FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Grays pub
Grays pub
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
The grays pub that had an offensive display of ‘golly dolls’ has been closed because suppliers have refused to do business with that thick landlord and his equally stupid wife . Let’s hope this doesn’t trigger any right wing snowflakes and the pub can re open soon with a landlord that isn’t a racist  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
And isn't that a true word......"
So should we ban Barby as its sexet stereotype figer.
And Ken as he dose not have a dad bod and dose not represent the average male in the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like the only person being triggered here is you, by some cloth dolls."
apart from….
….CAMRA, Carlsberg, Heineken, Innserve, Essex Police, Thurrock Council, local members and most right minded people…
It’s 2023 - there really is no excuse for not understanding the issue.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I wouldn't have put the golliw*g up myself. Nor would I jave put them back up.
Was it 17 years the public was trading? Did the suppliers dp no due diligence, did the actual owner of the site never visit?
Did camra and the good beer guides never visit?
Thats all rather worrying if the dolls had been up for 10 years.
Amazing no1 ever complained prior.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Looks like the only person being triggered here is you, by some cloth dolls.
apart from….
….CAMRA, Carlsberg, Heineken, Innserve, Essex Police, Thurrock Council, local members and most right minded people…
It’s 2023 - there really is no excuse for not understanding the issue.
"
I'm not sure these organisations and businesses are being "triggered". Like Bud Light they are just demonstrating a desperation to signal their woke credentials mixed in with a considerable degree of cowardice.
For the most part these organisations assume that what they see on Twitter or in the MSM reflects what the mass of the population thinks and are then shocked to find that the mass of people don't feel that way. The reasons for that are quite complex and beyond this simple thread.
I haven't seen any opinion polling on the issue, so I can't say what "most right minded people think". As in your case, when people claim such things what they really mean is that they think it so assume that everyone else does too.
Private companies can do what they like and bear the consequences, but the fact that publicly funded organisations like the police have wasted so many resources on this easily explains why hardly any actual crimes are being solved in this country. Frankly the police achieve so little it's time to defund them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Looks like the only person being triggered here is you, by some cloth dolls.
apart from….
….CAMRA, Carlsberg, Heineken, Innserve, Essex Police, Thurrock Council, local members and most right minded people…
It’s 2023 - there really is no excuse for not understanding the issue.
I'm not sure these organisations and businesses are being "triggered". Like Bud Light they are just demonstrating a desperation to signal their woke credentials mixed in with a considerable degree of cowardice.
For the most part these organisations assume that what they see on Twitter or in the MSM reflects what the mass of the population thinks and are then shocked to find that the mass of people don't feel that way. The reasons for that are quite complex and beyond this simple thread.
I haven't seen any opinion polling on the issue, so I can't say what "most right minded people think". As in your case, when people claim such things what they really mean is that they think it so assume that everyone else does too.
Private companies can do what they like and bear the consequences, but the fact that publicly funded organisations like the police have wasted so many resources on this easily explains why hardly any actual crimes are being solved in this country. Frankly the police achieve so little it's time to defund them. "
It was not so much that the Gollys (there were several) were “on display” it was the manner in which they were displayed. They were being hanged.
That is surely offensive in anyones book, not simply “woke” right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Looks like the only person being triggered here is you, by some cloth dolls.
apart from….
….CAMRA, Carlsberg, Heineken, Innserve, Essex Police, Thurrock Council, local members and most right minded people…
It’s 2023 - there really is no excuse for not understanding the issue.
I'm not sure these organisations and businesses are being "triggered". Like Bud Light they are just demonstrating a desperation to signal their woke credentials mixed in with a considerable degree of cowardice.
For the most part these organisations assume that what they see on Twitter or in the MSM reflects what the mass of the population thinks and are then shocked to find that the mass of people don't feel that way. The reasons for that are quite complex and beyond this simple thread.
I haven't seen any opinion polling on the issue, so I can't say what "most right minded people think". As in your case, when people claim such things what they really mean is that they think it so assume that everyone else does too.
