Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
Dangermoo · 07/06/2025 00:11

QurikySparrowHatrack · 07/06/2025 00:08

Lack of religious belief is a protected characteristic, so congratulations!

It's late but I'd be interested to know your view on the idea of white people not being victims of racism. Whenever I hear it, it really does make me grr! Where in the EA does it exempt white people? That's why my heckles were raised when I misread your previous post.

ARealitycheck · 07/06/2025 00:21

MiloMinderbinder925 · 07/06/2025 00:07

Not even if he's a dangerous criminal and former member of a far right organisation?

Are they applying that vetting to every customer?

Hoardasurass · 07/06/2025 00:23

Velmy · 06/06/2025 20:55

Technically yes. However that's not why they refused service.

You can't legally refuse service based solely on a protected characteristic(s). Not wanting to deal with a known racist, with a history of violence and intimidation, for the safety of your staff/business is a perfectly reasonable reason to refuse service.

Unfortunately not unless his history of violence included causing a breach of the peace, afray or violent disorder in a restaurant.
That said I do wish you were correct as I'd hate to have to serve that odious man but the law says I must if he comes into my restaurant and doesn't misbehave

TempestTost · 07/06/2025 00:24

I'm not particularly a fan of public businesses refusing to serve people who have political views they don't like, be it TR, or Queers for Palestine, or TERFS, or any others.

I also don't think it's particularly workable, in the main, for businesses to start refusing to serve convicted criminals who have served their sentences.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 07/06/2025 00:25

ARealitycheck · 07/06/2025 00:21

Are they applying that vetting to every customer?

It would help if you read the article, it would answer your question.

ARealitycheck · 07/06/2025 00:27

MiloMinderbinder925 · 07/06/2025 00:25

It would help if you read the article, it would answer your question.

So the answer to that is no, they are not vetting ALL customers based on their previous behaviour.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 07/06/2025 00:27

Hoardasurass · 07/06/2025 00:23

Unfortunately not unless his history of violence included causing a breach of the peace, afray or violent disorder in a restaurant.
That said I do wish you were correct as I'd hate to have to serve that odious man but the law says I must if he comes into my restaurant and doesn't misbehave

No it doesn't. It's civil law that you can refuse to serve anyone as long as it's not discriminatory.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 07/06/2025 00:27

ARealitycheck · 07/06/2025 00:27

So the answer to that is no, they are not vetting ALL customers based on their previous behaviour.

Then why did you ask?

Dangermoo · 07/06/2025 00:28

TempestTost · 07/06/2025 00:24

I'm not particularly a fan of public businesses refusing to serve people who have political views they don't like, be it TR, or Queers for Palestine, or TERFS, or any others.

I also don't think it's particularly workable, in the main, for businesses to start refusing to serve convicted criminals who have served their sentences.

I wonder if this kind of publicity is going to backfire on the restaurant. The CEO seems to have gone to great lengths to justify the decision. This being so soon on the back of TR's release, as well

ARealitycheck · 07/06/2025 00:30

Dangermoo · 07/06/2025 00:28

I wonder if this kind of publicity is going to backfire on the restaurant. The CEO seems to have gone to great lengths to justify the decision. This being so soon on the back of TR's release, as well

I hope it does. It would just take one weekend of TR supporters stood outside the restaurant putting off customers to focus their minds.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 07/06/2025 00:32

ARealitycheck · 07/06/2025 00:30

I hope it does. It would just take one weekend of TR supporters stood outside the restaurant putting off customers to focus their minds.

Why do you admire him so much?

ARealitycheck · 07/06/2025 00:32

Dangermoo · 07/06/2025 00:28

I wonder if this kind of publicity is going to backfire on the restaurant. The CEO seems to have gone to great lengths to justify the decision. This being so soon on the back of TR's release, as well

I'd also suspect if you took the restaurant staff and showed them pictures of TR a couple of days ago, a number would struggle to name him.

Dangermoo · 07/06/2025 00:33

ARealitycheck · 07/06/2025 00:30

I hope it does. It would just take one weekend of TR supporters stood outside the restaurant putting off customers to focus their minds.

I bet it won't go down as well as Pro Palestine 'protestors' bullying patrons at McDonalds, including young kids.

SquashedMallow · 07/06/2025 00:33

MrsMitford3 · 06/06/2025 17:17

I am donning my tin hat here.
I am not a fan of his politics at all but where do we draw the line?
Who decides?
It makes me very uncomfortable.
Is it ok for restaurants to refuse women wearing "Adult human female" shirts?
Or ppl with different coloured skin?
Different religious beliefs?
Ppl with keffiyehs on?
Gay people?
Ppl in burkas?
A women only event?

I assume everyone will come on to say it's not the same but I feel like the pitchforks will be next.

Everyone is jubilant now because they dislike him but next time what if it someone you like/agree with politically that is publicly being thrown out?

I think the ability to disagree and respect others opinions is lost and imho that is not a good thing for society.

This thread only really needs this very balanced and wise post as a reply.

ARealitycheck · 07/06/2025 00:34

MiloMinderbinder925 · 07/06/2025 00:32

Why do you admire him so much?

Actually I am no great fan of the man, I do however believe if we behave like this to those that say things we may not agree with, we create a far bigger issue.

Dangermoo · 07/06/2025 00:35

MiloMinderbinder925 · 07/06/2025 00:32

Why do you admire him so much?

It's not admiring him Milo, it's just highlighting inconsistencies, which we can see but you can't. It's the same as the so called two-tier Justice.

