Теория Рекламы :: RE: Общая Теория Рекламы: «Фанаты и Жизнь».

14.01.2025 21:10

Автор: Dimitriy
Добавлено: 14.01.2025 21:10 (GMT 3)

Фанаты и Жизнь: « … ».

Примечательная инициатива…

Цитата:

Labour's pub banter crackdown: Landlords could 'ban drinkers from talking about controversial topics that bar workers think are offensive'

Pubs could ban customers from talking about topics such as transgender rights if landlords think they are harassing staff under Labour's new workers' rights charter.
The proposed legislation, which is expected to come into force next year, puts a duty on employers to prevent workers from being harassed by third parties such as customers.
That could prove difficult from employers to enforce, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has warned, when it applies to more philosophical debates in venues like pubs, The Times reported.
The controversial charter risks becoming 'an adventure playground for employment rights lawyers', according to a leading industry voice.
The legislation will scrap anti-strike laws brought in by the last Conservative government and introduce a string of new employment rights championed by the trade unions.
The government's own impact assessment found the legislation was likely to cost business up to £5 billion a year, but many business leaders fear the damage will be far greater.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned that it could 'curtail' freedom of expression and be applied to 'overheard conversations'.
If staff hear punters discussing religious views, transgender rights or women's rights in a 'contentious manner', the customers could be handed a ban. (выделенно а.п.)

Labour's proposed workers' rights charter, expected to come into force next year, has so far proved controversial

The charter puts a duty on employers to prevent workers from being harassed by third parties such as customers - put that may prove problematic to enforce when it comes to philosophical beliefs like trans rights ***

Experts say discussing controversial topics like religion in the pub could be banned under Labour's controversial workers' rights charter

The conversation would count as harassment if it is 'unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating the recipient's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment'.This is compounded if it is an opinion about a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.These include religious beliefs, views on women's and transgender rights, both those known as gender critical and a belief in gender identity, political philosophies and ethical veganism.The chief executive of UKHospitality said it is a 'complex' issue but they don't think 'the burden of policing these issues should fall upon employers'.Rupert Soames, the president of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) urged ministers to think again about measures in the Employment Rights Bill, which he warned would cost jobs and damage growth.
Mr Soames said the measures would compound the harm done by Rachel Reeves's £25 billion raid on employers' National Insurance.
He told BBC radio Four's Today programme that the legislation would drive up unemployment.
Speaking about the impact on business, he said: 'I think not only will they not employ, I think they will let people go. I think there could be quite an ugly rush before some of these things come into force.
'Nobody wants this, but the things like the probation periods in the Employment Rights Bill, we don't want that to become an adventure playground for employment rights lawyers.'
The EHRC told The Times that many employers may not understand what counts as a topic protected by equality law.
'The legal definition of what amounts to philosophical belief is complex and not well understood by employers. It is arguable that these difficulties may lead to disproportionate restriction of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR,' a spokesperson said.

CBI president Rupert Soames said Labour's workers' rights bill would costs jobs and hit growth

Mr Soames said the legislation would compound the harm done by Rachel Reeves's £25 billion raid on employers' national insurance

The Bank of England. Downing Street said ministers would continue to engage with businesses on the details of the legislation

But in evidence to MPs examining the Bill, it said sexual harassment by third parties was a significant issue in customer-facing jobs and for young people, and it supported measures specifically addressing it.
But protection from other types of harassment raises 'complex questions' and the EHRC is worried about the effects on free speech.
The government said the threshold for what constitutes harassment is high.
Kate Nicholls, chief executive of UKHospitality, said employers who don't understand the complexities of equality legislation could 'impose disproportionate restrictions'.
An Office for Equality and Opportunity spokesman said: 'Free speech is a cornerstone of British values but of course it is right that the Employment Rights Bill protects employees from workplace harassment, which is a serious issue.
'As with all cases of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, courts and tribunals will continue to be required to balance rights on the facts of a particular case, including the rights of freedom of expression.'
The Employment Rights Bill will bring in guaranteed hours provisions on zero-hours contracts and allow workers to bring unfair dismissal claims from the first day of employment.
But it will also introduce a new statutory probation period designed to make it easier for employers to dismiss new hires if they are found to be unsuitable for the job.
Downing Street said ministers would continue to 'engage' with business on the detail of the legislation, but insisted the government was committed to it.
The PM's official spokesman claimed the measures would lead to 'higher productivity for workers and higher returns for business'.
He added: 'Many workers already deliver higher workers' rights because it is in their own interests.'

Материал полностью.

Но, вот, что интересно, сама идея, так сказать «по модулю», далеко не нова…

Цитата:

Pubs and Politics in Stuart England
Divisive political debate is nothing new. In the popular new alehouses of the 17th century, it could end in fisticuffs – even death.

