Tommy Robinson asked to leave a restaurant because staff felt uncomfortable serving him…

[harriethoyle]

… AIBU to enjoy this?!

If you spout objectionable views, don’t be surprised if people object to you!

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tommy-robinson-kicked-out-hawksmoor-london-b1231594.html

Yes you can if someone has convictions for violence you can ban them whatevere protected characteristics they have.

I'm guessing any restaurant that did serve him, his plate would be a "special order" enhanced by the kitchen staff.

Well ok, you implied you had read his court records and had a thorough knowledge of his convictions - and you definitely posted about the court case/conviction I was asking about.

You’re *

I didn’t imply anything of the sort, but ok.
And yes, I’ve commented on the other case where he almost caused a trial to collapse by his contempt of court.

Oh dear.

I know.

Political landscapes aren't your forte, are they?

They refused to serve him because of his scarily mainstream beliefs about immigration etc, philosophical beliefs are a protected characteristic hence they can't refuse him service on that basis.
I really wish people would actually read the law and understand that no matter how odious, hurtful or offensive someone's beliefs are to you, you can't discriminate against them for holding those beliefs.
Also there's a huge difference between having a no trainers, football shirts or purple hair policy that is applied to everyone equally is different to discriminating against someone for their beliefs

That Robinson risked the collapse of the trial was addressed by Judge Marson (in the original summary contempt hearing) while the trial was ongoing...

"No one could possibly conclude that that was likely to be anything other than highly prejudicial to the defendants in the present trial … if the jurors in my present trial get to know of this video, I will no doubt be faced with an application to discharge the jury."

Given that his actions prompted 5 applications (during the trial) for the jury to be dimissed, it'll no doubt be addressed in the records of the original proceedings too.

Unless they are taking the same approach to every patron, they are guilty of bullying & imo victimisation, which I hope they get sued for.

Having different opinions is not reason to refuse service, nor is previous criminal prosecutions. If they are saying those with a prosecution are not welcome, they should advertise as such and ensure nobody in the premises has one.

Well, I can count.

🤷‍♀️ guess it’s not the first time he’s been asked to leave somewhere, and won’t be the last. He’ll have got a meal somewhere else I guess……

I totally agree with this.

He is an absolute dickhead. Awful, awful person.

However he has served his punishment.

It's important to remember how people behaved towards the women of mumsnet and others standing up for women's rights regarding the trans issue. They had women doxxed, cancelled, I'm sure transactivists would happily have seen women like many of us refused service and gloated about it. Because they considered our views hateful.

Liberalism is a wonderful thing but it is also a cross to bear, because we must always remember that our values apply to those we abhor just as equally as we apply them to those we value.

This is not OK of Hawksmoor

Yet you don't know the rationale behind that figure.

That and his convictions for contempt of court and his violent history, I guess. I don’t think his views are mainstream either. Some of them have gained significant support due to certain politicians seeking to blame everything on immigrants for their own ends, but my experience of the country isn’t that most are xenophobic racists.
Edit: not all beliefs are protected. Maybe have a closer look at the law. Being a racist isn’t protected. Quite the opposite.

Why? They're not slaves to the rest of society, and they don't exist for the sole purpose of serving other people.

People seem to think service staff are some sort of second class citizens who shouldn't have any rights and who they can feel powerful over to massage their own ego.

Pathetic.

"You guess"

I really wish people would actually read the law and understand that no matter how odious, hurtful or offensive someone's beliefs are to you, you can't discriminate against them for holding those beliefs.

This is correct in an employment context. In a privately owned restaurant you can be refused service for any reason at all, in fact the owner doesn’t need to give a reason - they might not like your face or the way you smell or your lisp - they can lawfully refuse to serve you and there’s fuck all you can do about it.

Fewer people voted for their MPs during the GE.

Oh dear

Which means ...? You can do it.

I do know what a protected characteristic is. And yes, some people do have them, some people don't, so I am not sure what you are driving at there
How could someone not have an age, sex or race?

Untrue. They can only refuse service in certain circumstances. In this case they refused illegally.

https://www.visitbritain.org/business-advice/pink-book/accepting-customers

Which means they have very few MPs.