Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2023 11:37:41 GMT
Well done for proving the police are politically motivated and that you want private companies to now single them out destroy their business. Very totalitarian of you, Steve. Keep up the fascism.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Apr 12, 2023 13:56:54 GMT
Well done for proving the police are politically motivated and that you want private companies to now single them out destroy their business. Very totalitarian of you, Steve. Keep up the fascism. What are you talking about,he said nothing of the kind,what he said was this There’s nothing in that where he says the police were right nor him wanting businesses to destroy them,what he was doing was speculating on an outcome,and he’s probably right on that score. You should stop making up things not said. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 12, 2023 14:26:15 GMT
Well done for proving the police are politically motivated and that you want private companies to now single them out destroy their business. Very totalitarian of you, Steve. Keep up the fascism. It seems that fascist style posts are your forte. Steve provided relative information and you want to twist that into totalitarianism. Very strange. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2023 14:27:54 GMT
Bless 'em.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 12, 2023 14:31:17 GMT
This is awkward for those that suppose the display was an innocent display of cuddly toys. Seems Mr Ryley is a Britain First (far right group led by criminals) supporter who likes to laugh about KKK lynchings of black people.  'She told The Guardian that he had been pictured in a Britain First t-shirt but did not back the far-right group. "I don't think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time," she said.'
 Mrs Riley you do tell them. www.lbc.co.uk/news/pub-landlady-golliwogs-britain-first/Police reaction was wrong but I bet the Ryleys don't have much of a future in the pub trade. Which beer companies will want to supply them? What licensing committee will ignore his antics? Nothing awkward about it. How the fuck are they supposed to hang those lovable creatures on the wall? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Apr 12, 2023 14:47:05 GMT
It's not the way they've hung them which could be innocent, it's Ryley's "they used to hang them in Mississippi years ago" comment when his wife questions it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Apr 12, 2023 14:56:11 GMT
The question is, should they be allowed to have them back if they stopped hanging them?
If the answer is no then the fact that they hung a few of them is irrelevant to whether they should possess them.
The coppers didn’t insist that they take down the golliwogs that they hung . It seems merely possessing them is a race hate act .
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Apr 12, 2023 15:11:01 GMT
The question is, should they be allowed to have them back if they stopped hanging them? If the answer is no then the fact that they hung a few of them is irrelevant to whether they should possess them. The coppers didn’t insist that they take down the golliwogs that they hung . It seems merely possessing them is a race hate act . They should definitely get them back and my reading of the law is they should be able to display them - most weren't on hooks but on a shelf But it is needlessly offensive to many of colour and that should be taken account of by the licensing committee |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Apr 12, 2023 15:14:42 GMT
The question is, should they be allowed to have them back if they stopped hanging them? If the answer is no then the fact that they hung a few of them is irrelevant to whether they should possess them. The coppers didn’t insist that they take down the golliwogs that they hung . It seems merely possessing them is a race hate act . They should definitely get them back and my reading of the law is they should be able to display them - most weren't on hooks but on a shelf But it is needlessly offensive to many of colour and that should be taken account of by the licensing committee So you agree in principle that they should be allowed to displayed but claim the licensing committee should effectively forbid it ? Really? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2023 15:19:39 GMT
They should definitely get them back and my reading of the law is they should be able to display them - most weren't on hooks but on a shelf But it is needlessly offensive to many of colour and that should be taken account of by the licensing committee So you agree in principle that they should be allowed to displayed but claim the licensing committee should effectively forbid it ? Really? I agree with your right to an opinion, so long as I can put you in prison over it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Apr 12, 2023 15:28:56 GMT
So you agree in principle that they should be allowed to displayed but claim the licensing committee should effectively forbid it ? Really? I agree with your right to an opinion, so long as I can put you in prison over it. Does it apply here? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 12, 2023 15:43:06 GMT
The question is, should they be allowed to have them back if they stopped hanging them? If the answer is no then the fact that they hung a few of them is irrelevant to whether they should possess them. The coppers didn’t insist that they take down the golliwogs that they hung . It seems merely possessing them is a race hate act . They should definitely get them back and my reading of the law is they should be able to display them - most weren't on hooks but on a shelf But it is needlessly offensive to many of colour and that should be taken account of by the licensing committee So you think that someone should be punished in the absense of any law being broken simply for wrongthink?
I believe that Orwell wrote a book about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Apr 12, 2023 15:59:51 GMT
What ever take LBC and the Guardian might make of this is quite predictable. It is Mr and Mrs Riley's public house and if they wish to display inoffensive golliwogs that is their business.
LBC is becoming a dreadful media outlet and should not be quoted as a reputable source of opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 12, 2023 18:46:24 GMT
The question is, should they be allowed to have them back if they stopped hanging them? If the answer is no then the fact that they hung a few of them is irrelevant to whether they should possess them. The coppers didn’t insist that they take down the golliwogs that they hung . It seems merely possessing them is a race hate act . They should definitely get them back and my reading of the law is they should be able to display them - most weren't on hooks but on a shelf But it is needlessly offensive to many of colour and that should be taken account of by the licensing committee What happened to tolerance? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Apr 12, 2023 19:32:36 GMT
They should definitely get them back and my reading of the law is they should be able to display them - most weren't on hooks but on a shelf But it is needlessly offensive to many of colour and that should be taken account of by the licensing committee So you think that someone should be punished in the absense of any law being broken simply for wrongthink?
I believe that Orwell wrote a book about that.
No, maybe you need to get a book to learn how to read. Those of us that can read know I was referring to intentional display intended to offend those of colour. Not think but actual anti social behaviour. I'm sure you understand that but since you are bereft of counter argument you'll use the 'misrepresentation' tactic. A shitty tactic obviously but when has such deterred you from plumbing the depths. |
|
