Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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
RamblingEclectic · 06/06/2025 19:03

It's currently allowed and encouraged for stores, bars and other places to use AI facial recognition to prevent people previously known to cause issues even though it's known to have many false positives. I'm struggling to think how any business is going to get into trouble for making this choice.

Yeah, it sucks to be asked to leave, and I think in this case it should have been sooner, but it feels like he knew and is using this to become relevant again.

he’s just a man bringing to light what the mainstream media won’t

Everything he's 'brought to light' was known and being presented publicly in court. He just decided to ignore those pesky laws and reporting restrictions mainstream and every other form of media follow to allow the very critical for society right to a fair trial.

The media did a good job smearing him. I once vaguely thought the same until I investigated these "objectionable" views.

Even if we put aside any "objectionable views", his actions that have repeatedly put court cases, including some of the most vile kinds, at risk of having to be abandoned, putting the victims of those crimes through the fear that the perpetrators would be let free and they'd have to go through the process again, because of his choice to interfere with the court system is absolutely appauling. That's not smearing by the media, that's from court records that are all public domain.

His actions are not the actions of someone who, as he claims to be, cares about justice and truth. It's the actions of someone who wants the glory of "revealing the truth" of things that are already known - he's never reported on anything that wasn't already being presented in a court - and does it in a manner that if any journalist did it would have them blacklisted He's gotten off fairly lightly for repeated acts against the court system and has done a great job in his speeches at Oxford and elsewhere to make it seem like he's the victim.

Freedom of expression does not overrule the very important right to a fair trial, and his pursuit of glory does not overrule how much he has basically shat on the the victims of these crimes, the police, the solicitors and barristers, the court staff and security staff both working on these cases and who have had to confront him on his breaking the law repeatedly when they have far better things to be doing, and everyone else who has done far more to deal with crime in our community than he has ever done. He was done literally nothing to bring any of these cases to light - they were already in the system that he actively worked against and wants people to love him for it.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 06/06/2025 19:03

Dangermoo · 06/06/2025 19:01

I think the management handled the situation well. Particularly impressed with one of the dining party, who isn't white, asking if it was because of his skin colour. Good for him.

I agree. It was wonderfully disingenuous.

Dangermoo · 06/06/2025 19:03

Nanny0gg · 06/06/2025 19:01

Do you know the beliefs of everyone you sit near in a restaurant?

It's of no interest. People like that only have one common belief. Anybody who doesn't share it is labelled.

SomethingInnocuousForNow · 06/06/2025 19:03

Goody2ShoesAndTheFilthyBeast · 06/06/2025 19:00

Political views are not a protected belief.
Belief, insofar as it is covered by theAct, doesn't mean "what I think".

I think olives are shit. I believe they are. 100%.

That's not a protected belief.

It's true. They are gross. I just couldnt take someone to court for denying to serve me based on my belief in the disgusting taste of olives.

Believing (thinking) something is not in itself a protected characteristic.

Edited

'The Equality Act says that a philosophical belief must be genuinely held and more than an opinion. It must be cogent, serious and apply to an important aspect of human life or behaviour.'
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/religion-or-belief-discrimination

Pretty sure political beliefs count, however horrible they are.

Dangermoo · 06/06/2025 19:04

MiloMinderbinder925 · 06/06/2025 19:03

I agree. It was wonderfully disingenuous.

Are you saying this gentleman didn't have the right to believe management were being racist?

cardibach · 06/06/2025 19:05

Maplesyrupbuttermilk · 06/06/2025 18:44

If Andrew Tate was asked to leave a restaurant because staff felt uncomfortable serving him, would people vote YABU?

I wouldn’t want to eat in the same room as him - misogynist with sex crime investigations pending. So I’d be happy for him to be refused service.

MyHeartyCoralSnail · 06/06/2025 19:05

Nanny0gg · 06/06/2025 19:00

I think you can refuse service to anyone you want to

Well no that’s not correct - look at the cases against Christian’s who wouldn’t make a cake supporting gay marriage.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 06/06/2025 19:05

Dangermoo · 06/06/2025 19:04

Are you saying this gentleman didn't have the right to believe management were being racist?

What did the management say that was racist?

sualipa · 06/06/2025 19:05

Calrkson has banned Starmer from his pub.

cardibach · 06/06/2025 19:06

12doublerolls · 06/06/2025 18:47

Shame on that restaurant. You don’t throw people out for sitting eating a meal just because you don’t like them. I’ve never believed that Tommy is a racist, he’s just a man bringing to light what the mainstream media won’t, and they just keep throwing him in jail to silence him. If being concerned about the state of the country you grew up in and shining light on the grooming gangs that the media won’t show makes you a racist then we’re in big trouble.

