reasonable steps would be signs to say abuse is not tolerated, policies in place for staff to follow, training staff on how to deal with abusive customers etc.
This is aimed more at customer facing staff such as retail, hospitality etc.
The bill doesn't allow staff to say they are not happy with what customers are talking about to have them closed down and removed, unless the conversation led them to being abusive or harassing the worker."
This sounds more sensible and practical.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 6 days ago
Terra Firma |
"Why what do you think we can't say?
If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.
So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.
If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.
Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.
Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.
They absolutely have the right to do so.
Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to
Sounds unenforceable and impractical, no landlord is going to be keeping on staff who kick customers out because they didn't like what the punters were talking about..
The staff will be out the door and word get round they are trouble..
That’s the point of the bill. If the staff are fired because they are constantly “annoyed and offended”, they have legal protection and the employer will be hauled before an employment tribunal "
Employees aren’t protected for being “offended.” They are protected against harassment, discrimination, and unfair dismissal.
If an employer has made reasonable efforts to ensure harassment and discrimination are not tolerated and incidents are correctly managed that is the end of their obligation. They must also follow further employment laws when it comes to managing people out of a business fairly, the worker has then exhausted their rights. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why what do you think we can't say?
If the workers right bill goes through as is, any worker has the right to complain to their boss about overhearing anything they don’t like and the employer will have to take action.
So for example, two blokes sat in a pub discussing anything that a member of staff doesn’t like and the manager will have to ask the customers to leave. It won’t matter what the conversation was about, only that the staff member was offended.
If enacted this could be the death of the British pub.
Have to take action? Employers do that now - an investigation is ‘action’ - it doesn’t mean a disciplinary outcome follows it.
Landlords don’t kick customers out of their pub for having a private conversation that was overheard by a member of staff, just because the staff member doesn’t like what was said.
They absolutely have the right to do so.
Of course. They can ask you to leave for no reason. But under the new law they will have to
Sounds unenforceable and impractical, no landlord is going to be keeping on staff who kick customers out because they didn't like what the punters were talking about..
The staff will be out the door and word get round they are trouble..
That’s the point of the bill. If the staff are fired because they are constantly “annoyed and offended”, they have legal protection and the employer will be hauled before an employment tribunal
Employees aren’t protected for being “offended.” They are protected against harassment, discrimination, and unfair dismissal.
If an employer has made reasonable efforts to ensure harassment and discrimination are not tolerated and incidents are correctly managed that is the end of their obligation. They must also follow further employment laws when it comes to managing people out of a business fairly, the worker has then exhausted their rights. "
They have all of those rights already.
Not law yet but the workers rights bill in its current form goes further with regard to what people hear in the workplace. If I've got it wrong then great, happy days, but I don’t think I have.
I think it’s one of those things that sounds great in theory… black people shouldn’t have to overhear a racist jokes, gay people a gay joke, or Jews hear a Jews joke etc. saying these types of jokes and being accidentally overheard is not the same as deliberately saying one loudly in earshot of the a person who is the butt of the joke.
A joke for you….
“There’s and Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman…..”
I’d take a bet that these types of jokes play out differently, depending on your nationality.
How about “your mother is so fat….”
Whose mother are they talking about? Someone overhearing and claiming they were talking about theirs can’t be proven, but what it they were? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A quote from the free speech union about the workers rights bill:
"Harassment is defined in Section 26 of the EqA as “unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic and which violates a person’s dignity or has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”. While the government insists this represents a high threshold, critics argue the vague language leaves room for over-interpretation, especially when it comes to speech-related incidents."
Yet again, British politicians are using vague language in laws related to free speech so that they can sneak in their authoritarianism. This is what they did with the 2003 communications act and 2006 religious hatred act, the effects of which are seen now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There was a discussion in fb today about what you would do if you came home to find someone parked in your driveway. There were the obvious unlawful responses, smash the windows etc. and some more sensible ones. It’s a civil matter of course, one the police can’t legally intervene in unless it becomes aggravated.
But I just got to thinking, someone can park in your driveway or trespass on your property and the limit of your legal redress is to ask them to leave. Regardless of the impact that this has on you. Could be double yellows along the road and now you have to park half a mile away.
But if you read a post or a tweet that you don’t like you can call the police and claim it made you “anxious” and the poster can be dragged off in handcuffs.
What’s more serious, a wheelchair user not being able to enter their own home or a labour councillors wife not liking a tweet calling for his resignation |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 days ago
Terra Firma |
I can see the issue here is around the interpretation of harassment.
The safety net however, is the legal requirement for employers to take “reasonable steps”.
If a customer is sitting at a table and being openly racist, to the point that a member of staff can hear and is upset by it, that should be a relatively simple situation to deal with, both under current law and under the new Bill.
However, for example, if a customer is having a discussion about veganism, and a member of staff feels offended by that, a reasonable step might be to offer the staff member the opportunity to swap duties or areas. That is a practical step and should be a policy that would be included in staff training.
If the same member of staff is being upset by comments of this kind more frequently, there should be a clear process to discuss if reasonable adjustments could be made, or to review whether the policy that was part of their training is understood and being followed.
If no resolution can be found, and it is affecting both the service of the business and the "employee’s wellbeing", a managed exit would be in the best outcome.
The Bill is about setting out workplace guidelines. If the above was followed I would not expect any repercussions for the Employer. I'm sure someone is going to point a flaw in this  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"woke loving liberal elite"
"This type of phrase is shorthand for “I can’t cum unless I’ve offended someone”"
Are you applying that definition to yourself? Because you seem to be quite quick with the insults when people disagree with you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"woke loving liberal elite
This type of phrase is shorthand for “I can’t cum unless I’ve offended someone”
Are you applying that definition to yourself? Because you seem to be quite quick with the insults when people disagree with you."
I think you’ve missed my point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"woke loving liberal elite"
"This type of phrase is shorthand for “I can’t cum unless I’ve offended someone”"
"Are you applying that definition to yourself? Because you seem to be quite quick with the insults when people disagree with you."
"I think you’ve missed my point. "
There you go again, suggesting that I'm too stupid to understand you. It's almost like you enjoy insulting people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can see the issue here is around the interpretation of harassment.
The safety net however, is the legal requirement for employers to take “reasonable steps”.
If a customer is sitting at a table and being openly racist, to the point that a member of staff can hear and is upset by it, that should be a relatively simple situation to deal with, both under current law and under the new Bill.
However, for example, if a customer is having a discussion about veganism, and a member of staff feels offended by that, a reasonable step might be to offer the staff member the opportunity to swap duties or areas. That is a practical step and should be a policy that would be included in staff training.
If the same member of staff is being upset by comments of this kind more frequently, there should be a clear process to discuss if reasonable adjustments could be made, or to review whether the policy that was part of their training is understood and being followed.
If no resolution can be found, and it is affecting both the service of the business and the "employee’s wellbeing", a managed exit would be in the best outcome.
The Bill is about setting out workplace guidelines. If the above was followed I would not expect any repercussions for the Employer. I'm sure someone is going to point a flaw in this "
That as described is all well and good, as long as there are “other areas” and the member of staff is happy with that.
But some people go out of their way to be offended, and those types would probably consider them being moved as a punishment when they see the customer as the culprit
I’m not talking about racism, that already has laws in place. But you chose a good example. Much more likely to be the other way around tho in my opinion, the staff member being vegan and the customer talking about a great steakhouse they visited the night before.
Who gets to decide what’s ok and what’s not? Because the way I understand the current wording of the bill, is it’s the staff member. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
