The Royal Borough of Greenwich's 45-page "inclusive language guide," obtained by The Sun through a Freedom of Information request, has ignited controversy not because of what it includes, but because of what it excludes. By discouraging ordinary words such as "husband," "wife," "ladies and gentlemen," and "Christian name," the guide effectively treats traditional, widely accepted language as suspect. In attempting to prevent discrimination, it risks creating a new form of discrimination, against cultural norms, majority practices, and those unwilling to conform to the shifting dictates of linguistic fashion. This discussion critiques the guide as a speech code that undermines freedom of expression and imposes ideological preferences under the guise of inclusivity.
The Greenwich Council, employing some 5,000 staff, presents the guide as advisory rather than mandatory. Its stated aim is to "foster inclusivity" by encouraging staff to avoid "deeply embedded habits" of traditional language. Staff are urged to apologise for "mistakes" and learn from them. Similar guides have appeared elsewhere: Merton Council advises "caregivers" instead of "mum and dad," while Wokingham discourages "hard-working families" to avoid offending the unemployed. Far from isolated, the Greenwich guide is part of a broader institutional push to police language and reframe cultural norms.
While presented as inclusive, the guide operates by stigmatising mainstream speech. Telling staff to avoid "husband" and "wife," implicitly casts traditional families as problematic or outdated, marginalising those who simply use ordinary language to describe their lives. Likewise, banning "ladies and gentlemen" erases linguistic traditions that most people understand as respectful. The guide thereby privileges minority identity politics over common cultural expression, creating a hierarchy in which established terms are delegitimised. In effect, traditional speech is treated as offensive, while newer ideological constructions are elevated as morally superior.
The result is a subtle but real form of discrimination: those who hold to traditional language, often older, religious, or culturally conservative people, are made to feel out of step, or even morally deficient. Inclusivity for some comes at the cost of exclusion for others. Far from promoting diversity, the guide narrows acceptable expression to a politically approved lexicon.
The council insists the guide is only advisory, but its structure suggests otherwise. Staff are told to apologise for repeated "mistakes," effectively placing them under pressure to self-censor. This creates a climate of soft coercion where people avoid traditional words not because they wish to, but because they fear being reprimanded or branded insensitive. As critics like Toby Young of the Free Speech Union argue, such policies paradoxically generate exclusion by making dissenters or traditionalists feel like outsiders.
Moreover, the guide's sheer length, 45 taxpayer-funded pages, underscores how bureaucracy increasingly dedicates resources to ideological policing rather than core services. Posts on X have highlighted the irony of councils fretting over whether "Christian name" is offensive while struggling with housing, transport, and local services. The emphasis on language over governance suggests misplaced priorities.
At stake is not merely workplace etiquette but the cultural balance between tradition and innovation. Language is not only a tool of inclusion but also a vessel of heritage. By treating words like "husband," "wife," or "Christian name" as problematic, the guide risks severing people from their cultural inheritance. For many, these words are not exclusionary but part of ordinary life. To delegitimise them is to deny the legitimacy of those who use them.
The controversy also reflects the deepening cultural divide in Britain. To critics, the guide exemplifies "woke overreach," where ordinary speech becomes politicised and policed. To supporters, it is simply sensitivity to diversity. Yet the very polarisation it produces shows that such guides often inflame division rather than heal it.
The Royal Borough of Greenwich's inclusive language guide, while framed as progressive, operates as a speech code that discriminates against traditional forms of expression. In seeking to accommodate minority identities, it delegitimises majority culture, fostering division and eroding free speech. The insistence on apologies for "mistakes" blurs the line between advice and compulsion, making conformity the safer path. At its core, the guide illustrates the danger of policies that claim to broaden inclusivity while in fact narrowing permissible language. A genuinely inclusive society must allow both new and traditional expressions to coexist without coercion or stigma.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/36344304/woke-madness-council-married-couples-husband-wife/