GB: No Freedom of Speech Anymore

[GP44]

You have the freedom of speech as long as you don’t say something that someone doesn’t like.
Try discussing why one neighborhood is considered a bad neighborhood and others are considered good neighborhoods.
I mean by racial make up.
You don’t have to be of a certain race to know the answer.
You might just be pointing out an obvious fact but by doing so you will be censored in some places or by certain people who want to deny the truth.
So even if you try to state something in the sense of public safety it might be considered inflammatory because it ruffled someone’s feathers!

 

[hollydolly]

You have the freedom of speech as long as you don’t say something that someone doesn’t like.
Try discussing why one neighborhood is considered a bad neighborhood and others are considered good neighborhoods.
I mean by racial make up.
You don’t have to be of a certain race to know the answer.
You might just be pointing out an obvious fact but by doing so you will be censored in some places or by certain people who want to deny the truth.

there was an example of that very thing today . This I know will divide a lot of people, but a fire chief was dismissed and his case against unfair dismissal was denied...

His crime ?... he called a female firefighter a ''fireman'' and ''allowed'' other crew members to address her as a fireman too...

She complained and he was sacked...

Well again I know this will divide opinion.... but for the life of me I don't know why this woman found it so offensive to be called a fireman or a firefighter.. and was willing to have a person dismissed from their job for doing so... who cares IMO.. what your title is in a lifesaving job....

..and then again why he continued to call her a fireman after she supposedly let him know she found it offensive...

Unbelievble all around!

 

[GP44]

there was an example of that very thing today . This I know will divide a lot of people, but a fire chief was dismissed and his case against unfair dismissal was denied...

His crime ?... he called a female firefighter a ''fireman'' and ''allowed'' other crew members to address her as a fireman too...

She complained and he was sacked...

Well again I know this will divide opinion.... but for the life of me I don't know why this woman found it so offensive to be called a fireman or a firefighter.. and was willing to have a person dismissed from their job for doing so... who cares IMO.. what your title is in a lifesaving job....

..and then again why he continued to call her a fireman after she supposedly let him know she found it offensive...

Unbelievble all around!

That sounds like it could put the fire department in to a bad situation.
Really surprising that they would fire a good fireman over something that seems so minor.
Hate to see what that department will consist of in a few years.

 

[hollydolly]

That sounds like it could put the fire department in to a bad situation.
Really surprising that they would fire a good fireman over something that seems so minor.
Hate to see what that department will consist of in a few years.

I thought the very same thing when I read it.....similar things are happening within the police force. We used to have an enviable police force in the Uk... now they are Woke and barely adults... who are afriad to tackle real crime..but will happily arrest someone for writing hurty words

 

[VaughanJB]

You keep repeating the same mantra, “it’s the law”, as if that somehow proves the state isn’t targeting speech. It doesn’t. It only shows you’re unwilling to look at how those laws are actually being used.

Both of our words are here for everyone to read. You are completely incorrect. What it shows, if anything, is that I try to get an understand of how things are rather than insinuating and making conspiratorial remarks. I'm interested in what is, and have remarked why certain events took place. You just don't like my response, so are now pretending I just don't care. I'm tired of explaining to you how laws are made, and your constantly mantra of laws simply coming from "the state" are just wrong. But hey ho.

That is not speculation. It is documented. Some of those interventions were later ruled unlawful or disproportionate by the courts themselves. Your denial doesn’t erase that.

By jove, I think you might actually be getting it. Yes, this is how the system works. This is how laws are refined, how precedent is set, and how things evolve. Some laws are well written, some are not.This is worked by iterations. We should celebrate that the process has done its job. I do not care about conspiratorial drama.

Your argument boils down to this, if the police act, then it must have been justified.

See, you like to put words in my mouth, and to speak for me. I have not claimed that if the police act it's justified. The police question and arrest people they later release without charge likely hundreds of times every single day. What I've explained previously is that in the case specified, the police were simply doing their job. You really need to stop with this narrative where you insert what you suppose my thoughts are on a topic. You are making an assumption here, and it's incorrect.

You also keep insisting that the UK has full free speech because you personally “feel free.” That’s not a standard. Every country with limited speech claims the same thing, that the restrictions only affect “bad people.” That mindset is how governments get away with expanding those restrictions.