Woodcut of a tavern scene, English, 17th century

Political debate is eternally fractious. In what has been a politically tumultuous period it has become an increasingly common assertion that we are witnessing a rapid deterioration in the decorum of public and political debate. Indeed, the characteristic tone of such political discussion is now seen as uncivil, divisive, insulting and even threatening, a development often thought to be linked to the growth of social media and the image of the angry, isolated ‘troll’ hammering away at their keyboard. The anonymity and physical distance provided by digital technology are seen to give rein to anger and rancour.
It is self-evident, though, that digital technology is not a prerequisite for fractious interpersonal political exchanges. Division and hostility were, for example, rife in the face-to-face world of 17th-century political discussion.
It might be tempting to assume that politics was not the stuff of everyday conversation for anyone outside the political elite in this period, but historians have long since put this idea to bed and shown that political awareness and engagement was high across the social scale. The growth of political awareness and discussion in 17th-century England – what we now call ‘public opinion’ – has been associated with the rise of the coffeehouse from the 1650s onwards, a place where urbanites could go to read that emerging product, the newspaper, and to engage in caffeinated chatter over the state of the nation in a civilised and rational spirit. But long before the coffeehouse came onto the scene both town and country dwellers of all classes had used another site of liquid refreshment as a place to gather and debate politics: the pub.
Commonly known as the alehouse, the local pub had enjoyed a period of growing popularity in the century between 1550 and 1650, with numbers more than doubling from around 25,000 to 55,000 – or one alehouse for every 90 inhabitants of England. Almost every village would have had at least one such establishment and part of its appeal was the opportunity to engage your neighbours in political debate. This was acknowledged by the authorities in both Church and State, who were always uneasy about the ‘lower orders’ developing their own political views. Charles I complained in the 1630s about the proliferation of the common peoples’ ‘idle and discontented speeches in their alehouses’ and the Bishop of Bath and Wells wrote to his king that on Sundays after evening prayer the people would go to ‘tippling houses, and there upon their ale-benches talk of matters of the church or state’.
What was the tone of these discussions? They could be civil. The Lancashire apprentice shopkeeper Roger Lowe recorded in his diary in February of 1664 an alehouse conversation in which ‘John Pott and I began to discourse concerning the manner of God’s worship, he was for Episcopacy and I was for Presbytery. The contention had like to have been hot but the Lord prevented [it]’. In June of that year Lowe went to the alehouse with Thomas Jameson, where they ‘stayed late in night and we began controversy, he a papist began to speak revilingly of Luther and Calvin which I laboured to defend … we were in love and peace in our discourse’.
As often as not, though, discourse about matters of Church and State were not so peaceful and civil, as court records about seditious words and breaches of the peace reveal. In Dartford in 1539 a baker proposed a toast to Henry VIII, saying: ‘God save King Henry, here is good ale’, only to be met with the response from a miller and a labourer, with whom he was drinking and who were critical of Henry’s religious policies: ‘God save the cup of good ale, for King Henry shall be hanged.’ The baker duly reported them to the local authorities for speaking ill of the monarch, a clear sign that there was no love lost. If they were found guilty of imagining the death of the king, the punishment under Henry’s new Treasons Act was execution. Such fallouts were common at the time of the civil wars during the following century. The atmosphere was clearly charged in the drinking establishments of Wells, in Somerset, in the wake of Charles I’s execution in 1649. Humphry Butler, a seller of ‘sweet powders’ to barbers, urged his fellow drinkers ‘several times to drink the King’s health’ and when ‘others would not pledge the same, quarrelled with them’.
Butler was not the only one in Wells loyal to the executed king. During another alebench conversation that year, Robert Allen opined that ‘the king had a fair trial for his life’, only for Peter Sandford to retort that the king ‘was tried by a company of rogues’ and because Allen and others present had ‘spoke in the behalf of Parliament … he could find in his heart to throw the jug [of beer] in their face’. Another political disagreement that took a violent turn occurred in a village alehouse in North Bradley in Wiltshire, in 1685, when James II – the Catholic brother of Charles II – controversially took the throne. William Jennings, a metal worker, proposed a health to the new king, only for John Moore, a labourer, to declare that he would ‘drink no health to any popish rogue’, before striking Jennings a blow on the head with a stick ‘so that he lost much blood by it’.
Countless other examples exist in the archives, showing that in alehouses across Tudor and Stuart England the common people huddled around the fire to debate politics and that civility and mutual understanding were then, too, in short supply. A difference of opinion was likely to descend into the trading of insults, blows, drinks thrown in the face – or even with being hauled before the authorities for a capital offence. The anonymity and physical distance provided by the computer screen are neither necessary nor sufficient for the development of bitter and fractious cultures of everyday political discussion to emerge in times of political turmoil.
...
Материал полностью.

*** Пропаганда ЛГБТ в России запрещена.
__________________________________________________________
С пониманием и отраслевыми пожеланиями, Dimitriy.