Police called to National Theatre to deal with gender critical feminists sitting on chairs

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

twitter.com/DadRogd/status/1147181198231429124 has picture of the unfortunate police officer sent to investigate.

Earlier in his tweet thread he says:

National Theatre Green Room bar just refused to serve us. Their grounds? Allegedly, we are a political group with views a member of staff finds offensive. So they offend a dozen customers instead.

Problem is apparently with t-shirt worn by Anne Ruzylo sporting a dictionary definition of a lesbian. As someone else has pointed out the NT is in breach of the Equality Act, given that sexual orientation and sex are both protected characteristics. I wonder how this will play out.

Runs off to check that bank account is still up and running

Margaret Attwood said that everything in The Handmaid's Tale had happened somewhere in the world at the time she was writing it.

Just seen a bunch of pride photos online. That’s a shit load of testosterone there. Very very few women - in fact the only ones I saw were actors from a stage show and a full-monty hijabed personsage who probably wasn’t female or Muslim. Just an awful lot of men dressed like - well, slappers really.

Where was the lesbian parade?

The Daily Mail has a snap of the puppy contingent, captioned

Parade goers dress up as dogs during Pride in London 2019, with some even wearing gloves and knee pads so they can crawl along the floor

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7219091/Thousands-transform-London-rainbow-colour-citys-largest-Pride-parade.html

The Guardian

www.theguardian.com/stage/2019/jul/06/national-theatre-defends-asking-lesbians-to-leave-bar?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1562427358

Those Daily Mail photos are shockingly male!

Speaks for itself

So the Grauniad got a quote from the NT and certain people present but not one from Anne. Nice non partisan reporting there. I notice that they didn't include the tweets following the NT tweet. I wonder why that was? hmm.

I wonder if there is a case for defamation?

I'm not seeing any placards in this video. The police don't mention any placards or disruptive behaviour either

twitter.com/LynneKeys3/status/1147483790484398080?s=19

So NT is claiming Anne was abusive towards staff?

Sorry, I cannot see it.

Looks like they are just scrabbling for excuses now.

Would love to know what they qualify as 'disruptive' too. I would hazard a guess at..existing and maybe asking why she could not be served a drink?

As someone pointed out earlier pictures of surgery and worse are printed on fag packets. They are meant to look disgusting and abhorrent though studies show these pictures don't work. No one complains about them.

Those Daily Mail photos are shockingly male!

Except that of course we don’t know how those people ‘identify’.

Is it legal to refuse service to someone based on their political views? Even if the group has done something that offends staff? Like, could they refuse service to protesters from PETA (just to use another group who often use extreme images in their protests)? Even if they could argue they didn't discriminate based on sex or sexual orientation, belief is also a protected characteristic (and I'm pretty sure that includes secular beliefs like political or scientific positions).

Lotta men. Lot-ta men. Who paid for the pink arrows?

But being a lesbian should not considered a political view.

It's a fact of sexual nature and orientation.

What I love is that pre the march the reporter on the BBC was saying that Pride were expecting up to 1.5 million to attend. In your dreams I thought, and I was right.

Compare the stats on those attending Pride and the reporting of it to those who attend the People's Vote and the reporting of it. The former sounds like Fox News on Donald Trump.

From the Guardian

“These began with their refusal to put placards out of sight that featured messages which upset other customers and contravened our visiting policy, and culminated in abusive behaviour towards our staff. The clothing, gender or sexuality of the group was not a factor in the decision, which was reluctantly taken on the basis of the group’s behaviour and what was said.

If this is true I can understand why they were asked to leave. Those placards- fine for a protest, not fine for inside a cafe.

It's the equivalent of refusing to serve someone wearing a Black Lives Matter t shirt and claiming it's because it represents an extreme group intent on white genocide.

Thats a good comparison. No one would think that point of view was OK.

Hmm the guardian you say?

These began with their refusal to put placards out of sight that featured messages which upset other customers and contravened our visiting policy, and culminated in abusive behaviour towards our staff.

If that is true then why didn't the NT report this in the original tweet?

And also if true then why were those refused a drink allowed to stay?

Something isn't adding up here.

I definitely smell singed pants.

Members of the group say that all the placards were rolled up and put away before the pub.

Lord

These began with their refusal to put placards out of sight that featured messages which upset other customers and contravened our visiting policy, and culminated in abusive behaviour towards our staff.

How come there are dozens of photos, including during police attendance, with not a placard in sight?

Keep digging, NT, keep digging.

If Anne or any of the others take legal action, I'll be digging too. Right into my pockets, purse and down the sofa for all the pound coins I can muster to see your sexist, misogynistic, homophobic arses in court.

This story just gets worse and worse. Just read a comment left by one of the women who was refused service on the NT's FB page.

Yesterday's protest had nothing to do with the refusal!

1. Group of 15 lesbians and 2 men walk into the bar
2. Their t-shirts are noticed by staff (such as bum boy; lesbian = women who love women; lesbian = female homosexual)
3. The men are served
4. Member of staff (trans-identified) on seeing the t-shirts worn by the women asks if the lesbians had been part of last year's Get the L Out Protest at Pride
5. Some of the women say yes, they were
6. Member of staff declares that they want nothing to do with them, refuses to serve and walks off
7. Management then decides to refuse service to the whole group
8. The group goes to sit down outside
9. Management calls the police

10. Management then issues a statement libelling the group by strongly implying that they were abusive to staff 11. Management issue a further statement libelling the group by strongly implying that their behaviour had made a trans-identifying member of staff feel unsafe

So, they were not refused service because of their connection to a recent protest, but because of a protest they attended a year ago.

A clear breach of the EqA. Belief is protected.

Prompted by the member of staff clearly taking exception to the lesbians identifying themselves as homoSEXUALs and as female.

A clear breach of the EqA. Sexual orientation is protected.

The men in the group were served while the women were not.

A clear breach of the EqA: Sex is protected.

I can't see the NT winning this one in court. A triple whammy breach of the EqA, double libel, multiple witnesses - even the police recommended that the group should make a complaint.

And to say that someone's peaceful behaviour at an unconnected protest in the past equates to behaviour that makes someone feel unsafe today whom these people had never previously met is some next-level madness...