I have never claimed the UK has "full free speech". I don't think I've even used the phrase. In fact, I've claimed the opposite - that one person's supposed "free speech" may in fact contravene the law, and if it does they can't be surprised of the consequences.

You don’t have to agree with me. But dismissing well-known cases as if they never happened just tells me you’re defending a conclusion you reached before the conversation even started.

And you're not defending a conclusion you reached before the conversation started? Alrighty then. By explaining how an arrest came about - and noting the terrible journalistic standard by which people were pulling their information - is not "dismissing well known cases". It's the opposite, it's me looking at what we have, and drawing a conclusion. Sure, it may not fall in line with your own conspiratorial mindset, but hey, we're all allowed an opinion, even if they differ.

You’re drifting into personal commentary again. I’m not interested in your eyesight or your assumptions about my motives

YOU are saying you don't care about my assumptions of your motives? YOU are saying that to ME. Wow.

You claimed you "addressed the examples," but your replies boiled down to the same circular move every time, "a process was followed, therefore nothing is wrong." That’s precisely the point you’re avoiding, if the state can investigate or arrest people for speech, then pointing to "process" doesn’t resolve the concern, it proves it.

Circular moves? I explained why these things happened. It's why they all happened. I'm not going to make up other things just for your entertainment. It's the job of the police to enforce the laws of the land. The police do not determine guilt, they are there to gather evidence, either physical or through questioning. That's their job, that's what they do.

As for state blah blah speech blah blah arrest blah blah - you act as though all kinds of speech are okay, no matter the context, no matter what is said. That is not the law of the land in either the UK or the US. I have given you concrete examples of this, but you won't take the time to look at them.I have asked you direct questions so I can better understand your stance, and you won't answer those either.

Basically, you're right fighting. It's best we agree to disagree. Let's be honest, we've both said everything we need to when it comes to our dialog. At this point you are resorting to assumptions, insinuations, and you're not interested in looking into things I suggest. That is, of course, your prerogative. However, it does render our current exchanges as irrelevant and dishonest.

 

[Antoli]

Both of our words are here for everyone to read. You are completely incorrect. What it shows, if anything, is that I try to get an understand of how things are rather than insinuating and making conspiratorial remarks. I'm interested in what is, and have remarked why certain events took place. You just don't like my response, so are now pretending I just don't care. I'm tired of explaining to you how laws are made, and your constantly mantra of laws simply coming from "the state" are just wrong. But hey ho.



By jove, I think you might actually be getting it. Yes, this is how the system works. This is how laws are refined, how precedent is set, and how things evolve. Some laws are well written, some are not.This is worked by iterations. We should celebrate that the process has done its job. I do not care about conspiratorial drama.



See, you like to put words in my mouth, and to speak for me. I have not claimed that if the police act it's justified. The police question and arrest people they later release without charge likely hundreds of times every single day. What I've explained previously is that in the case specified, the police were simply doing their job. You really need to stop with this narrative where you insert what you suppose my thoughts are on a topic. You are making an assumption here, and it's incorrect.



I have never claimed the UK has "full free speech". I don't think I've even used the phrase. In fact, I've claimed the opposite - that one person's supposed "free speech" may in fact contravene the law, and if it does they can't be surprised of the consequences.



And you're not defending a conclusion you reached before the conversation started? Alrighty then. By explaining how an arrest came about - and noting the terrible journalistic standard by which people were pulling their information - is not "dismissing well known cases". It's the opposite, it's me looking at what we have, and drawing a conclusion. Sure, it may not fall in line with your own conspiratorial mindset, but hey, we're all allowed an opinion, even if they differ.



YOU are saying you don't care about my assumptions of your motives? YOU are saying that to ME. Wow.



Circular moves? I explained why these things happened. It's why they all happened. I'm not going to make up other things just for your entertainment. It's the job of the police to enforce the laws of the land. The police do not determine guilt, they are there to gather evidence, either physical or through questioning. That's their job, that's what they do.

As for state blah blah speech blah blah arrest blah blah - you act as though all kinds of speech are okay, no matter the context, no matter what is said. That is not the law of the land in either the UK or the US. I have given you concrete examples of this, but you won't take the time to look at them.I have asked you direct questions so I can better understand your stance, and you won't answer those either.

