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

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Free Speech Union meeting evicted from Brighton pub

230 replies

raspb · 18/09/2024 09:24

I don't think there's already a thread on this. Apologies if so. I just read this report on Julie Birchill's Facebook page:

Laura King writes:

Whole Free Speech Union meeting evicted from the Southern Belle pub tonight after only one speaker.

Scandalous. Will be covered by Brighton and Hove News.

Police report just filed.

We had a pre-booked meeting in the rear of the pub, almost completely screened off from the rest of the pub - on a quiet Tuesday evening - for an evening of speeches on various topics.
After 15 minutes or so of the first speaker - a retired teacher - discussing her concerns about child safeguarding in schools, a number of security guards appeared. I went to talk to them and see what the problem was. They wouldn't be specific but asked that I talked to the Landlord. I spoke to a tall young man who looked to be in his early 20s who didn't seem like the landlord and explained that a former teacher was talking about child safeguarding in schools. He didn't say much and I pointed out the speaker giving the talk was LGBT herself, if they were worried about any offence being caused and that we were not there to cause offence. I thought I had dealt with the situation but within a few minutes there was a rush of security guards coming into the room and demanding that we left. I said we had just finished listening to that speech and that there were two more on completely different subjects but they said the Landlord had said we had to leave. One of them tried to grab the speaker and drag it out of the room, which was still plugged in. I tried to stop him pointing out it was my property and he had no right to touch it or damage it. He grabbed my wrist hard and still tried to seize the speaker. I shouted at him that he was assaulting me and I was going to report him to the Police and he let me go. My partner got hustled out of the room physically and they tried to take his drink off him when he left to go and try and find the manager. Various people were in shock and we refused to leave and politely debated with the security guards, who kept insisting we had to leave, even though it was a public house and we are the public, and there had been no incidents, which the security guards freely admitted was true. in fact one even said he had 'better things to do on a Tuesday night than break up a room of mostly middle-aged people NOT causing any trouble.' We stood our ground for a few minutes while many people taped and filmed the exchanges with Paragon Security. A few people tried to ring the Police but then found out they were refusing to come out. 'Hate speech' was mentioned by a Security guard so I challenged him to prove his allegation and pointed out the room was actually full of intelligent peace-loving people, not haters. Plus there were many LGBT individuals in the audience not being offended. Most of us insisted on finishing our drinks before leaving and then people hung about outside as they couldn't believe what had just happened marvelling to each other that they no longer lived in a free country. The local media was contacted. Someone had shouted out 'Let's go to The Wick' but when we got there Paragon Security were already there and denying admission. This is double harassment of innocent individuals, who were not even trying to have a meeting at this point, but just socialising because it was far too early to call it a night and go home. So if the landlord of The Southern Belle had us evicted, what right did that landlord have to prevent us being admitted to another pub? This counts as harassment by the Southern Belle management via Paragon Security twice over.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
Igmum · 18/09/2024 15:59

This is awful. Yet more MRAs who really don't like women talking. Think I might join the FSU too

RaspberryParade · 18/09/2024 16:09

Tillow4ever · 18/09/2024 11:18

Ignoring everything else, unfortunately pubs are well within their legal rights to refuse to serve anyone and can kick anyone out that they wish. They can also refuse to allow entry to anyone.

There are likely to be exceptions if it can be proven that the reason for those actions is due to a protected characteristic... key word being proven.

I'm sorry you were treated so badly - I have no idea why any pub would choose to kick out paying customers in the current environment for pubs to get honest! Sounds ridiculous to me.

No they are not, please stop posting this misinformation.
Protected beliefs
https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/09/16/father-ted-writer-part-of-group-suing-over-alleged-discrimination-in-belfast-pub/

Graham Linehan and other campaigners had taken part in rally headed by controversial activist Kellie-Jay Keen. Photograph: Nick Bradshaw / The Irish Times

Father Ted writer part of group suing over alleged discrimination in Belfast pub

Graham Linehan and other campaigners had taken part in a 'Let Women Speak' rally and allege they were refused service at a bar

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/09/16/father-ted-writer-part-of-group-suing-over-alleged-discrimination-in-belfast-pub

Grammarnut · 18/09/2024 16:58

RaspberryParade · 18/09/2024 15:12

Thats clearly wrong as Glinner and a crowd of GCs are currently suing a Dublin Pub for the same.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/father-ted-writer-among-23-people-taking-discrimination-action-against-robinson-s-bar-in-belfast/ar-AA1qFeDW

They can presumably prove that the landlord discriminated re a protected characteristic. I didn't say the landlord could throw out who he liked, but that it can be difficult proving discrimination.

Grammarnut · 18/09/2024 17:02

I didn't say he could throw them out, I said he can remove whom he likes and it is difficult to prove he discriminated re a protected characteristic. If they have evidence that he had them removed because of GC beliefs (which I can believe in Brighton and Hove!) then they can take legal action.