QurikySparrowHatrack · 07/06/2025 00:35

Dangermoo · 07/06/2025 00:11

It's late but I'd be interested to know your view on the idea of white people not being victims of racism. Whenever I hear it, it really does make me grr! Where in the EA does it exempt white people? That's why my heckles were raised when I misread your previous post.

If you mean the sometimes-stated idea that white people cannot be subject to racism (because it requires prejudice + power), I generally don't agree.

From memory, the idea originated from a paper where the author was talking specifically about institutional racism and so, when defining racism for the specific context of her paper, she said that (in her paper), "racism" meant institutional racism. My impression (and it has been years since I looked at this) is that some people ran then with the idea that it was the only definition of racism (which it isn't, and nor was it ever intended to be).

The "prejudice + power" model is probably very useful when analyzing institutional forms of discrimination, and in white majority countries that would generally mean that white people are seldom the victims of institutional racism (though I would guess that, for example, a particular employer could be institutionally racist against white people, despite a wider societal bias in favor of white people) but it isn't the only form of racism - there's plain old, day-to-day, interpersonal racism too.

Not a topic I fancy delving deeply into, nor is it the topic of the thread or one where I have any real expertise, but since you asked, the above is my general impression.

Butterflyarms · 07/06/2025 00:37

ByCyanMoose · 06/06/2025 17:29

Individual business owners draw the line, and I see no problem with that. He has a right to whatever odious opinions he may hold. He does not have a right to be served by decent people.

If business owners only have to serve the people they want to would you support a restaurant refusing to serve transwomen? Jews? Republicans? Any other unfashionable group of the moment?

MiloMinderbinder925 · 07/06/2025 00:39

ARealitycheck · 07/06/2025 00:34

Actually I am no great fan of the man, I do however believe if we behave like this to those that say things we may not agree with, we create a far bigger issue.

You're acting as though he's been banned from everywhere in the UK. One place asked him to leave and the reaction seems to be hysterical. Apparently this is a rung on the ladder to a police state.

You don't even agree with his views yet seem to be taking it personally. You want a bunch of far right activists demonstrating outside a restaurant.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 07/06/2025 00:41

Dangermoo · 07/06/2025 00:35

It's not admiring him Milo, it's just highlighting inconsistencies, which we can see but you can't. It's the same as the so called two-tier Justice.

I didn't ask you.

Dangermoo · 07/06/2025 00:42

QurikySparrowHatrack · 07/06/2025 00:35

If you mean the sometimes-stated idea that white people cannot be subject to racism (because it requires prejudice + power), I generally don't agree.

From memory, the idea originated from a paper where the author was talking specifically about institutional racism and so, when defining racism for the specific context of her paper, she said that (in her paper), "racism" meant institutional racism. My impression (and it has been years since I looked at this) is that some people ran then with the idea that it was the only definition of racism (which it isn't, and nor was it ever intended to be).

The "prejudice + power" model is probably very useful when analyzing institutional forms of discrimination, and in white majority countries that would generally mean that white people are seldom the victims of institutional racism (though I would guess that, for example, a particular employer could be institutionally racist against white people, despite a wider societal bias in favor of white people) but it isn't the only form of racism - there's plain old, day-to-day, interpersonal racism too.

Not a topic I fancy delving deeply into, nor is it the topic of the thread or one where I have any real expertise, but since you asked, the above is my general impression.

Thanks for that and I agree, much of the ideology on racism does rely on the balance of power school of thought. There's no escaping, and this is stripping it back to basic level, that the law protects everybody. In legal terms, and this is a fundamental factor for me, the 2010 does not explicitly or implicitly preclude white people, from claiming racial discrimination.

Butterflyarms · 07/06/2025 00:42

Pick a lane. Either it's no dog-no-blacks-no yaxley, or you take everyone as they come. I get the argument that business owners should be able to decide who comes in but you can't then be upset if Christian bakeries stop serving gays, or Muslim grocery stores don't let in Jews. The inconsistency on this thread is 🤯

TempestTost · 07/06/2025 00:44

MiloMinderbinder925 · 07/06/2025 00:39

You're acting as though he's been banned from everywhere in the UK. One place asked him to leave and the reaction seems to be hysterical. Apparently this is a rung on the ladder to a police state.

You don't even agree with his views yet seem to be taking it personally. You want a bunch of far right activists demonstrating outside a restaurant.

You are making a lot of very strange leaps of logic.

Many people think it is a bad idea to say that it is ok for businesses to refuse to serve customers because of their political views. That this is socially and politically dangerous, regardless of the views involved.

It's a pretty straightforward idea.

ARealitycheck · 07/06/2025 00:44

MiloMinderbinder925 · 07/06/2025 00:39

You're acting as though he's been banned from everywhere in the UK. One place asked him to leave and the reaction seems to be hysterical. Apparently this is a rung on the ladder to a police state.

You don't even agree with his views yet seem to be taking it personally. You want a bunch of far right activists demonstrating outside a restaurant.

When the reason for the restaurants refusal seems to be one of prejudice, then yes I do hope they suffer and get exposed for it. My opinion on that wouldn't matter on who it was they refused.

And yes allowing only the 'permitted' opinion to be held is very much heading towards a police state.

I would support you if you were denied service based on your opinions (provided legal) posted here. Even if I didn't agree with them.

Dangermoo · 07/06/2025 00:45

Butterflyarms · 07/06/2025 00:42

Pick a lane. Either it's no dog-no-blacks-no yaxley, or you take everyone as they come. I get the argument that business owners should be able to decide who comes in but you can't then be upset if Christian bakeries stop serving gays, or Muslim grocery stores don't let in Jews. The inconsistency on this thread is 🤯

We have thankfully moved away from No dogs, no blacks, no Irish mentality, so that's just sensationalism.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.