Report this morning in the Guardian contains the least plausible excuse since Father Ted's "that money was just resting in my account". A collection of golliwog dolls was seized by police from some pub. The landlord:
Ryley denied that she or her husband were racist. “I’m not a racist in any form.” She confirmed that her husband had been photographed in a T-shirt from the far-right group Britain First. She said: “I don’t think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.”
To be serious for a second, obviously one can draw an adverse inference from someone displaying golliwogs, and I wouldn't want to drink there. But I really have concerns about the police getting involved and using the criminal law to regulate expression, no matter how shitty that expression is. I think there really needs to be a very high bar for police involvement, and I don't think this clears it - from the info in the article.
(I don't know if the legal position is different because it's licensed premises, and the report doesn't seem to mention what offence is being investigated).
Apparently according to the article, she also doesn’t think that ‘wog’ is racist.
quacks and walks like one
To be fair she does say that she doesn't "think" he is a Britian First supporter, she has probably never had a chance to discuss it with him.
I suspect that they are far to busy with other stuff, such as dealing with the fallout of displaying a multitude of golliwogs in a public place.
But I really have concerns about the police getting involved and using the criminal law to regulate expression, no matter how shitty that expression is.
On the other thread, there was mention of a facebook post along the lines of "they would hang them in Alabama" which I would consider to be straying very much into the realms of hate speech. Given this is a public house, I suspect there are likely to be other vocal expressions similarly voiced, enabled and encouraged by those being investigated.
This is creating a hostile environment, just a less blatant "no blacks no Irish" as used to be seen.
there really needs to be a very high bar for police involvement, and I don’t think this clears it – from the info in the article.
given that they’ve released the information about ‘hanging the gollies on the bar’ and the far right tee shirt, I reckon there’s probs more were not privy to that the cops have seen?
On a bit of a tangent, I recently reported a Facebook comment on a local news article about "hanging brown people" and got a notification a week later that it didn't breach FB terms of service.
So that's where we are with social media, it seems.
Is the issue that you're allowed to collect whatever you want to, and wear whatever you like, just not in a commercial setting? By having a sign up saying (effectively) 'If you're triggered by these items, then you're not welcome' it becomes an issue of discrimination, not free speech.
Is the issue that you’re allowed to collect whatever you want to, and wear whatever you like, just not in a commercial setting?
Its being investigated as a hate crime so I think would apply regardless eg if you had the same display in your front window and it was easily visible from the road then potentially it could count.
The commercial property could have additional issues though around discrimination and for a pub also questions about whether suitable to hold the licence.
I think there really needs to be a very high bar for police involvement, and I don’t think this clears it – from the info in the article.
Point of note, this is paralleling in the Suella! Braverman! thread
But.....
Someone ('a snowflake' in the words of the landlady, IIRC) reported it which then I guess the police have to investigate. I think we're pretty far from arrests and criminal charges but I suspect a bit of local copper-ing and 'I recommend taking them down before it does become a bigger issue' followed
The ramp up then seems to come from 1/ SB allegedly getting involved and telling the police not to waste time on little things (according to 'a source' and apparently denied by SB; 2/ the removed display then being replaced by a new one and a sign put on the door warning potential guests that if they're offended by racist stuff then they'd better get ready to be offended. Which is kind.
This latter point - I'm not sure on. I mean, i know what i think of the landlord and lady and the type of punters that frequent the pub and/or have sent new items to replenish the display - but I also defend their right to hold those views, and so I'm a bit stuck on whether warning potential offendees of the type of pub they might be going into is a suitable compromise.
If it was a private house and they and their friends were getting together to simply hold and discuss those views - horrible as it is, is it a crime? But then it's not a private house, it's a public one. Plus, not sure what licensing restrictions apply?
Last - I wonder what the breweries that supply them think (I just looked, it's a free house) or CAMRA who made it pub of the year numerous times......
We don't have free speech, there are rules against causing harm to others through our expressions.
A pub with golliwogs and a Britain first t-shirt don't strike me as harmless
The cops have obviously been aware of these racist scum bags for years and have finally decided they’ve got enough evidence that they can get them on hate crimes. They seem to be doing a reasonable job in a difficult situation.
The drinks license will be taken away if it's in their name anyway now or at least not renewed. If your racist just come out and say it then we can either challenge or ignore them.
It's a story I've largely not taken any interest in as it's just to easy for the likes of GB news to run with it and fan the flames.
Shut the pub turn it into flats and let grown ups play with dolls in the comfort of a padded cell.
We don’t have free speech, there are rules against causing harm to others through our expressions
Absolutely. It was a clumsy attempt by me to simplify the difference between in private and in public in a business setting.
Someone (‘a snowflake’ in the words of the landlady, IIRC) reported it which then I guess the police have to investigate. I think we’re pretty far from arrests and criminal charges but I suspect a bit of local copper-ing and ‘I recommend taking them down before it does become a bigger issue’ followed
The police have got no obligation to investigate any particular complaint. They have huge discretion on what to prioritise and when. Just because someone reports something, it doesn't mean the cops have to do anything.