Basically, you're right fighting. It's best we agree to disagree. Let's be honest, we've both said everything we need to when it comes to our dialog. At this point you are resorting to assumptions, insinuations, and you're not interested in looking into things I suggest. That is, of course, your prerogative. However, it does render our current exchanges as irrelevant and dishonest.

You keep insisting that pointing to “the process” somehow settles the issue. It doesn’t. You’re describing the mechanics of the system, not addressing the criticism of how that system is applied. Saying "police act under the law" is not a rebuttal to the fact that those same laws have repeatedly been used to target speech, and in multiple cases, the courts later ruled those actions unlawful or disproportionate. That’s the entire point you keep sidestepping.

You also have a habit of retrofitting my argument into something easier to knock down. I never claimed “all speech is okay” any more than you claimed “all police actions are justified.” What I said, clearly, is that once the state has the authority to criminalize speech, the existence of a process doesn’t prevent abuse, it enables it. You don’t have to agree, but pretending that concern is “conspiratorial” is just a way to avoid engaging with it.

You accuse me of assumptions, but you’ve been doing the exact same thing, projecting motives, tone, and now “conspiracy” where none was stated. That doesn’t move the discussion forward. And finally, telling me you’ve explained everything “enough times” isn’t the same as actually addressing the disagreement. It just means you’re repeating the same starting premise: "the law exists, therefore it’s fine." That’s not an argument, it’s a dodge.

 

[VaughanJB]

You keep insisting that pointing to “the process” somehow settles the issue. It doesn’t. You’re describing the mechanics of the system, not addressing the criticism of how that system is applied. Saying "police act under the law" is not a rebuttal to the fact that those same laws have repeatedly been used to target speech, and in multiple cases, the courts later ruled those actions unlawful or disproportionate. That’s the entire point you keep sidestepping.

Erm, hate speech is hate speech - how can a law making specific types of hate speech illegal not be targeted by a generic use of the term "speech"? See, you talk about speech as though it's a huge umbrella, but that's not how it is in the real world. Your constant denial of that isn't a problem I can address, only you can do that. I have no answer for you.

I'm also sidestepping nothing. I'm just not saying what you want to hear. I'm also sorry that you refuse to learn or accept how law making, and application, works. It's again simply real world. I don't live in a utopia.

You also have a habit of retrofitting my argument into something easier to knock down. I never claimed “all speech is okay” any more than you claimed “all police actions are justified.”

I asked you a list of questions in order to ascertain your view, and you didn't bother to answer them.

What I said, clearly, is that once the state has the authority to criminalize speech, the existence of a process doesn’t prevent abuse, it enables it. You don’t have to agree, but pretending that concern is “conspiratorial” is just a way to avoid engaging with it.

From my standpoint, you are very conspiratorial. You can disagree. The government makes the laws on behalf of the citizens. Period. There is no other way for laws to be made. I'm sorry that doesn't work for you, but it's not different in the US than it is in the UK. If you are against a law being made, there are mechanisms where you can campaign against it. How would you prefer it works?

You accuse me of assumptions, but you’ve been doing the exact same thing, projecting motives, tone, and now “conspiracy” where none was stated. That doesn’t move the discussion forward. And finally, telling me you’ve explained everything “enough times” isn’t the same as actually addressing the disagreement. It just means you’re repeating the same starting premise: "the law exists, therefore it’s fine." That’s not an argument, it’s a dodge.

I'm sorry, this paragraph simply made me laugh. I'm not going to repeat myself. I've already addressed this. I have never stated "the law exists, therefore it’s fine.". I have stated that if a law exists, and someone is investigated because it is believed they have broken that law, then that's to be expected. Smoking pot is illegal in the UK at this time. So if you smoke pot, you ought to know you could be investigated for doing it.

Now, is everyone who smokes Pot investigated? No. Only the most egregious cases tend to be. Welcome to the real world.

Honestly, I think the only thing that will satisfy you is if I agree with you 100%. That seems to be what you're after, and it's not going to happen. You can read my responses, but sadly, you often put words into my mouth and make assumptions. This makes our coming to some agreement virtually impossible. In fact, you seem more concerned with defining me than you do discuss the topic.

As it stands, I accept how laws are created, enforced, and applied. You don't seem to. I can't fix that for you. The idea that the normal process for doing these things offends you because you see it as "speech" offers no resolution to the question - is all speech, no matter the type and cause, acceptable? For example, slander. Should we be free to slander each other because, you know, free speech? Or, should the government introduce laws to address the damage it can cause?