Private companies can do what they like and bear the consequences, but the fact that publicly funded organisations like the police have wasted so many resources on this easily explains why hardly any actual crimes are being solved in this country. Frankly the police achieve so little it's time to defund them.
It was not so much that the Gollys (there were several) were “on display” it was the manner in which they were displayed. They were being hanged.
That is surely offensive in anyones book, not simply “woke” right?"
So the police now have the power to investigate things that are "offensive" but not a crime? And you don't think that is creepy?
I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult for the ordinary person to comprehend that something that is subjectively offensive to them isn't necessarily a crime, but that is actually the job of the police to understand that demarcation. They have utterly failed to do so here.
I have no idea whether the landlord was running a successful business or not, but clearly it has been operating for some time which suggests a degree of success.
The police here have intervened where there was clearly no crime to investigate. The way they intervened, sending multiple plods along to seize some dolls, was also clearly a total overreaction and waste of taxpayers' money.
It strikes me that the landlords, who have now lost their livelihoods as a direct result of the police intervening in circumstances where they had no authority, should be bringing a civil action against the police for the lost income.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is a classic example of 'rule of the mob' through social media. These dolls hung for 10 years without apparently causing offence, but suddenly this pair are heinous racists unworthy even of beer deliveries. The sanctimonious reaction is as puke-inducing as the original offence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is a classic example of 'rule of the mob' through social media. These dolls hung for 10 years without apparently causing offence, but suddenly this pair are heinous racists unworthy even of beer deliveries. The sanctimonious reaction is as puke-inducing as the original offence. "
The ‘thick as shit ’ landlords were given the opportunity to remove the dolls, they refused |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"This is a classic example of 'rule of the mob' through social media. These dolls hung for 10 years without apparently causing offence, but suddenly this pair are heinous racists unworthy even of beer deliveries. The sanctimonious reaction is as puke-inducing as the original offence.
The ‘thick as shit ’ landlords were given the opportunity to remove the dolls, they refused "
Apparently they want to move abroad now. Considering Spain. Voted for Brexit. I don’t know if all of that is true but that is what I have read. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Looks like the only person being triggered here is you, by some cloth dolls.
apart from….
….CAMRA, Carlsberg, Heineken, Innserve, Essex Police, Thurrock Council, local members and most right minded people…
It’s 2023 - there really is no excuse for not understanding the issue.
I'm not sure these organisations and businesses are being "triggered". Like Bud Light they are just demonstrating a desperation to signal their woke credentials mixed in with a considerable degree of cowardice.
For the most part these organisations assume that what they see on Twitter or in the MSM reflects what the mass of the population thinks and are then shocked to find that the mass of people don't feel that way. The reasons for that are quite complex and beyond this simple thread.
I haven't seen any opinion polling on the issue, so I can't say what "most right minded people think". As in your case, when people claim such things what they really mean is that they think it so assume that everyone else does too.
Private companies can do what they like and bear the consequences, but the fact that publicly funded organisations like the police have wasted so many resources on this easily explains why hardly any actual crimes are being solved in this country. Frankly the police achieve so little it's time to defund them.
It was not so much that the Gollys (there were several) were “on display” it was the manner in which they were displayed. They were being hanged.
That is surely offensive in anyones book, not simply “woke” right?
So the police now have the power to investigate things that are "offensive" but not a crime? And you don't think that is creepy?
I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult for the ordinary person to comprehend that something that is subjectively offensive to them isn't necessarily a crime, but that is actually the job of the police to understand that demarcation. They have utterly failed to do so here.
I have no idea whether the landlord was running a successful business or not, but clearly it has been operating for some time which suggests a degree of success.
The police here have intervened where there was clearly no crime to investigate. The way they intervened, sending multiple plods along to seize some dolls, was also clearly a total overreaction and waste of taxpayers' money.
It strikes me that the landlords, who have now lost their livelihoods as a direct result of the police intervening in circumstances where they had no authority, should be bringing a civil action against the police for the lost income.
"
Someone must have made a complaint and alerted the police though right?
