Member

To take another example, one can well imagine the congregation of a church—this is, of course, the charitable sector—being appalled by a sermon, and a critique being overheard by the pastor, vicar or priest as the congregation is leaving and chatting among themselves. The ecclesiastic may well be an employee of the diocese and so in a position to use Clause 20 against his employer, the church. How farcical that would be, and how farcical the law would be thought to be. Amendment 87 would protect against such a ridiculous situation because the circumstances would have to be taken into account, and without the right of reply in the church, the congregation would be more than entitled to discuss the sermon with each other on the way out. Let us consider another example that is used: a university lecturer overhears students commenting among themselves in highly critical personal terms about their teaching, as I am afraid many university people do. They could hold their employer, the university, liable.