Also note, the thread title is "GB: No Freedom of Speech Anymore". I started by stating, as I do now, that such a statement is preposterous.

 

[VaughanJB]

This may be of interest:

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

 

[Antoli]

Erm, hate speech is hate speech - how can a law making specific types of hate speech illegal not be targeted by a generic use of the term "speech"? See, you talk about speech as though it's a huge umbrella, but that's not how it is in the real world. Your constant denial of that isn't a problem I can address, only you can do that. I have no answer for you.

I'm also sidestepping nothing. I'm just not saying what you want to hear. I'm also sorry that you refuse to learn or accept how law making, and application, works. It's again simply real world. I don't live in a utopia.



I asked you a list of questions in order to ascertain your view, and you didn't bother to answer them.



From my standpoint, you are very conspiratorial. You can disagree. The government makes the laws on behalf of the citizens. Period. There is no other way for laws to be made. I'm sorry that doesn't work for you, but it's not different in the US than it is in the UK. If you are against a law being made, there are mechanisms where you can campaign against it. How would you prefer it works?



I'm sorry, this paragraph simply made me laugh. I'm not going to repeat myself. I've already addressed this. I have never stated "the law exists, therefore it’s fine.". I have stated that if a law exists, and someone is investigated because it is believed they have broken that law, then that's to be expected. Smoking pot is illegal in the UK at this time. So if you smoke pot, you ought to know you could be investigated for doing it.

Now, is everyone who smokes Pot investigated? No. Only the most egregious cases tend to be. Welcome to the real world.

Honestly, I think the only thing that will satisfy you is if I agree with you 100%. That seems to be what you're after, and it's not going to happen. You can read my responses, but sadly, you often put words into my mouth and make assumptions. This makes our coming to some agreement virtually impossible. In fact, you seem more concerned with defining me than you do discuss the topic.

As it stands, I accept how laws are created, enforced, and applied. You don't seem to. I can't fix that for you. The idea that the normal process for doing these things offends you because you see it as "speech" offers no resolution to the question - is all speech, no matter the type and cause, acceptable? For example, slander. Should we be free to slander each other because, you know, free speech? Or, should the government introduce laws to address the damage it can cause?

Also note, the thread title is "GB: No Freedom of Speech Anymore". I started by stating, as I do now, that such a statement is preposterous.

You’re still replying to the argument you wish I were making instead of the one I actually made. I never argued that all speech is fine, yet you keep retreating to that because it saves you from addressing the examples I listed........examples where police acted specifically against viewpoint, and courts later ruled those actions unlawful or disproportionate. That isn’t conspiracy; that’s the judiciary confirming the concern you keep waving away.

Pointing to “the process” isn’t an answer. Every system, good or bad, has a process. The question is what the process allows. In these cases, it allowed the state to police viewpoint. That’s the part you never touch.

And no, disagreeing with you isn’t the same as wanting you to agree 100%. It’s pointing out that you keep dodging the core claim that once the state has the power to criminalize expression, the line becomes movable. Your response is simply to say you’re comfortable with that. Fine, but comfort isn’t a rebuttal. You’re defending your own tolerance for expansive state power, not refuting the risks that come with it.

 

[VaughanJB]

You’re still replying to the argument you wish I were making instead of the one I actually made. I never argued that all speech is fine, yet you keep retreating to that because it saves you from addressing the examples I listed........

No, I asked you about this for clarification, and you chose not to answer.

.examples where police acted specifically against viewpoint

None of the examples you listed does this.

Pointing to “the process” isn’t an answer. Every system, good or bad, has a process. The question is what the process allows. In these cases, it allowed the state to police viewpoint. That’s the part you never touch.

That ignores the process. The process answers your concerns, but you choose to ignore it. Again with the state.........

And no, disagreeing with you isn’t the same as wanting you to agree 100%. It’s pointing out that you keep dodging the core claim that once the state has the power to criminalize expression, the line becomes movable.

No, I'm dodging nothing. Quite the contrary. I don't know if you're being ironic.

So let me get this straight. You agree that we, the people, elect representatives. You agree that part of their job in representing us is to introduce, debate, and vote upon new laws. You agree that some speech is legitimately made illegal.

