Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Colleague made sarky comment about me re. GB News

1000 replies

OneStepBeyondd · 30/05/2025 22:21

Discussion at work earlier - does anyone watch the news. Another colleague and I said we don’t mind GB news on occasion to which someone said (directed at me) - ‘I didn’t have you down as one of them’ in a judgemental tone.

Is it me or is that a bit rude and unnecessary?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
Etaerio · 31/05/2025 20:57

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 20:29

Please tell me which of these you think covers political beliefs?

  • age
  • disability
  • gender reassignment
  • marriage and civil partnership
  • pregnancy and maternity
  • race
  • religion or belief
  • sex
  • sexual orientation

Religion or belief is interpreted to cover some beliefs that would be thought political. For example, a belief in anthropogenic global warming.

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 20:59

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 20:57

Religion or belief is interpreted to cover some beliefs that would be thought political. For example, a belief in anthropogenic global warming.

You’re getting desperate now, aren’t you?

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 21:02

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 20:59

You’re getting desperate now, aren’t you?

You mean you've lost the argument? I'm entirely comfortable with it, thanks. It's hardly a surprise.

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 21:03

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 21:02

You mean you've lost the argument? I'm entirely comfortable with it, thanks. It's hardly a surprise.

The argument has certainly been lost. However, not by me.

EasternStandard · 31/05/2025 21:10

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 20:57

Religion or belief is interpreted to cover some beliefs that would be thought political. For example, a belief in anthropogenic global warming.

Do you mean in this situation? For political beliefs.

It is against the law for an employer to discriminate against you because of your religious or similar philosophical beliefs or political opinions.

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 21:10

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 21:03

The argument has certainly been lost. However, not by me.

And not for the first time, you're wrong 😆

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 21:13

EasternStandard · 31/05/2025 21:10

Do you mean in this situation? For political beliefs.

It is against the law for an employer to discriminate against you because of your religious or similar philosophical beliefs or political opinions.

No, I was pointing out that it's wrong to state that political beliefs cannot be protected under the Equality Act and gave an example of where they are.

EasternStandard · 31/05/2025 21:14

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 21:13

No, I was pointing out that it's wrong to state that political beliefs cannot be protected under the Equality Act and gave an example of where they are.

This says something similar to you

In the UK, under the Equality Act 2010, "religion or belief" is a protected characteristic, meaning discrimination on the basis of it is illegal. While the law doesn't explicitly list religions or beliefs, it includes philosophical beliefs, and in some cases, this can extend to political views that meet the criteria of a philosophical belief.

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 21:16

EasternStandard · 31/05/2025 21:14

This says something similar to you

In the UK, under the Equality Act 2010, "religion or belief" is a protected characteristic, meaning discrimination on the basis of it is illegal. While the law doesn't explicitly list religions or beliefs, it includes philosophical beliefs, and in some cases, this can extend to political views that meet the criteria of a philosophical belief.

Yes, exactly.

TENSsion · 31/05/2025 21:32

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 20:29

Please tell me which of these you think covers political beliefs?

  • age
  • disability
  • gender reassignment
  • marriage and civil partnership
  • pregnancy and maternity
  • race
  • religion or belief
  • sex
  • sexual orientation

“Religion OR BELIEF”

Can be used to protect political opinions in some circumstances

TENSsion · 31/05/2025 21:34

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 20:59

You’re getting desperate now, aren’t you?

You think these aren’t examples of political beliefs?

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 21:35

@Blossomtoes Not going too well for you, is it?

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 21:37

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 21:35

@Blossomtoes Not going too well for you, is it?

Better than for you. It’s quite clear that beliefs as a protected characteristic relates to faith, not politics.

TENSsion · 31/05/2025 21:39

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 21:37

Better than for you. It’s quite clear that beliefs as a protected characteristic relates to faith, not politics.

Wrong.

Colleague made sarky comment about me re. GB News
TENSsion · 31/05/2025 21:40

I’ll share a link while the photo is pending

www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/employment/312-employment-features/51567-dismissal-for-a-political-affiliation

Letstheriveranswer · 31/05/2025 21:47

I am pretty centrist and read from a range of news sources from different places on the political spectrum and different countries. I started including GB News recently but found it seems to only report on items where it can push a certain narrative. I don't find it a reputable news source but it's useful to get insight to a certain viewpoint.

I wouldn't judge anyone for reading or watching it as long as they take it for what it is and not as serious news.

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 21:51

@Blossomtoes So @TENSsion has already proved you wrong. Here's further proof, in the article on the legal case that established that beliefs such as that relating to anthropogenic global warming (the specific example I quoted remember?) can be protected under the Act. You must be pretty embarrassed now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grainger_plc_v_Nicholson

Grainger plc v Nicholson - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grainger_plc_v_Nicholson

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 21:53

TENSsion · 31/05/2025 21:40

That proves nothing. I don’t understand how she won her case when The respondent maintained a politically neutral stance and J’s contract contained an express term preventing her from holding a ‘formal role’ of a political nature.

She quite clearly broke her contract and her dismissal had nothing to do with protected characteristics.

TENSsion · 31/05/2025 21:56

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 21:53

That proves nothing. I don’t understand how she won her case when The respondent maintained a politically neutral stance and J’s contract contained an express term preventing her from holding a ‘formal role’ of a political nature.

She quite clearly broke her contract and her dismissal had nothing to do with protected characteristics.

Your assertion was that political persuasion cannot be protected by the EA.

Which is demonstrably untrue.

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 21:58

TENSsion · 31/05/2025 21:56

Your assertion was that political persuasion cannot be protected by the EA.

Which is demonstrably untrue.

If you really think that you don’t understand the case.

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 21:59

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 21:53

That proves nothing. I don’t understand how she won her case when The respondent maintained a politically neutral stance and J’s contract contained an express term preventing her from holding a ‘formal role’ of a political nature.

She quite clearly broke her contract and her dismissal had nothing to do with protected characteristics.

You're so desperate to avoid admitting you're wrong aren't you? It's hilarious 😆

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 22:01

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 21:59

You're so desperate to avoid admitting you're wrong aren't you? It's hilarious 😆

Your lack of understanding is hilarious. Did you even read the link?

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 22:12

TENSsion · 31/05/2025 22:04

https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/uncategorised/political-beliefs-at-work-protected-by-the-equality-act/

How awkward. Because this law firm “misunderstands” it too

😳

Edited

No, you misunderstand the law firm. That doesn’t say what you want it to.

Etaerio · 31/05/2025 22:16

BIossomtoes · 31/05/2025 22:01

Your lack of understanding is hilarious. Did you even read the link?

Yes I did read it. And it's this sentence which proves you completely wrong:

"In relation to the tribunal’s finding that J’s belief was protected under the Equality Act 2010, the EAT rejected the respondent’s submission that the belief in question, (a belief in participation in the democratic process), was too vague to be worthy of protection."

And that's before we get to Grainger etc. Maybe you should have learned the basics before setting yourself up as an authority 😆

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread