Chomper Higgot

Oddly the people on this thread demanding a second inquiry seem certain of what transpired and even more certain of what a second inquiry would find.

It’s always worth going to the horses mouth. This is full of good stuff that favors working people: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6752f32a14973821ce2a6cc2/employment-rights-bill-overview.pdf

For those interested in the arguments in favor of the legitimate place masks have in exercising the constitutionally protected right to protest, this article provides some background history, examples of authorities targeting legitimate protestors and rounds off with a very sound argument in favor of protecting the right to wear a mask while exercising the right to protest. https://www.ifs.org/news/proper-masking-law-promotes-freedom/

While a law that elevates the penalties for a crime if a mask is worn during the commission of that crime makes sense and would obviously not infringe on first amendment rights (just as laws that elevate the penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime do not infringe second amendment rights). However banning masks is problematic on multiple fronts almost all relating to first amendment rights. I’m with the NYCLU on this.

I’m not sure where you got that from.

That’s around 0.3% of staff, a mild symptom of the real problem, which is this:

It’s not just pubs though is it. This extends to other businesses, such as restaurants. Though I’ve never understood why anyone would throw insults at the staff who are preparing the food they are about to eat. Nevertheless it does happen. But don’t look at this as a cause for grievance, there’s a business opportunity; you could open a pub in which you allow any verbal abuse of your staff your customers wish to engage in. As owner, you personally would have to take the consequences for allowing such abuse (even if such behavior might by your own admission warranted your abusive customers being kicked out or barred). Let me help you out with a name for such a fine establishment. ‘The Cesspit Arms’.

Ben Habib got the benefit of being brought to the UK as a child.

Where does this idea that free speech exists within other people’s private business premises come from? There’s always a limit after which a customer will get asked to leave, thrown out or punched out. And why the focus on discussion of transgender issues in pubs? This law would just as equally require all business owners to not permit misogyny directed at female staff, misandry directed at male staff, homophobic remarks, Islamophobic jibes, antisemitic taunts, racist remarks, the list goes on. Tell us which form of abuse you want to allow to dump on people working in the business you grace with your custom? But beware, it’s a trick question, you don’t get to allow one without allowing the others.

That’s how self selection works.

So the upshot is. Employers will still be allowed to permit their customers to abuse their staff, but may face legal ramifications for doing so. I do understand why this will not sit well with employers who allow their customers to abuse their staff and customers who enjoy abusing the staff in establishments they frequent.

I did bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. I would say you’re own expert.

Jonny, refer to the OP, especially this bit:

These idiots write the arguments against themselves.

Jonny wanders off topic. Again.

Because everyone has a right to representation in court.

I see you’ve paid have got the message. Though you’ve not yet worked out that human rights laws also protect you and your family. They do however er get in the way of big business and big profits. Choose wisely.

I expect your sure about lots of things you imagine. Meanwhile, the Employment Rights Bill improves the rights of ordinary working people, good to see Labour helping working people.

They’ve never been on my play list, but I see you’ve paid them and some other issues a lot of attention. It seems too I was right to take your word on these matters. Thank you for sharing.

“It's no surprise Labour consistently side with the Paedos.” Let’s not pretend that came from any rational thought process.

The judiciary are concerned with the law.

More hyperbole Jonny. Nobody is banning conversations in pubs.

I’ll take your word on that.

He was convicted of a rape in 2018, the ruling on his deportation was passed on 2023. It’s chilly this morning, you might need to take your mitts off to count back to figure out what those dates tell you about who was running the country at the time.

At their age don’t expect it to matter much longer.