Do we know why the police went in mob handed? What kind of clientele drank in the pub? Did the police expect trouble? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It was not so much that the Gollys (there were several) were “on display” it was the manner in which they were displayed. They were being hanged."
From the video of the police collecting them, most of the gollys were on a shelf. One of them seems to have been hung on the wall, but by a hook in its back, not by a cord round its neck.
Do you have any evidence that any of them were hanged? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like "
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a classic example of 'rule of the mob' through social media. These dolls hung for 10 years without apparently causing offence, but suddenly this pair are heinous racists unworthy even of beer deliveries. The sanctimonious reaction is as puke-inducing as the original offence.
The ‘thick as shit ’ landlords were given the opportunity to remove the dolls, they refused "
"Given an opportunity to remove the dolls" by who? And on what grounds? You think the police have the legal authority to ask people to take dolls down? Are you that "thick as shit"?
You do actually have enough intelligence presumably to understand that the police can't just go around doing whatever they feel like at any given time? We don't actually (yet) live in North Korea.
Twenty years ago the Left would have been very concerned about police overreach and breaches of human rights. Now the Left is on the sidelines cheering on every example of illegal police bullyboy behaviour.
It is just indicative of the Left's unsavoury drift towards authoritarianism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead "
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is a classic example of 'rule of the mob' through social media. These dolls hung for 10 years without apparently causing offence, but suddenly this pair are heinous racists unworthy even of beer deliveries. The sanctimonious reaction is as puke-inducing as the original offence.
The ‘thick as shit ’ landlords were given the opportunity to remove the dolls, they refused
"Given an opportunity to remove the dolls" by who? And on what grounds? You think the police have the legal authority to ask people to take dolls down? Are you that "thick as shit"?
You do actually have enough intelligence presumably to understand that the police can't just go around doing whatever they feel like at any given time? We don't actually (yet) live in North Korea.
Twenty years ago the Left would have been very concerned about police overreach and breaches of human rights. Now the Left is on the sidelines cheering on every example of illegal police bullyboy behaviour.
It is just indicative of the Left's unsavoury drift towards authoritarianism."
They were told to remove them, they refused, consequences |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is a classic example of 'rule of the mob' through social media. These dolls hung for 10 years without apparently causing offence, but suddenly this pair are heinous racists unworthy even of beer deliveries. The sanctimonious reaction is as puke-inducing as the original offence.
The ‘thick as shit ’ landlords were given the opportunity to remove the dolls, they refused
"Given an opportunity to remove the dolls" by who? And on what grounds? You think the police have the legal authority to ask people to take dolls down? Are you that "thick as shit"?
You do actually have enough intelligence presumably to understand that the police can't just go around doing whatever they feel like at any given time? We don't actually (yet) live in North Korea.
Twenty years ago the Left would have been very concerned about police overreach and breaches of human rights. Now the Left is on the sidelines cheering on every example of illegal police bullyboy behaviour.
It is just indicative of the Left's unsavoury drift towards authoritarianism."
Btw,I think the police over reacted |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant "
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a classic example of 'rule of the mob' through social media. These dolls hung for 10 years without apparently causing offence, but suddenly this pair are heinous racists unworthy even of beer deliveries. The sanctimonious reaction is as puke-inducing as the original offence.
The ‘thick as shit ’ landlords were given the opportunity to remove the dolls, they refused
"Given an opportunity to remove the dolls" by who? And on what grounds? You think the police have the legal authority to ask people to take dolls down? Are you that "thick as shit"?
You do actually have enough intelligence presumably to understand that the police can't just go around doing whatever they feel like at any given time? We don't actually (yet) live in North Korea.
Twenty years ago the Left would have been very concerned about police overreach and breaches of human rights. Now the Left is on the sidelines cheering on every example of illegal police bullyboy behaviour.
It is just indicative of the Left's unsavoury drift towards authoritarianism.
