Pub landlords to be turned into ‘banter police’ under reforms to workers’ rights

[The_DADDY]

Fears free speech could come under attack, not just in bars but also universities, as Government plans to extend employment laws

Provisions in the Employment Rights Bill mean equality laws will be updated to make employers liable for staff being offended by “third parties”, such as customers or members of the public.

 

The laws would introduce a legal requirement for companies and public bodies to take “all reasonable steps” to prevent harassment by third parties relating to a “protected characteristic” such as sex, gender reassignment or age.

 

Free speech campaigners have warned that this measure is the government’s “latest salvo in its ongoing war against free speech” and will lead to pub staff having to act as the “banter cops” who ban customers for telling “inappropriate” jokes.

 

Scholars also fear the legislation will also have a “chilling effect” on academic freedom as it will mean university authorities are more likely to give into calls to “no-platform” contentious guest speakers for fear of being sued.

 

Kate Nicholls, chief executive of UKHospitality, said that staff in restaurants, bars, pubs and hotels are working in a “social environment” where “there are jokes and people are boisterous”.

 

She said while everyone wants to make sure their staff are protected “we don’t want to be policing our customers’ behaviour”, adding that she is keen to work with ministers to ensure “undue restrictions” are not imposed on customers.

 

Kevin Hollinrake, the shadow business secretary, said: “Running a business is hard enough as it is – even defending yourself in an employment tribunal can cost tens of thousands of pounds. We all know this agenda is being driven by wokeness and the unions.

 

“Ronald Regan once said if fascism ever returns it will be in the name of liberalism. The people who are supposedly the greatest defenders of basic liberties and quite happy to jettison basic rights – be it over property, the rule of law and free speech – if it doesn’t accord with their own views.”

The proposed laws, which were unveiled last week, as part of an overhaul of workers’ rights, will lead to a major expansion of the New Labour-era Equality Act.

 

The changes go significantly further than a measure in the original Equality Act of 2010, which made employers liable for third-party harassment after three separate incidents – known as the “three strikes rule”. The third-party provisions were stripped out of the legislation altogether by the coalition government in 2013.

 

James Murray, legal director at the law firm Doyle Clayton, said the changes announced could lead to controversial guest speakers being barred from events.

 

He explained: “If we think about a speaker that has been invited – say it’s a controversial gender critical speaker, like Julie Bindel or Kathleen Stock – someone might somewhat disingenuously say ‘I am an employee of this university and I find what she says deeply harassing’.

 

“The concern is that this will shift the balance away from free speech and universities will be more risk averse as they won’t want to be held liable for third-party harassment.”

Prof James Tooley, vice-chancellor of Buckingham University, said the Bill is “deeply worrying” and “very dangerous” for free speech on campus.

 

“I want to be free as vice-chancellor to be able to invite people with a whole range of views – that’s what university should be about – hearing views and being challenged,” he said.

 

“At the moment, I am able to stand firm and say they are coming. But if this new Bill comes in, then it is the end of my vice-chancellor speaker series.

 

“Given that the government has already removed other protections for free speech at universities, this is sending out a worrying message.”

 

Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union, said the proposed extension to harassment laws amounted to a “snowflakes’ charter”.

 

He said the impact on businesses will be severe, adding: “Expect every pub in England and Wales to employ ‘banter cops’ who’ll be tasked with eavesdropping on customers’ conversations and barring anyone who tells an ‘inappropriate’ joke.”

 

Similar rights were due to come into law last year after ministers backed a Private Members Bill brought forward by a Liberal Democrat MP.

 

But the Bill was allowed to fall, following a Tory backlash about the wide-reaching implications for free speech.

 

Your thoughts?

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/12/pub-landlords-turned-into-banter-police-labour-law-changes/

[cressida]

The thing is everyone know we can't verbally call people names and yet some do,  and in a drinking environment it can escalate as there are people who

have no self control.

[XboxMan2024]

Normally I'd support anything that stops bullying but this "plan" is unworkable and is doomed to fail... How can they stop the insults flowing when the Ale's flowing at the same time?

 

[Prettytom]

If Toby Young is against it, I’m for it.

 

I didn’t read most of it though, because it is the usual snowflakey nonsense that characterises these threads.

[RollingJ]

Who thinks this 'legislation' up - 2-year- olds?

[Al Bundy]

3 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Who thinks this 'legislation' up - 2-year- olds?

I think you are being overly generous there.

[Prettytom]

3 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Who thinks this 'legislation' up - 2-year- olds?

No.

 

It’s the two year olds that write the ridiculous articles. And other two year olds who spread them around the internet as if they were something important.

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, Al Bundy said:

I think you are being overly generous there.

Probably.

Just now, Prettytom said:

No.

 

It’s the two year olds that write the ridiculous articles. And other two year olds who spread them around the internet as if they were something important.

If you say so, but stripping out some of the obvious hype in said article, just what benefit is in this proposal?

[XboxMan2024]

2 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Probably.

If you say so, but stripping out some of the obvious hype in said article, just what benefit is in this proposal?

There isn't any because it's unenforceable, no Landlord worth his license will step in when some drunk nutter's about to knock another drunk nutter into next Wednesday just for something he said, if it gets too serious he'll phone the Law.

 

 

[Prettytom]

11 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Probably.

If you say so, but stripping out some of the obvious hype in said article, just what benefit is in this proposal?

Well, assuming that there is a reasonably high bar to the idea of prosecution, it seems sensible.

 

If you were working in a bar and the manager repeatedly allowed a customer to verbally abuse you for being gay, as an example, you might want some legal protection. The key thing here is the idea of repeated abuse.

 

I worked a lot of pubs in the 1980s and saw plenty of landlords/landladies refusing to put up with that stuff from customers. It’s nothing new really.