So what exactly is your point? I'm truly trying to figure it out, because you don't seem to relate to the way things actually work today.

Again, do you agree there should be laws about slander and deformation (as examples)?

Reading right now, you seem to be saying (and I could be wrong) that you're okay with some restrictions on speech, but not specifically hate speech, or harassment? This is a serious question - I'm trying to understand.

 

[Antoli]

This may be of interest:

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia

I looked at the link you posted. It actually proves my point rather than yours. The U.S. “free speech exceptions” are extremely narrow and tightly defined: true threats, incitement to imminent violence, fraud, defamation, and a few others. Every one of those categories deals with direct, measurable harm. None of them criminalize a viewpoint by itself. And that’s exactly the difference I’ve been talking about. The U.S. model doesn’t give the state broad discretion to police opinions or vague notions of “offense.” The exceptions are specific, limited, and constantly challenged in court.

The situations I listed from the UK involved police acting against people not because they threatened anyone or caused harm, but because of the viewpoint they expressed. Several of those actions were later ruled unlawful or disproportionate. That is the distinction you keep glossing over.

If anything, the American model shows how narrow those boundaries have to be if you want to avoid exactly the abuses the UK courts themselves ruled on. The link you provided doesn’t justify what happened in those cases, it highlights why those cases were a problem.

 

[VaughanJB]

I looked at the link you posted. It actually proves my point rather than yours. The U.S. “free speech exceptions” are extremely narrow and tightly defined: true threats, incitement to imminent violence, fraud, defamation, and a few others.

Oh brother - the point scoring is tiring. No, it supports what I have said. Laws. Enforcement. blah blah. That's how it works. All laws are narrow within their context.

What is your argument, the definition of "true threats" or "incitement to imminent violence"? And who, and how, do the authorities decide when the line is crossed? Especially since you're apparently against them being questioned and arrested if need be.

Again, I ask only because I can't figure out your logic.

 

[Antoli]

No, I asked you about this for clarification, and you chose not to answer.



None of the examples you listed does this.



That ignores the process. The process answers your concerns, but you choose to ignore it. Again with the state.........



No, I'm dodging nothing. Quite the contrary. I don't know if you're being ironic.

So let me get this straight. You agree that we, the people, elect representatives. You agree that part of their job in representing us is to introduce, debate, and vote upon new laws. You agree that some speech is legitimately made illegal.

So what exactly is your point? I'm truly trying to figure it out, because you don't seem to relate to the way things actually work today.

Again, do you agree there should be laws about slander and deformation (as examples)?

Reading right now, you seem to be saying (and I could be wrong) that you're okay with some restrictions on speech, but not specifically hate speech, or harassment? This is a serious question - I'm trying to understand.

You keep insisting I haven’t answered your questions, but I already did, just not in the way that fits the structure you’re trying to force the discussion into. So let me make it explicit, so you can’t claim uncertainty:

1.Yes, I agree that elected representatives create and debate laws.
2.Yes, I agree that some speech, like slander, defamation, true threats, or incitement can be legitimately restricted.
3. None of that is the point I’ve been making.

The issue is not whether any speech can be restricted. The issue is the scope of that power, and how it has been applied in real cases. You keep dismissing those cases by asserting they “don’t count,” even though courts themselves later ruled the police actions unlawful or disproportionate. If the judiciary agrees those actions crossed the line, your blanket statement that “none of the examples do this” is simply incorrect.

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that if a process exists, misuse can’t occur. But those same cases demonstrate the opposite; the process was followed, and misuse still happened. That’s the concern you never address.

You keep trying to collapse the discussion into a binary, either total free speech or total government regulation. That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m pointing out that once a government has broad, discretionary power to police expression, the line becomes movable, and history shows that line does move. The UK examples I gave are evidence of that.

So to answer your “serious question”: Yes, I support laws against slander, threats, incitement, etc. No, I don’t support giving the state broad authority to police viewpoints under vague categories like “hate speech” or “offense,” because that authority has already been used in ways courts later found unlawful. And that's the distinction you keep missing.

 

[Muskrat]

You guys back and forth reminds me of why I like watching parliament so much….

 

[VaughanJB]

You keep insisting I haven’t answered your questions, but I already did, just not in the way that fits the structure you’re trying to force the discussion into. So let me make it explicit, so you can’t claim uncertainty:

1.Yes, I agree that elected representatives create and debate laws.
2.Yes, I agree that some speech, like slander, defamation, true threats, or incitement can be legitimately restricted.
3. None of that is the point I’ve been making.