The landlord of a pub has to have the right to remove people in order to e.g. make drunks leave the pub, prevent brawling etc. A public house is not a public space, but a space which (at the discretion of the landlord) the public can enter.

RoyalCorgi · 18/09/2024 17:09

I didn't say he could throw them out, I said he can remove whom he likes and it is difficult to prove he discriminated re a protected characteristic. If they have evidence that he had them removed because of GC beliefs (which I can believe in Brighton and Hove!) then they can take legal action.

This is the crucial thing, Grammarnut. The entire point that I and others are making is that the landlord can't throw someone out on the basis of a protected characteristic such as race, religious belief, disability etc. The debate is over whether the group have good evidence that they were thrown out because of their gender-critical beliefs, and can therefore take legal action. For you to keep saying "he can remove who he likes" is muddying the waters: no, he can't remove who he likes.

SapphosRock · 18/09/2024 17:10

The TRAs in Brighton are completely nuts. I have no idea why they are still taken seriously but they are.

With this track record I wouldn't expect anything less.

  • Forcing Kathleen Stock to resign
  • Protesting WPUK meetings
  • Demanding a vegan cafe promotes a crowd funder for an elective double mastectomy
  • Trying to get the cafe shut down for not agreeing to the above
  • Glitter bomb gate
  • Nazi baby gate
  • Protesting about Lesbians celebrating at Pride
  • Protesting about women hiring church halls to support each other following male violence
  • Protesting about feminists existing in the same city as them

Them protesting about a pub holding a free speech event is both shocking and completely unsurprising.

Shame. I like the Southern Belle. They do a good Sunday roast.

poppyzbrite4 · 18/09/2024 17:18

The landlord can remove who he likes as long as it isn't grounded in discrimination. The law is complicated here.

First, they have to prove it was because of discrimination. Second, hate crime is subjective. It's defined as:

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

If a trans person heard one of the speeches and perceived it to be motivated by hostility towards them, that's all they have to prove.

I don't know what the speech said, but if it was about trans paedophiles in children's toilets, that could certainly be perceived as hostile or prejudice.

RaspberryParade · 18/09/2024 17:21

Grammarnut · 18/09/2024 17:02

I didn't say he could throw them out, I said he can remove whom he likes and it is difficult to prove he discriminated re a protected characteristic. If they have evidence that he had them removed because of GC beliefs (which I can believe in Brighton and Hove!) then they can take legal action.

The landlord of a pub has to have the right to remove people in order to e.g. make drunks leave the pub, prevent brawling etc. A public house is not a public space, but a space which (at the discretion of the landlord) the public can enter.

Youre wrong when it so obviously is down to protected beliefs - did you see the other bit, how they sent the security guards to the second pub?
Did you see how 23 people in Dublin including Glinner are suing for the exact same thing.
Have you heard of Maya Forstater?
It is obvious harrassment and discrimination.

RaspberryParade · 18/09/2024 17:24

Tillow4ever · 18/09/2024 11:18

Ignoring everything else, unfortunately pubs are well within their legal rights to refuse to serve anyone and can kick anyone out that they wish. They can also refuse to allow entry to anyone.

There are likely to be exceptions if it can be proven that the reason for those actions is due to a protected characteristic... key word being proven.

I'm sorry you were treated so badly - I have no idea why any pub would choose to kick out paying customers in the current environment for pubs to get honest! Sounds ridiculous to me.

No, they are not allowed to discriminate on beliefs which is what happened here.
Drunk patrons is another matter.

TriesNotToBeCynical · 18/09/2024 17:35

While right wing organisations like the Free Speech Union and UnHerd may be useful allies against the excesses of transsexualism at the moment, I am concerned that they may turn out to be the implacable enemies of ordinary women (and ethnic minorities for that matter) in the medium term.

Although I 100% support them suing these pubs!

RaspberryParade · 18/09/2024 17:37

TriesNotToBeCynical · 18/09/2024 17:35

While right wing organisations like the Free Speech Union and UnHerd may be useful allies against the excesses of transsexualism at the moment, I am concerned that they may turn out to be the implacable enemies of ordinary women (and ethnic minorities for that matter) in the medium term.

Although I 100% support them suing these pubs!

"Right wing" ... And what particular inequities do you suspect either FSU or an online magazinewebsite to inflict on women?
Ludicrous

TriesNotToBeCynical · 18/09/2024 17:40

RaspberryParade · 18/09/2024 17:37

"Right wing" ... And what particular inequities do you suspect either FSU or an online magazinewebsite to inflict on women?
Ludicrous

UnHerd is owned by the same hedge fund manager who set up GB News. If you are happy with that, fair enough. We know where we stand.