Absolute bollocks. He nearly brought down a trial. He repeated lies about a Syrian teenager, admitted the6 were lies, but carried on spreading them. He’s a vile, racist, violent thug.

Dangermoo · 06/06/2025 19:07

MiloMinderbinder925 · 06/06/2025 19:05

What did the management say that was racist?

Does he have to have said anything? In asking the party to leave, they were being excluded, halfway through their meal. He had the right to ask a legitimate question.

Dangermoo · 06/06/2025 19:07

sualipa · 06/06/2025 19:05

Calrkson has banned Starmer from his pub.

😆 🤣 😂

sualipa · 06/06/2025 19:07

Dangermoo · 06/06/2025 19:07

Does he have to have said anything? In asking the party to leave, they were being excluded, halfway through their meal. He had the right to ask a legitimate question.

They got it all and drinks for free as well.

RisingSunn · 06/06/2025 19:08

Dangermoo · 06/06/2025 18:35

🙄

🙄 🙄

SomethingInnocuousForNow · 06/06/2025 19:08

MiloMinderbinder925 · 06/06/2025 19:01

The Equality Act says that a belief must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not affect other people’s fundamental rights.

Edited

I don't think it uses that wording does it? I think it's about seriously held beliefs that matter to humankind (as I posted link above).

I don't think pro-life beliefs are worthy of respect and they relate to other people's fundamental rights, I still think pro-lifers should be served in restaurants.

cardibach · 06/06/2025 19:08

Nanny0gg · 06/06/2025 19:01

Do you know the beliefs of everyone you sit near in a restaurant?

No. But I know the beliefs of Tommy because he makes such a big deal of publicising them. Therefore…

LakieLady · 06/06/2025 19:08

IkeaMeatballGravy · 06/06/2025 17:54

It's not just his political views though is it? He was a football hooligan. He is a criminal, he sustained a racist campaign against a kid. He's fresh out of prison. Why would anyone want thier business associated with him?

Quite. There could be a risk of reputational damage, and I daresay the restaurant chain decided not to take that risk.

Dangermoo · 06/06/2025 19:09

sualipa · 06/06/2025 19:07

They got it all and drinks for free as well.

Yes, I think the pressure being put on management to ask them to leave, was the least they could do.

Goody2ShoesAndTheFilthyBeast · 06/06/2025 19:09

SomethingInnocuousForNow · 06/06/2025 19:03

'The Equality Act says that a philosophical belief must be genuinely held and more than an opinion. It must be cogent, serious and apply to an important aspect of human life or behaviour.'
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/religion-or-belief-discrimination

Pretty sure political beliefs count, however horrible they are.

You forgot to quote the bit of the act where it talks about the belief respecting the fundamental rights of others.

I would argue his expressed views do not meet that criteria.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/religion-or-belief-discrimination

Nanny0gg · 06/06/2025 19:10

cardibach · 06/06/2025 19:05

I wouldn’t want to eat in the same room as him - misogynist with sex crime investigations pending. So I’d be happy for him to be refused service.

I wouldn't want to eat near either of them but I'm not sure that warrants kicking them out unless they're vocal about their beliefs

Dangermoo · 06/06/2025 19:11

RisingSunn · 06/06/2025 19:08

🙄 🙄

Glad you agree.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 06/06/2025 19:11

Dangermoo · 06/06/2025 19:07

Does he have to have said anything? In asking the party to leave, they were being excluded, halfway through their meal. He had the right to ask a legitimate question.

He was being disingenuous, he knew why they were being kicked out. It was because staff felt uncomfortable serving the table. It was explained very clearly.

The table was full of far right criminals, including the "gentleman".

sualipa · 06/06/2025 19:12

Nanny0gg · 06/06/2025 19:10

I wouldn't want to eat near either of them but I'm not sure that warrants kicking them out unless they're vocal about their beliefs

Cokeheads crowing is an ugly noise from the best of folks.

UndermyShoeJoe · 06/06/2025 19:13

I also think if a person hasn’t done anything in your place of business and you want to ban them you do so before taking their order and money. They were happy enough to seat and serve so what changed?

SomethingInnocuousForNow · 06/06/2025 19:13

SomethingInnocuousForNow · 06/06/2025 19:08

I don't think it uses that wording does it? I think it's about seriously held beliefs that matter to humankind (as I posted link above).

I don't think pro-life beliefs are worthy of respect and they relate to other people's fundamental rights, I still think pro-lifers should be served in restaurants.

Oh, apologies, it does use that wording!

It still makes me feel uncomfortable refusing service to people because of their beliefs, or even that they're out of prison.

Please create an account

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

This thread is not accepting new messages.