They were told to remove them, they refused, consequences "
The landlord did protest but the police just moved the landlord out the way, pity they do not take the same action to protesters blocking the highway.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a classic example of 'rule of the mob' through social media. These dolls hung for 10 years without apparently causing offence, but suddenly this pair are heinous racists unworthy even of beer deliveries. The sanctimonious reaction is as puke-inducing as the original offence.
The ‘thick as shit ’ landlords were given the opportunity to remove the dolls, they refused "
I'm not condoning the landlords, who do indeed seem a bit dim. I'm reacting to the equally mindless and hysterical reaction by the social media mob. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?"
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is a classic example of 'rule of the mob' through social media. These dolls hung for 10 years without apparently causing offence, but suddenly this pair are heinous racists unworthy even of beer deliveries. The sanctimonious reaction is as puke-inducing as the original offence.
The ‘thick as shit ’ landlords were given the opportunity to remove the dolls, they refused
"Given an opportunity to remove the dolls" by who? And on what grounds? You think the police have the legal authority to ask people to take dolls down? Are you that "thick as shit"?
You do actually have enough intelligence presumably to understand that the police can't just go around doing whatever they feel like at any given time? We don't actually (yet) live in North Korea.
Twenty years ago the Left would have been very concerned about police overreach and breaches of human rights. Now the Left is on the sidelines cheering on every example of illegal police bullyboy behaviour.
It is just indicative of the Left's unsavoury drift towards authoritarianism.
They were told to remove them, they refused, consequences
The landlord did protest but the police just moved the landlord out the way, pity they do not take the same action to protesters blocking the highway. "
The police over reacted, ultimately the landlords are thick and are totally responsible for their actions |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick "
You clearly don't know what cancel culture looks like.
A group of suppliers have chosen not to do business with said business because of social media furore.
It wasn't an issue for the group of businesses before, I assume most of them would've visited the premises at some point. Don't try to argue that it's not the case, CAMRA and breweries definitely would have visited the premises previously.
After a social media furore they've stopped them from being customers, not for a new offence but something which has been there for years.
That's cancel culture.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick
You clearly don't know what cancel culture looks like.
A group of suppliers have chosen not to do business with said business because of social media furore.
It wasn't an issue for the group of businesses before, I assume most of them would've visited the premises at some point. Don't try to argue that it's not the case, CAMRA and breweries definitely would have visited the premises previously.
After a social media furore they've stopped them from being customers, not for a new offence but something which has been there for years.
That's cancel culture.
"
It isn’t, they would still be running the pub if they had removed the dolls, they refused , if anything they cancelled themselves |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick
You clearly don't know what cancel culture looks like.
A group of suppliers have chosen not to do business with said business because of social media furore.
It wasn't an issue for the group of businesses before, I assume most of them would've visited the premises at some point. Don't try to argue that it's not the case, CAMRA and breweries definitely would have visited the premises previously.
After a social media furore they've stopped them from being customers, not for a new offence but something which has been there for years.
That's cancel culture.
It isn’t, they would still be running the pub if they had removed the dolls, they refused , if anything they cancelled themselves "
OK mate. Why didn't any of these organisations take action before social media uproar?
You know there was one complaint in 17 years? And none since? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Let’s hope this doesn’t trigger any right wing snowflakes
What about left wing snowflakes ?"
They're more triggered by racism, rather than the RWSFs that appear to be triggered by people who don't tolerate racism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick
You clearly don't know what cancel culture looks like.
A group of suppliers have chosen not to do business with said business because of social media furore.
It wasn't an issue for the group of businesses before, I assume most of them would've visited the premises at some point. Don't try to argue that it's not the case, CAMRA and breweries definitely would have visited the premises previously.
After a social media furore they've stopped them from being customers, not for a new offence but something which has been there for years.
That's cancel culture.
"
Is an element of "cancel culture" if the someone cancelled did nothing wrong, or as an example, if they said something stupid back in the 90s etc?
Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick
You clearly don't know what cancel culture looks like.
A group of suppliers have chosen not to do business with said business because of social media furore.
It wasn't an issue for the group of businesses before, I assume most of them would've visited the premises at some point. Don't try to argue that it's not the case, CAMRA and breweries definitely would have visited the premises previously.
