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

Will any action be taken do you know?

In my view I am interested in his opinions, and the extent to which they can be ignored because he is a lone voice, and the extent which they cannot be ignored because milllion and millions of people agree with him.

He is almost certainly a "somewhat bad" person, maybe a very bad one, but that does not make his views wrong, nor does it make him unpopular.

Indeed the main reason to listen to him when you hate him, is because if he does have massive support and is an evil racist we need to work out a way of pacifying his supporters without allowing someone like him to gain power.

I'm shocked that someone who hasn't watched the documentary or read the court papers thinks they can comment with any type of conviction.

Not at all, if I was a restaurant owner I wouldn't want someone convicted of fraud, assault and drug offences in my establishment.

And I'd be entirely understanding if my, quite likely, teenage staff didn't feel comfortable serving a group known to associate with paedophiles, rapists and thugs.

You are wrongly assuming that was the reason for refusal of service.

If people are to be penalised for having been friends with paedos half of the Labour party would be out on their ears at every establishment they went to.

You're surprised that someone not indoctrinated doesn't agree with you?

We shall see.

I believe that it is perfectly possible that a court would say -

(1) We see no rational reason for denial of service such as behaviour or dress
(2) We see massive potential for denial of service to be down to TRs beliefs
(3) We believe TRs beliefs are lawful and protected
(4) Therefore in the absence of any reasonable explanation we can only conclude it was down to discrimination based on belief.

Surely it would be a civil claim on the balace of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt?

Not if Robinson has got any sense. What action do you think he could take?

Calling people paedophiles because you don't agree with them isn't a sign of critical thinking.

No. I was being sarcastic. On the contrary I am not at all surprised by left wingers commenting on topics with little to no prior knowledge of the events.

There have been proven cases of child sex offences within the Labour party. Proving yet again you do little research before speaking.

Repeating lies because someone told you it was the truth isn't proof of knowledge.

No idea. If I was TRs political advisor I think I would be saying "sue the hell out of them".

(1) You might win and get some cash, and prove that in law your views are worthy of respect.
(2) If you lose then all of your supporters, and many other people who support freedom of belief, speech and expression, will be outraged and the agenda that you and Farage are pushing will get more and more support.

Half the Labour party?

Having watched the material and read official court documents for myself, it is rather relevant when debating TR.

Perhaps they felt uncomfortable due to Yaxley-Lennon's known history of violence?

Eta: also, being a racist is not about really about politics or beliefs really, is it?

You've listened to Robinson and repeated what he said.

Why is anyone bothered by this

he is a vile person who fuels anger and hatred

Well you thought it was NONE of the Labour party all of 5 minutes ago. Learn something new everyday.

I've listened to parents and staff and formed my opinion based on that.

That's not what I said is it. I thought you were skilled in quoting verbatim.

You've listened to Robinson and parroted him.

You said I can't call people paedos because I don't agree with them. That would mean there were no paedos in the Labour party.

I proved you wrong.

Google AI (my bold)

"Refusal based on a criminal record can be a legitimate reason if it's tied to a genuine risk of disruptive behavior or harm to other patrons. For example, a history of violent offenses might be a valid reason to refuse service.

[I do not see any reason to suppose he was a risk to other patrons, and that to believe he was would be a massive over-reaction]

Discrimination:
Refusal solely based on a criminal record, without considering the individual's current behavior or risk, could be considered discriminatory. It's crucial to avoid basing decisions on stereotypes or generalizations about individuals with criminal records.

[As above - bad person, convict - he's sober, eating a meal whilst smartly dresed with others in a quiet corner of the restaurant - [I do not see any reason to suppose he was a risk to other patrons]

And you have listened to no one.