The issue is not whether any speech can be restricted. The issue is the scope of that power, and how it has been applied in real cases.

Wow. Just wow. I'm not at all sure why you didn't state this earlier. Amazing.

I have addressed how laws are applied and precedents are set. So, someone gets prosecuted, goes to court, and are then found guilty or not. Sometimes the law is struck down because it's too broad, or unclear. I've mentioned these things previously. You don't agree with how this works, or do you?

From what I've read, you've been complaining about "the state" make laws. But this now seems to be a different point.

What method would you use to ensure that all new laws are put in place in a perfect manner, without need for precendent or review?

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that if a process exists, misuse can’t occur.

Are you only reading every other line I write?

 

[RambleTamble]

there was an example of that very thing today . This I know will divide a lot of people, but a fire chief was dismissed and his case against unfair dismissal was denied...

His crime ?... he called a female firefighter a ''fireman'' and ''allowed'' other crew members to address her as a fireman too...

She complained and he was sacked...

Well again I know this will divide opinion.... but for the life of me I don't know why this woman found it so offensive to be called a fireman or a firefighter.. and was willing to have a person dismissed from their job for doing so... who cares IMO.. what your title is in a lifesaving job....

..and then again why he continued to call her a fireman after she supposedly let him know she found it offensive...

Unbelievble all around!

It's unbelievable because it's not true. He wasn't "dismissed." He resigned, citing a mental health decline after disciplinary action.

Is it really too much to ask to be respectful to your coworkers -- especially when doing dangerous work such as fighting fires? Jeeze! People need to re-evaluate their priorities.

 

[VaughanJB]

You keep trying to collapse the discussion into a binary, either total free speech or total government regulation. That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m pointing out that once a government has broad, discretionary power to police expression, the line becomes movable, and history shows that line does move. The UK examples I gave are evidence of that.

Yes. Laws change. Or are "moveable". As mentioned, pot smoking is an example. What is the problem with that?

 

[VaughanJB]

You guys back and forth reminds me of why I like watching parliament so much….

Sorry man. I am admittedly verbose. This "conversation" baffles me. I no longer even understand what is being argued.

 

[hollydolly]

It's unbelievable because it's not true. He wasn't "dismissed." He resigned, citing a mental health decline after disciplinary action.

Is it really too much to ask to be respectful to your coworkers -- especially when doing dangerous work such as fighting fires? Jeeze! People need to re-evaluate their priorities.

A senior firefighter who was disciplined after a female colleague was subject to a 'longstanding campaign' of offensive comments by bosses has lost an unfair dismissal case.

Simon Bailey, who was previously praised for his bravery, was issued a written warning in July 2023 by a tribunal after he oversaw an 'openly sexist' workplace environment which included failing to challenge staff who used the term 'fireman' instead of 'firefighter'.

The 27-year veteran of Avon and Somerset Fire Service was disciplined after his colleague Sasha Acheson complained about the behaviour of her peers in 2021.

The former England Women's rugby player claimed she was 'belittled' and targeted by her superiors Crew Manager Dean Davies and Mr Bailey, who was Watch Manager at her station.

Avon Fire and Rescue admitted to 'persistent sexual derogatory and offensive comments' towards or about women - which created an 'openly and over sexist and discriminatory workplace environment'.

Part of her complaint included the term 'fireman' being 'used frequently' by her co-workers at the station, despite the terminology being 'outdated'.

Ms Acheson, who is gay, won claims of sex discrimination, constructive dismissal, sex harassment, victimisation and harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation. She would receive a payout of more than £52,000.

Mr Bailey claimed when he raised her concerns about her crew manager, he was 'shell-shocked' by and 'mildly aggressive' in tone towards Ms Acheson. Mr Bailey was given a final written warning in July 2023, but was not demoted.

Mr Bailey, who had previously received a letter of commendation from his bosses, said he had been left feeling 'humiliated' by the proceedings.

After taking time off work on sick leave, he resigned from his role as Watch Manager in September 2023 and launched an unfair dismissal case against the service claiming constructive dismissal.

But he has now lost his claim, after an employment tribunal ruled his bosses had been 'reasonable' to reprimand him for his lack of action following Ms Acheson's complaint.