After a social media furore they've stopped them from being customers, not for a new offence but something which has been there for years.
That's cancel culture.
Is an element of "cancel culture" if the someone cancelled did nothing wrong, or as an example, if they said something stupid back in the 90s etc?
Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
"
I'd be very interested to see what would happen if Tim Martin had decided to have a Golliwog week at Wetherspoons. Would the suppliers have pulled the plug then and refused to supply Wetherspoons?
I doubt it, if there were real commercial consequences for them.
Here the suppliers simply have to balance sacrificing one small landlord against all the "cred" they think they will get from virtue signalling on Twitter about diversity.
If their victim were someone their own size or bigger, they wouldn't be doing it. They are bullies pure and simple, just as the police are in this case, and in the latter case they have no authority to act as they have.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick
You clearly don't know what cancel culture looks like.
A group of suppliers have chosen not to do business with said business because of social media furore.
It wasn't an issue for the group of businesses before, I assume most of them would've visited the premises at some point. Don't try to argue that it's not the case, CAMRA and breweries definitely would have visited the premises previously.
After a social media furore they've stopped them from being customers, not for a new offence but something which has been there for years.
That's cancel culture.
It isn’t, they would still be running the pub if they had removed the dolls, they refused , if anything they cancelled themselves
OK mate. Why didn't any of these organisations take action before social media uproar?
You know there was one complaint in 17 years? And none since?"
if they had removed the dolls they would still be running the pub, the landlord is totally responsible for this, nobody else |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick
You clearly don't know what cancel culture looks like.
A group of suppliers have chosen not to do business with said business because of social media furore.
It wasn't an issue for the group of businesses before, I assume most of them would've visited the premises at some point. Don't try to argue that it's not the case, CAMRA and breweries definitely would have visited the premises previously.
After a social media furore they've stopped them from being customers, not for a new offence but something which has been there for years.
That's cancel culture.
Is an element of "cancel culture" if the someone cancelled did nothing wrong, or as an example, if they said something stupid back in the 90s etc?
Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
I'd be very interested to see what would happen if Tim Martin had decided to have a Golliwog week at Wetherspoons. Would the suppliers have pulled the plug then and refused to supply Wetherspoons?
I doubt it, if there were real commercial consequences for them.
Here the suppliers simply have to balance sacrificing one small landlord against all the "cred" they think they will get from virtue signalling on Twitter about diversity.
If their victim were someone their own size or bigger, they wouldn't be doing it. They are bullies pure and simple, just as the police are in this case, and in the latter case they have no authority to act as they have.
"
Why would Tim Martin want to do that? I know he supported Brexit but he isn’t that thick |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick
You clearly don't know what cancel culture looks like.
A group of suppliers have chosen not to do business with said business because of social media furore.
It wasn't an issue for the group of businesses before, I assume most of them would've visited the premises at some point. Don't try to argue that it's not the case, CAMRA and breweries definitely would have visited the premises previously.
After a social media furore they've stopped them from being customers, not for a new offence but something which has been there for years.
That's cancel culture.
Is an element of "cancel culture" if the someone cancelled did nothing wrong, or as an example, if they said something stupid back in the 90s etc?
Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
I'd be very interested to see what would happen if Tim Martin had decided to have a Golliwog week at Wetherspoons. Would the suppliers have pulled the plug then and refused to supply Wetherspoons?
I doubt it, if there were real commercial consequences for them.
Here the suppliers simply have to balance sacrificing one small landlord against all the "cred" they think they will get from virtue signalling on Twitter about diversity.
If their victim were someone their own size or bigger, they wouldn't be doing it. They are bullies pure and simple, just as the police are in this case, and in the latter case they have no authority to act as they have.
"
Bullies? Stop being a snowflake |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with."
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes."
How do you know they knew about it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with."
"But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes."
"How do you know they knew about it? "
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused."
And? Tbh, this is all irrelevant, if the landlords had removed the dolls they would still be running the pub, they are responsible |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused."
