Most of us who work have signed something about not breaking client confidentiality or bringing our employers into disrepute.

As if we would!

But when it comes down to it, what do these words actually mean?

There are the things that obviously overstep the mark:-

My boss is a f~*$$^@+ b~*$$^@+!!! is clearly a step too far,

And My boss, Bert Bloggs, is a sexist pig and a f~*$$^@+ b~*%$^@+!!! is way over the top and should have been dealt with through the proper channels. (By the way no insult is intended to any real Bert Bloggs.)

but, talking about people at work, at which stage in this progression has the writer gone too far?

There was a bit of an atmosphere at work today.

One of my colleagues was in a filthy mood and there was a bit of an atmosphere at work today.

My line manager was in a filthy mood and there was a bit of an atmosphere at work today.

It must be my line manager's time of month; she was in a filthy mood at work today, and was making life impossible for the rest of us.

It must be Mavis Blogg's time of month; she was in a filthy mood at work today, and was making life impossible for the rest of us.

There are probably some people who would say that writing anything to suggest that all are not permanently happy of the good ship Thingummybobs Ltd. was bringing the business into disrepute. Others would say that making the cause of the atmosphere identifiable was the point where the blogger had gone too far, while some might say that point was only reached with the mention of her name, but I'm willing to bet that no employment contract actually makes it clear so that we are all at the mercy of some individual's interpretation. I have been told a story of one blogger who wrote amusing stories about her work in which she named her colleagues: all of them were cool about this, and most read and enjoyed the blogs. However somebody in the firm's hierarchy took exception to her use of real names and she was sacked, although until then she had no inkling that she had done anything in contravention of the company's rather loosely worded code of conduct.(Again, I stress that Mavis Bloggs, like her husband Bert, is a figment of my imagination - and with him as a husband who wouldn't be stressed?)

And what of the business itself?

Good day at work - lots of new orders. Well, nothing wrong there.

Good day at work - massive new order from Widgets PLC. Maybe not?

Good day at work, I think - massive new order from Widgets PLC, which could be a bit of a problem in view of their outstanding debts to us. Too far.

And then there is protecting the children -

It was 'Bring your child to work day' and we had a delightful pair in. Well that's safe enough, but at what point in the next half dozen observations does the blogger overstep the mark?

It was 'Bring your child to work day' and Sue brought in her delightful pair.

It was 'Bring your child to work day' and Sue brought in Josh and Emma.

It was 'Bring your child to work day' and Sue Clutterbuck brought in Josh and Emma.

It was 'Bring your child to work day' and Sue Clutterbuck brought in Josh (9) and Emma (7).

It was 'Bring your child to work day' and Sue Clutterbuck brought in Josh (9) and Emma (7) - see photo of them operating the Thingummy machine.

It was 'Bring your child to work day' and Sue Clutterbuck brought in Josh (9) and Emma (7) who behaved like a pair of hooligans all day - see photo of them wrecking the Thingummy machine.

So, without ever even reaching the still more murky waters surrounding the rights and duties of the whistle blower, my next question is at what point do such codes of conduct come into conflict with our right to freedom of speech?