If you believe the landlady (which...), the golliwog figures were not recommended to be taken down, but taken by the police.
just a less blatant “no blacks no Irish” as used to be seen.
Those signs never existed in the UK. It's at best an urban myth and at worst a fabrication by Irish activists in London.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/oct/21/no-irish-no-blacks-no-dogs-no-proof
A pub with golliwogs and a Britain first t-shirt don’t strike me as harmless
Not everything that's harmful is illegal (the pub presumably also has drinking, smoking, and eating chips on the premises, all of which are harmful to both the punters and wider society).
We need to be careful about sending the police to deal with thick, unpleasant people whose views we disagree with. We can't have cops wandering around confiscating property because the owner is a "wrong un" or they've done something dodgy in another aspect of their life. That kind of unrestrained police behaviour doesn't tend to end up well - and it's usually ethnic minorities that end up getting the worst treatment.
Those signs never existed in the UK. It’s at best an urban myth and at worst a fabrication by Irish activists in London.
Possibly, but it was argued differently as a result of that letter. Have a read:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/25/no-irish-no-coloureds-notices-were-no-myth
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/28/no-reason-to-doubt-no-irish-no-blacks-signs
What is a shame is that the actual pub looks like a Grade 2 listed, classic, traditional building, that we are losing. It's also a free house.
Shame it's owned and ran by neo-Nazis.
Had a look at their facebook page and they are getting some stick but they are doubling down. Some of the posts from a few years ago are truly shocking.
I’m firmly in the “Nice pub, shame if anything happens to it” crowd.
Although that is not particularly helpful and will only inflame tensions and increase division. I think there are better ways of handling matters than vandalism.
Those signs never existed in the UK. It’s at best an urban myth and at worst a fabrication by Irish activists in London.
"Irish activists"? Says a lot really.
There was a very strong anti-Irish bias in the UK during the 60's, 70's and 80's. Particularly in London and fed by the Government propaganda at the time. You only have to watch the excellent BBC documentary series, "Spotlight on the Troubles" to see the difference to the truth and what we were being told at the time.
Those signs never existed in the UK. It’s at best an urban myth and at worst a fabrication by Irish activists in London.
My grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather all received anti-Irish treatment because they had an Irish surname and were catholic living in various bits of Maidstone and London. My great-great-grandfather was a second-generation immigrant born in Kent.
Persecution comes in many forms and is not acceptable in any of them.
We need to be careful about sending the police to deal with thick, unpleasant people whose views we disagree with. We can’t have cops wandering around confiscating property because the owner is a “wrong un” or they’ve done something dodgy in another aspect of their life. That kind of unrestrained police behaviour doesn’t tend to end up well – and it’s usually ethnic minorities that end up getting the worst treatment.
The hypocrisy of this statement boils my piss
“Irish activists”? Says a lot really.
Did you read the source? Are you familiar with the Roger Casement Irish Centre? How else would you describe the people who were politically active there?
The hypocrisy of this statement boils my piss
You're gonna trust Essex Police to wander around exercising their discretion on sensitive political topics? 🤔
the least plausible excuse since Father Ted’s “that money was just resting in my account”.
I don’t think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.
Because "grown man doesn't buy his own clothes or do the washing" is a huge stretch of the imagination.
Did you read the source? Are you familiar with the Roger Casement Irish Centre? How else would you describe the people who were politically active there?
How about "human rights activists" ?
Odd that you think describing activists at rhe Irish Centre as "Irish activists" is an insult, when Irish activists describe themselves as Irish activists!
https://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/6228
Because “grown man doesn’t buy his own clothes or do the washing” is a huge stretch of the imagination.
lol!!!
"I wasn't Sieg Heiling, I was just waving to a friend across the street"
We need to be careful about sending the police to deal with thick, unpleasant people whose views we disagree with. We can’t have cops wandering around confiscating property because the owner is a “wrong un” or they’ve done something dodgy in another aspect of their life. That kind of unrestrained police behaviour doesn’t tend to end up well – and it’s usually ethnic minorities that end up getting the worst treatment.
This isn't a difference of opinion or disagreeing with a view if it's some openly racist ****s being racists. I don't see how racism is 'a view'.
And creating a safe space that supports and encourages something like racism or extremists of any other sort doesn't tend to end well either? Usually it doesn't end well for some innocent folk on the receiving end of the racism that's been supported and developed somewhere.
And creating a safe space that supports and encourages something like racism or extremists of any other sort doesn’t tend to end well either? Usually it doesn’t end well for some innocent folk on the receiving end of the racism that’s been supported and developed somewhere.
Well... that takes us to the Braverman thread... because that's happening at a national level...
from @SmoothDunk on the birdsite
This isn’t a difference of opinion or disagreeing with a view if it’s some openly racist ****s being racists. I don’t see how racism is ‘a view’.
Obviously Britain First associates and 99% of people that make a point to display golliwogs are racist. It's not illegal in this country to be a racist. The fact that you don't think racism is "a view" doesn't mean the police should be set around to arrest and confiscate the property of racists - there has to be something more than thought crime. Otherwise there's a whole bunch of people on here with bigoted views about travellers that will need to be looking over their shoulders, not to mention plenty of Hindu nationalists, Black Hebrew Israelites, ultra-Orthodox Jews, Orange Order members and various other easy-to-find shitheads.