Firefighter disciplined for not telling off peers for using 'fireman'

 

[VaughanJB]

A senior firefighter who was disciplined after a female colleague was subject to a 'longstanding campaign' of offensive comments by bosses has lost an unfair dismissal case.

Simon Bailey, who was previously praised for his bravery, was issued a written warning in July 2023 by a tribunal after he oversaw an 'openly sexist' workplace environment which included failing to challenge staff who used the term 'fireman' instead of 'firefighter'.

The 27-year veteran of Avon and Somerset Fire Service was disciplined after his colleague Sasha Acheson complained about the behaviour of her peers in 2021.

The former England Women's rugby player claimed she was 'belittled' and targeted by her superiors Crew Manager Dean Davies and Mr Bailey, who was Watch Manager at her station.

Avon Fire and Rescue admitted to 'persistent sexual derogatory and offensive comments' towards or about women - which created an 'openly and over sexist and discriminatory workplace environment'.

Part of her complaint included the term 'fireman' being 'used frequently' by her co-workers at the station, despite the terminology being 'outdated'.

Ms Acheson, who is gay, won claims of sex discrimination, constructive dismissal, sex harassment, victimisation and harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation. She would receive a payout of more than £52,000.

Mr Bailey claimed when he raised her concerns about her crew manager, he was 'shell-shocked' by and 'mildly aggressive' in tone towards Ms Acheson. Mr Bailey was given a final written warning in July 2023, but was not demoted.

Mr Bailey, who had previously received a letter of commendation from his bosses, said he had been left feeling 'humiliated' by the proceedings.

After taking time off work on sick leave, he resigned from his role as Watch Manager in September 2023 and launched an unfair dismissal case against the service claiming constructive dismissal.

But he has now lost his claim, after an employment tribunal ruled his bosses had been 'reasonable' to reprimand him for his lack of action following Ms Acheson's complaint.

Firefighter disciplined for not telling off peers for using 'fireman'

"Part of her complaint included the term 'fireman' being 'used frequently' by her co-workers at the station, despite the terminology being 'outdated'."

Fair enough. What were the other "'persistent sexual derogatory and offensive comments' towards or about women" used?

I'd of read it in the story, but it's more concerned with sensationalism than factual reporting. Typical Daily Mail, basically.

By the way, this link worked better for me:

Firefighter disciplined for not telling off peers for using 'fireman'

 

[Antoli]

Wow. Just wow. I'm not at all sure why you didn't state this earlier. Amazing.

I have addressed how laws are applied and precedents are set. So, someone gets prosecuted, goes to court, and are then found guilty or not. Sometimes the law is struck down because it's too broad, or unclear. I've mentioned these things previously. You don't agree with how this works, or do you?

From what I've read, you've been complaining about "the state" make laws. But this now seems to be a different point.

What method would you use to ensure that all new laws are put in place in a perfect manner, without need for precendent or review?



Are you only reading every other line I write?

Vaughan, you keep reacting as though I’m rejecting the existence of democratic process. I’m not. I’ve never argued that laws magically appear without debate, or that judicial review doesn’t exist. What I am saying, and what you still haven’t grappled with, is that the mere fact a process exists doesn’t guarantee that the way that power is exercised is always legitimate, proportionate, or immune from misuse.

That’s why precedent, judicial correction, and public scrutiny exist in the first place because mistakes and overreach do happen. Pointing to the machinery of lawmaking doesn’t answer the concern, it just restates that the machinery exists.

You keep asking what “perfect method” I would design, but that misses the point entirely. I’m not claiming perfection is possible; I’m pointing to documented cases where the law was applied in ways later ruled unlawful or disproportionate. Those cases don’t vanish because a process exists, they prove that process alone doesn’t prevent error.

So yes, I’ve read every line you’ve written. The question is whether you’re willing to address the argument I’m actually making instead of the easier one you’d prefer to rebut.

 

[Magna-Carta]

Sorry man. I am admittedly verbose. This "conversation" baffles me. I no longer even understand what is being argued.

I get the feeling the thread drifted very quickly from anything practical into something more like a philosophical debate, with a lot of big claims and dramatic rhetoric. Once that happens the actual reality tends to get lost, and the discussion ends up being shaped by just a few strong viewpoints rather than what most of us experience.