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick
You clearly don't know what cancel culture looks like.
A group of suppliers have chosen not to do business with said business because of social media furore.
It wasn't an issue for the group of businesses before, I assume most of them would've visited the premises at some point. Don't try to argue that it's not the case, CAMRA and breweries definitely would have visited the premises previously.
After a social media furore they've stopped them from being customers, not for a new offence but something which has been there for years.
That's cancel culture.
Is an element of "cancel culture" if the someone cancelled did nothing wrong, or as an example, if they said something stupid back in the 90s etc?
Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
I'd be very interested to see what would happen if Tim Martin had decided to have a Golliwog week at Wetherspoons. Would the suppliers have pulled the plug then and refused to supply Wetherspoons?
I doubt it, if there were real commercial consequences for them.
Here the suppliers simply have to balance sacrificing one small landlord against all the "cred" they think they will get from virtue signalling on Twitter about diversity.
If their victim were someone their own size or bigger, they wouldn't be doing it. They are bullies pure and simple, just as the police are in this case, and in the latter case they have no authority to act as they have.
"
Fair enough.
However not supporting racist pubs is not just "virtue signalling". Some people and businesses are genuinely opposed to racism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes."
Did they know it was a racist pub the whole time?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises."
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?"
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Imo, there are two aspects here. One, companies are reacting to increased media focus. That's understandable... They aren't taking an ethical stand but a commercial one. And this now has a focus that it didn't previously.
But it appears they're are more layers than just the dolls. The husband has interesting Facebook posts they may not be happy with. And it appears this has become something that people are circling around, quickly taking something that could be argued as being unracist, to becoming racist.
Which probably accelerates companies' decisions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Imo, there are two aspects here. One, companies are reacting to increased media focus. That's understandable... They aren't taking an ethical stand but a commercial one. And this now has a focus that it didn't previously.
But it appears they're are more layers than just the dolls. The husband has interesting Facebook posts they may not be happy with. And it appears this has become something that people are circling around, quickly taking something that could be argued as being unracist, to becoming racist.
Which probably accelerates companies' decisions. "
The landlord is obviously a racist, he is totally responsible for what has happened |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Imo, there are two aspects here. One, companies are reacting to increased media focus. That's understandable... They aren't taking an ethical stand but a commercial one. And this now has a focus that it didn't previously.
But it appears they're are more layers than just the dolls. The husband has interesting Facebook posts they may not be happy with. And it appears this has become something that people are circling around, quickly taking something that could be argued as being unracist, to becoming racist.
Which probably accelerates companies' decisions.
The landlord is obviously a racist, he is totally responsible for what has happened "
his posts give the impression of that. If I were a company I'd be distancing myself from him a) now I know and b) now this is all very public knowledge. Regardless of my views on the dolls.
I do wonder how this all made the news. Who contacted the original journies? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick
You clearly don't know what cancel culture looks like.
A group of suppliers have chosen not to do business with said business because of social media furore.
It wasn't an issue for the group of businesses before, I assume most of them would've visited the premises at some point. Don't try to argue that it's not the case, CAMRA and breweries definitely would have visited the premises previously.
After a social media furore they've stopped them from being customers, not for a new offence but something which has been there for years.
That's cancel culture.
Is an element of "cancel culture" if the someone cancelled did nothing wrong, or as an example, if they said something stupid back in the 90s etc?
Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
I'd be very interested to see what would happen if Tim Martin had decided to have a Golliwog week at Wetherspoons. Would the suppliers have pulled the plug then and refused to supply Wetherspoons?
I doubt it, if there were real commercial consequences for them.
Here the suppliers simply have to balance sacrificing one small landlord against all the "cred" they think they will get from virtue signalling on Twitter about diversity.
If their victim were someone their own size or bigger, they wouldn't be doing it. They are bullies pure and simple, just as the police are in this case, and in the latter case they have no authority to act as they have.
Fair enough.
However not supporting racist pubs is not just "virtue signalling". Some people and businesses are genuinely opposed to racism. "
I'm sure pubs and clubs are full of imagery, conversation, activity that some other section of society would find offensive.