Well… that takes us to the Braverman thread… because that’s happening at a national level…
Yeah. But I haven't read that one. I know all I need to know about that lot, it very much is something I can have a view on.
there has to be something more than thought crime.
Yes I agree - I expect a public house that openly expresses racism meets that criteria. Because serving alcohol, encouraging racism and expression of those views, then sending those people out into the public will have consequences one day that the pub has some responsibility for.
lol!!!
“I wasn’t Sieg Heiling, I was just waving to a friend across the street”
Oh I'm not suggesting he's not a racist, just that disbelieving he was wearing a t-shirt because "it was convenient" rather misjudges the level involvement a lot of men exercise over what they wear.
See old guys rule t-shirts.
Yes I agree – I expect a public house that openly expresses racism meets that criteria
Stochastic racism?
What's the bit you think should be illegal? Thinking racist things, talking about racist things, or talking about racist things while drinking alcohol?
To be fair, this is aside from the licensing issue.
Someone (‘a snowflake’ in the words of the landlady, IIRC) reported it
I would report it - if I had seen it and I think from the responses here - most would.
What’s the bit you think should be illegal?
This might help to explain:
In particular:
There's a notice in our local pub saying 'No Travellers'. I'm not a Traveller myself but I still find the notice horrible. Is there anything I can do about it?
Members of the Irish Travelling community are counted as an ethnic group so this notice counts as race discrimination and is probably illegal. An experienced adviser, for example, at your local Citizens Advice, could help you to make a complaint or take the matter further if this doesn't solve the problem.
And no, I doubt there was a sign in the pub saying 'No Blacks'. However, there were other signifiers, stuffed or otherwise.
Hanging exaggerated effigies of an ethnic minority in your wardrobe at home... evil ****ers not breaking the law.
Hanging exaggerated effigies of an ethnic minority in your pub... far less clear cut. The law breaking part anyway.
The Wog Boy [DVD] https://amzn.eu/d/cDJMZdW/blockquote >
That's a different use of the term.
In Australia wog is used by European migrants to describe themselves, my partner is Australian of Ukrainian descent and describes herself as a wog.
I'd never heard of it's use here until I met her but it is used widely not as a racist term more a descriptive term.From wiki:
Wog is a racial slur in British English – and, to a lesser extent, in Australian English – applied to people from the Mediterranean region[1] such as Southern Europeans and North Africans. In British English, it more typically refers to people from the Indian subcontinent and certain other parts of Asia, such as the East Indies. Whilst it is extremely derogatory in British English, in Australian English, it may be considered non-offensive depending on how the word is used, due to reclamation and changing connotations.
What’s the bit you think should be illegal? Thinking racist things, talking about racist things, or talking about racist things while drinking alcohol?
A bit further along that path where the drunk racists kick some poor guy half to death nearby. Which is (edit, illegal already oc!) predictable but by no means a certainty. So the pub loses it's licence before that happens / it's illegal to run a pub in that way because the racist element of the pub is a specific thing (illegal? I don't know. Civil matter more than criminal at that stage I suspect but I'm guessing here)
What’s the bit you think should be illegal? Thinking racist things, talking about racist things, or talking about racist things while drinking alcohol?
Being racist in a public space which is likely to cause distress or offence would cover it. In their flat above the pub no problem, in the bar a problem.
Being racist in a public space which is likely to cause distress or offence would cover it. In their flat above the pub no problem, in the bar a problem.
I'd go with that. I'd say if an environment is created (by furnishings, display or text) or the language that is tolerated ('encouraged' is a word used above and I'd say that is too high a bar) by a business, club or organisation which could be found to be intimidating or grossly insulting to a protected group then there is a problem serious enough for intervention. I suppose you then have to decide if it matters if that is in a public or private space. A pub - well that feels open and shut to me. A private members club full of the same decorations as this pub - I'd be for intervention but can see how people who value the free speech of others regardless of their opinion as something to defend at all costs could see it differently.
For me there is something about normalising of extreme or abhorrent views through a crowd mentality which feels so incredibly dangerous where my natural instincts to defend free speech comes into hard conflict with my desire to protect society from radicalisation.
I've said it before, but 'Winter' by Len Deighton is (despite being fiction) a salutatory tale of the views of otherwise good people becoming vile in tiny steps; boiling frog style. Do you stamp it out while still manageable at the expense of freedom of speech or do you wait until the monster is almost impossible to defeat.
Being racist in a public space which is likely to cause distress or offence would cover it.
Well fair enough, but assuming you're paraphrasing s154 CJPOA, that's not what the law says right now: "A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress..."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/154
If the law was what you wanted it to be, then the result would be that people who hold views that a majority of people would find distressing or offensive would not be able to express them in public. That is, in other words, trying to insulate everyone from any offensive or distressing viewpoint with the power of the criminal law.
I find the views of the Catholic Church on abortion and homosexuality offensive; should priests be banged up for expressing their repugnant views in public so long as 51% of the population agrees with me?