Typical realy, when a thread opens with a sensational tabloid headline and not much else -- the discussion gets pulled straight into extremes before anyone has a chance to talk about the real world details.

 

[Antoli]

Yes. Laws change. Or are "moveable". As mentioned, pot smoking is an example. What is the problem with that?

You’re shifting the question again. Nobody is arguing that laws never change. Of course laws evolve, that’s not the issue. The issue is what kind of power is changing, and how that power is used in real cases. When the state has broad discretion over expression, “the line” doesn’t just change in theory, it has already moved in practice. The UK examples I gave aren’t abstract. They show ordinary people being questioned, arrested, or databased specifically for viewpoints. That’s the point you still haven’t engaged with.

Comparing that to pot laws misses the mark completely. Drug laws affect actions, speech laws affect what people are allowed to say or think. Those are fundamentally different categories of power, and you’re treating them as interchangeable.

So the question isn’t “do laws change?” The question is whether you’re willing to acknowledge that speech laws have already been applied in ways that go far beyond threats, incitement, or harassment, and that those documented cases are exactly why the concern exists.

 

[VaughanJB]

What I am saying, and what you still haven’t grappled with, is that the mere fact a process exists doesn’t guarantee that the way that power is exercised is always legitimate, proportionate, or immune from misuse.

I've never claimed anything contrary to this. You may have assumed it, or insinuated it, but I've never expressed it. In fact, I have acknowledged the ongoing review (precedent etc.) that takes place.

And what, exactly, if your point about possible abuse in terms of the acknowledged processes?

That’s why precedent, judicial correction, and public scrutiny exist in the first place because mistakes and overreach do happen. Pointing to the machinery of lawmaking doesn’t answer the concern, it just restates that the machinery exists.

So I have acknowledged it by referring to the process?!?!?! I have said, more than once, that badly drawn laws exist, and that laws change over time. What is the problem?

You keep asking what “perfect method” I would design, but that misses the point entirely. I’m not claiming perfection is possible; I’m pointing to documented cases where the law was applied in ways later ruled unlawful or disproportionate. Those cases don’t vanish because a process exists, they prove that process alone doesn’t prevent error.

Forgive me for asking for your solution/s. A law, poorly drafted, can be changed. I have acknowledged this. The process includes the review, and precedent setting. What is your point? You don't like the process, or what?!? I have also noted that despite what you might read from "journalists", too much information is missing, and that making a decision on validity if unwise without the full set of data.,

So yes, I’ve read every line you’ve written. The question is whether you’re willing to address the argument I’m actually making instead of the easier one you’d prefer to rebut.

Honestly, sincerely, at this point I have no idea what your point is.

Governments define, debate, and lass laws. Laws are questioned, via due process. When they need changing, they're changed.

Again, what is the point you're making? You're upset those laws are passed in the first place? If so, since lawmakers are not lawyers, how would you change it? What is your alternative?

Given my link, do you think "No Freedom of Speech Anymore" in the US?

 

[VaughanJB]

You’re shifting the question again. Nobody is arguing that laws never change. Of course laws evolve, that’s not the issue. The issue is what kind of power is changing, and how that power is used in real cases.

This sentence is, in my view, a contradiction.

The UK examples I gave aren’t abstract. They show ordinary people being questioned, arrested, or databased specifically for viewpoints. That’s the point you still haven’t engaged with.

No. They show application, and investigations, based on the law as understood at the time. Better yet - as understood by a tabloid mindset (which is a very low standard).

Comparing that to pot laws misses the mark completely. Drug laws affect actions, speech laws affect what people are allowed to say or think. Those are fundamentally different categories of power, and you’re treating them as interchangeable.

That's very reductionist. I have given examples, in both the UK and US, where speech is specifically noted. You seem to not appreciate/understand context.

So the question isn’t “do laws change?” The question is whether you’re willing to acknowledge that speech laws have already been applied in ways that go far beyond threats, incitement, or harassment, and that those documented cases are exactly why the concern exists.

No. The question is, have people been prosecuted unfairly? I have no idea why you assume my posts don't consider the possibility of laws being poorly written, or applied. I have given examples where this is the case, albeit I have addressed the process which resolves it.

What is your solution? Who, do you think, defined what slander is? How about defamation? How were these standards arrived at? And since you seem to not like how it was achieved, what should have happened>?