HMRC abuse criteria

[Dinosauria]

There is a recorded warning when you call HMRC saying they won't accept any abuse on the grounds of race, religion, disability, gender and age.

Think they missed one.

I think there is a lot of overlap of using gender/sex as an equivalent term? Although ‘gender's' been hijacked.

So is abuse on various other grounds acceptable, then? I sort of see what they mean, but surely their staff should be comfortable knowing that they shouldn't be abused, full stop.

Someone has posted about this on the agent's forum, (how tax agents communicate with HMRC) and asked them to correct it. I'll have a look later to see if they've replied...

Surely by the genderists' own rules, you can't tell someone's gender by their voice, name etc. So how would anyone phoning up know the "gender" of the person they were speaking to, unless that person had made a point of telling them? So unless the call handler literally picked up the phone and said "Hello, you're through to HMRC, I'm Daniel and I identify as a man" or similar, it ought to be impossible for them to receive gender-based abuse. Sex-based abuse, on the other hand - entirely possible, but not mentioned....surprise surprise.

So OK to abuse them because you don't like government tax policy/because you had to wait an hour for them to answer/because you got out of bed the wrong side?

I've just heard the message now and it's been changed! They talk about sex and gender reassignment. That didn't take long.

They talk about sex and gender reassignment.

The problem is you wouldn't know someone was in the protected class of gender reassignment if all you have to go on is a voice.

Sorry, I should have added that you shouldn't have to rely on the EA to implement a zero tolerance policy on abuse.

Interesting that they changed the statement, but surely as an organisation they simply need to say that 'any abuse against a member of staff will not be tolerated'. Why are those who may not be covered by any of the nine characteristics left out of the statement?

Well yes. I wonder if it was deliberate - to use the H M Revenue & Customs system and authority to try to normalise the word
"Gender" instead of sex.

@NonnyMouse1337

Interesting that they changed the statement, but surely as an organisation they simply need to say that 'any abuse against a member of staff will not be tolerated'. Why are those who may not be covered by any of the nine characteristics left out of the statement?

Yes, exactly.

@SeaRabbit

Well yes. I wonder if it was deliberate - to use the H M Revenue & Customs system and authority to try to normalise the word "Gender" instead of sex.

I daresay it might win Stonewall points. And points mean prizes!