Council Bans Staff From Calling Married Couples Husband and Wife in Case it Causes Offence to They/Thems
A woke council has told staff not to refer to married couples as husband and wife. The Sun has more.
A 45-page booklet gives vocabulary tips to taxpayer-funded civil servants in the Royal Borough of Greenwich in South East London.
It is the latest barmy guide obtained by the Sun using Freedom of Information laws.
It includes a warning that traditional terms for a married couple are no longer acceptable and should be replaced with gender-neutral ones.
Staff running events are also warned against welcoming “ladies and gentlemen”.
Asking for a “Christian name” is also off limits.
The guide’s foreword states: “For some of us, communicating in a more inclusive way is about changing deeply embedded habits.”
It adds: “It’s OK to make mistakes. Remember that if you are really sorry and apologise, you cannot keep making the same ‘mistake’.”
Free Speech Union chief Toby Young fumed: “The problem with these inclusive language guides is they are designed to make anyone who doesn’t speak fluent woke-ish feel excluded.”
A Greenwich spokesman said: “Our inclusive language guide is advisory only.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It amazes me that leaders of councils, HR departments supported by their boards of Directors etc believe that they are the holders of all things moral and right, and that it is their job to instruct, and to impose their beliefs, language and morals on the rest of us
In the above case the tax payer, who when they elected them probably were labouring under the misapprehension
that the council was there to empty bins, grit the roads and generally provide services to allow the tax payer to get on with their life.
Likewise the employee probably believed he was taking a job with the employer to deliver a task or service in exchange for money.
But this is clearly no longer the case Government authorities and Employers alike believe they own slaves who must obey their rules on how to live, think behave .
There needs to be a great correction and removal of these would be masters.
Dear Greenwich Council,
As far as I’m concerned, marriage can only exist between one man and one woman. (Who are biological men and women, by the way, because that’s the only thing that is real.)
This is my firm belief and nothing will ever change it.
That’s as much as there is to it, so no need for me to issue a 45 page advisory on the subject.
Incredible! And what a well-chosen photo to illustrate the madness:
Two women pretending to be two men being “married” by a man pretending to be a woman?
What you can see there is a parody of a marriage ceremony.
The father of lies cannot create reality. It can only mock, pretend, fake, lie, deceive, simulate.
The aim is to debase and make a mockery of the institution of marriage.
Do not be deceived, God is not mocked….
In which case He must have changed His ways.
The Bible has numerous examples of how God punishes sin. Adam and Eve, Abel and Cain, The Great Flood, Sodom and Gomorra, The Tower of Babel to mention but a few.
Unless He now agrees with His son’s doctrine of forgiveness, which sounds kind but gets us nowhere.
Alternatively, some God-fearing people may believe that what the Council is doing does not qualify as a Sin.
Yes, the Bible is very clear about these things, particularly in the Book of Leviticus, Chapter 18.
The quote is from Galatians 6:7. It means that our actions have consequences, physically and spiritually. So He hasn’t changed His ways.
These inclusive language guides don’t make me feel excluded, they make me ever more determined to continue to use the language they are trying to suppress.
Absolutely,
I now deliberately avoid any of the newly mandated words and phrases.
If you say xxx you will be shot, in an advisory sort of way.
“For some of us, communicating in a more inclusive way is about changing deeply embedded habits.”
It’s not inclusive, though, it’s exclusionary. It’s designed specifically to deprecate marriage. This is in conformity with the marxo-fascist idea of abolishing marriage as a fundamental institution of our society. And this in turn is because the marxo-fascist pathocratic total-control state requires an atomised population that has no loyalties or allegiances except to the marxo-fascist state.
Fascists are very much in favour of marriage as its generally the only stable way to raise children and without children, the Volk¹ a particular fascist branch/ movement is specially concerned with cannot continue to exist.
¹ German singular of Völker — peoples. I don’t know an English singular version of that.
Exactly.
By the way, this is not even some hidden agenda within Marxism-Leninism. It is very clearly stated in their writings.
Remember that if you are really sorry and apologise, you cannot keep making the same ‘mistake’.”
‘Never apologise, it is a sign of weakness.’ – John Wayne in ‘Red River’. Of course he could have gone on the say ‘especially to the snivelling woke Far Left’.
English is a living language jointly created by all the people who speak English and rightfully belonging to them. It’s not up to Labour apparatchiks to first misappropriate it (a case of cultural appropriation if there ever was any) and then change it in arbitrary ways to conform with random Labour policies of the day.
I had a call from an employment agency yesterday to see if I was considering returning to work in the public sector as my speciality in highway law and regulations is in demand and he had four vacancies on his books for my skills. I said that financially I was doing fine in retirement and ticking off the years to receiving some additional local government and compnay pension ahead of the state pension at 67. I told him I found the work I was doing was no longer fun as it was mainly about ruining people’s lives an businesses. I never did an LTN in my time but most London Boroughs have done these now. And of course you then get this sort of nonsense even if I had accepted a job I would not have been a council employee.
Get in there and dismantle it from the inside!
Nice idea but the likelihood is as an employee some woke snowflake would complain and you would get fired but maybe with FSU win a compensation sum at tribunal. As a contractor you could be removed usually at 7 days notice.
It would be a lot simpler to issue a blanket ban on words, wouldn’t it.
Mmmm
Get rid of these blithering fools or take over the council or on second thoughts stop paying council Tax
Have they given any thoughts for those who may be confused or offended by using this ‘inclusive’ language?
Gay marriages cause me offence (especially in church). Will they please stop that too.
The Old Testament Book of Leviticus, Chapter 18, is very clear about such things.
“Just because you’re offended, doesn’t make you right”. Ricky Gervais.
The fact you’ve previously admitted you’re not religious and yet you say that is quite laughable, actually.
There is a place for civil union in a fair society. People should be free to live how they wish without prejudice or discrimination. Allowing the recognised and legal union of a man to a man, a woman to a woman is reasonable especially when taking into consideration the unique legal and social provisions that allows. And there the matter ends in my book. That is a legal union, formed in the eyes of the law and the wider public too. That is a civil partnership, and is all good and proper. Calling such a same sex union a marriage is a lie, it is the hijacking of a word’s meaning and perverting it to suit a false agenda. There are other good words available that have a suitable meaning, for example: espousal, connubial, wedlock even. All these words are little used and can be usefully repurposed without unreasonable resistance. A wedding can be a ceremonial marriage, woman to man, or wedlock, same sex. The same could be considered with the usurpation of the word ‘gay’, but we had plenty of other words that also mean light-hearted or carefree so the repurposing of the word ‘gay’ was a very small… Read more »
I agree but it made my eyes hurt reading it
I just couldn’t switch off the bold. Sorry!
What is the problem with husband and wife? I know 2 gay couples, one male, the other female and in case 1, they both refer to “my husband” and case 2 “my wife”
I wonder what the vicar or registrar says once they’ve married a gay couple. Do they say “I now pronounce you husband and husband/wife and wife”? Just sounds unusual, but they’ve got to say something, I suppose.
To be clear, I am obv 100% anti-woke but I’m all for gay couples getting married, because I’m not old-fashioned, a bigot or a holier-than-thou Christian. Gay couples had the equal right to marry well before this toxic woke mind virus descended on us, infiltrating all walks of life. Good on them, I say. No sanctimony from this quarter.
“A Greenwich spokesman said: “Our inclusive language guide is advisory only.” …… until you transgress, then we will make your life hell.
Are these officers blind?
just look at the couple and use the appropriate terms: husband and husband, wife and wife, husband and wife….
So to be inclusive you have to exclude the majority! 😂