Britain - The Official Thread

[Liquid]

But now using the word "bald" is part of the no-no language when used in a "harassing" manner

And? Spiteful litigation always uses whatever it can. If I was that pissed off about getting sacked that I wanted to sue, I'd bring up every grievance, no matter how small or trivial.

Not for just calling me bald - I don't imagine I'd get anywhere with that.

I don't know if the threat to violence is pertinent

You now doubt that just calling someone is bald is enough of a reason to sue but you don't think additional threats to violence are relevant to a case in which threats of physical violance were issued? Come on. If you can't sue someone on grounds of harassment just for calling someone bald, as you have now doubted, then you can't tell us that just calling someone bald is grounds for harassment. The rags will always sensationalise it and take it out of context as I mentioned in my previous post.

If someone called me a bald ****, could I sue?

Number one, it depends entirely on the situation. Is this a workplace grievance or something down in the pub? A complete stranger or a friend? And don't just invent a scenario now, I'm saying this to make the point that it does indeed depend on the situation. The more you add to a hypothetical scenario, the more factors and variables you have to take in for the relevance of the case.

Just calling someone bald, or even a bald ****, will depend on so many other factors. Number two, once again, try it. You might find out that you need those other pertinent threats to make a valid case.