ArabellaScott · 18/09/2024 17:47

TriesNotToBeCynical · 18/09/2024 17:35

While right wing organisations like the Free Speech Union and UnHerd may be useful allies against the excesses of transsexualism at the moment, I am concerned that they may turn out to be the implacable enemies of ordinary women (and ethnic minorities for that matter) in the medium term.

Although I 100% support them suing these pubs!

The trouble with defending free speech is that pleasant, nice, agreeable speech that makes no waves is never going to be the kind that needs defending.

ArabellaScott · 18/09/2024 17:49

poppyzbrite4 · 18/09/2024 17:18

The landlord can remove who he likes as long as it isn't grounded in discrimination. The law is complicated here.

First, they have to prove it was because of discrimination. Second, hate crime is subjective. It's defined as:

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

If a trans person heard one of the speeches and perceived it to be motivated by hostility towards them, that's all they have to prove.

I don't know what the speech said, but if it was about trans paedophiles in children's toilets, that could certainly be perceived as hostile or prejudice.

Well, no, it has to be a criminal offense, first off.

It can be a NCHI without being an offense. But ordnary 'hate crime' is an aggravator added onto an offense.

Grammarnut · 18/09/2024 17:51

RaspberryParade · 18/09/2024 17:21

Youre wrong when it so obviously is down to protected beliefs - did you see the other bit, how they sent the security guards to the second pub?
Did you see how 23 people in Dublin including Glinner are suing for the exact same thing.
Have you heard of Maya Forstater?
It is obvious harrassment and discrimination.

Yes, I saw that. It would appear they have evidence of discrimination in this case. But I spoke generally, not specifically. And generally, it is very difficult to prove discrimination against a pub landlord. I remember being made very unwelcome because I was wearing a political party rosette, having just left a count. The landlady said something along the lines of 'we don't want your sort here'. What could be proved? This could mean anything! (And it was 1980s, too.)

RaspberryParade · 18/09/2024 17:53

TriesNotToBeCynical · 18/09/2024 17:40

UnHerd is owned by the same hedge fund manager who set up GB News. If you are happy with that, fair enough. We know where we stand.

Offs that has to be the largest and most irrelevant stretch Ive heard in ages.
Aside from any consideration of GBN putting us in camps ets you are aware presumably that they host Andrew Doyles Free Speech Nation?
A show that has singlehandedly kept womens rights in the news where no other news station would touch them.
Meanwhile the oh so pure beeb has systematically undermined womens rights and protected abusers for decades

This kind of petty point scoring unthought out purity spiralling is pathetic in these circumstances.

RaspberryParade · 18/09/2024 17:58

@Grammarnut
Thanks for the completely unessecary lecture, again, and again, on every thread...

Grammarnut · 18/09/2024 18:07

RaspberryParade · 18/09/2024 17:58

@Grammarnut
Thanks for the completely unessecary lecture, again, and again, on every thread...

You cannot possibly have read every comment I make on every thread. And I rather thought it was you lecturing me. You keep telling me you know what I have said. I point out that not everyone is as well-informed as you. It's not all about you.

Riapia · 18/09/2024 18:07

We had a pre-booked meeting in the rear of the pub, almost completely screened off from the rest of the pub
So, free speech can only happen in private. How is it free speech?

” If freedom means anything at all it means being able to tell people things that they do not wish to hear. “
George Orwell.

DworkinWasRight · 18/09/2024 18:10

Just wanted to point out that Glinner’s case is in Belfast, not Dublin, which is in a different country and therefore has a different legal system.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 18/09/2024 18:15

Also being discussed on X.

Free Speech Union meeting evicted from Brighton pub
Barbadossunset · 18/09/2024 18:17

This kind of petty point scoring unthought out purity spiralling is pathetic in these circumstances.

I agree, @RaspberryParade

RaspberryParade · 18/09/2024 18:18

Grammarnut · 18/09/2024 18:07

You cannot possibly have read every comment I make on every thread. And I rather thought it was you lecturing me. You keep telling me you know what I have said. I point out that not everyone is as well-informed as you. It's not all about you.

I am talking about your endless comments to me specifically again and again on every thread about really basic stuff despite me repeatedly reminding you that I know.
Most people would stop the first time or the 2nd 3rd 4th 5th etc or at least ask if I knew.

bazoom · 18/09/2024 18:18

Very odd, almost like there is another side to the story that hasn't been explained.

Grammarnut · 18/09/2024 18:30

RaspberryParade · 18/09/2024 18:18

I am talking about your endless comments to me specifically again and again on every thread about really basic stuff despite me repeatedly reminding you that I know.
Most people would stop the first time or the 2nd 3rd 4th 5th etc or at least ask if I knew.

Edited

But I've never noticed you before, @RaspberryParade. Only on this thread where you keep telling me you things already. And I am not addressing you but anyone who is not so up to speed as you. It's not all about you.

Swipe left for the next trending thread