Swingers clubs and websites for example many people would find highly reprehensible.
I'd be interested to know what proactive "policing" Heineken undertakes generally to prevent any behaviours at its customers that some section of society might find offensive.
The answer to that is of course that they take none. They just see an opportunity here to virtue signal at zero cost to their bottom line. For all we know the pub in question sold virtually none of their products anyway, and it certainly wouldn't be enough to bother a multinational. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'"
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick
You clearly don't know what cancel culture looks like.
A group of suppliers have chosen not to do business with said business because of social media furore.
It wasn't an issue for the group of businesses before, I assume most of them would've visited the premises at some point. Don't try to argue that it's not the case, CAMRA and breweries definitely would have visited the premises previously.
After a social media furore they've stopped them from being customers, not for a new offence but something which has been there for years.
That's cancel culture.
Is an element of "cancel culture" if the someone cancelled did nothing wrong, or as an example, if they said something stupid back in the 90s etc?
Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
I'd be very interested to see what would happen if Tim Martin had decided to have a Golliwog week at Wetherspoons. Would the suppliers have pulled the plug then and refused to supply Wetherspoons?
I doubt it, if there were real commercial consequences for them.
Here the suppliers simply have to balance sacrificing one small landlord against all the "cred" they think they will get from virtue signalling on Twitter about diversity.
If their victim were someone their own size or bigger, they wouldn't be doing it. They are bullies pure and simple, just as the police are in this case, and in the latter case they have no authority to act as they have.
Fair enough.
However not supporting racist pubs is not just "virtue signalling". Some people and businesses are genuinely opposed to racism.
I'm sure pubs and clubs are full of imagery, conversation, activity that some other section of society would find offensive.
Swingers clubs and websites for example many people would find highly reprehensible.
I'd be interested to know what proactive "policing" Heineken undertakes generally to prevent any behaviours at its customers that some section of society might find offensive.
The answer to that is of course that they take none. They just see an opportunity here to virtue signal at zero cost to their bottom line. For all we know the pub in question sold virtually none of their products anyway, and it certainly wouldn't be enough to bother a multinational."
Fair enough. Still don't consider opposing racism as "virtue signalling". Just seems normal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing."
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fair enough. Still don't consider opposing racism as "virtue signalling". Just seems normal."
I think we'd all agree with that.
My view though is that the companies in this case are not opposing racism, they are just protecting their bottom line. Their decision may have had the effect of punishing a racist, but I don't think they care about that. In that way, they are acting to change people's opinion of them, and are therefore just virtue signalling. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fair enough. Still don't consider opposing racism as "virtue signalling". Just seems normal.
I think we'd all agree with that.
My view though is that the companies in this case are not opposing racism, they are just protecting their bottom line. Their decision may have had the effect of punishing a racist, but I don't think they care about that. In that way, they are acting to change people's opinion of them, and are therefore just virtue signalling."
So still a positive outcome even if the companies boycotting them as secret racists, or ambivalent towards racism.
Still sounds like society is moving forwards in this instance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't. "
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't. "
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls."
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so."
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so."
Sounds a bit like telling a r ape victim that she should have dressed more modestly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so."
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
"
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open, "
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good. "
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists "
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly."
It not a crime to be a thick racist , |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist , "
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent."
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing "
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?"
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where "
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
"
Yeah, go out, find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
Yeah, go out, find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy "
Second person you've insulted today. You do realise you're calling him racist don't you? 
That is if you belive golly dolls are racist, which im sure you do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
Yeah, go out, find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy "
I shall probably spend the evening analysing my soft toy collection to determine whether any of them could be considered remotely "offensive" to anyone on the planet.
Wouldn't want to be woken by half a dozen fuzz breaking my door down at 3am. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
Yeah, go out, find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy
Second person you've insulted today. You do realise you're calling him racist don't you?
That is if you belive golly dolls are racist, which im sure you do."
Are you a mind reader, I am not calling anyone a racist, the poster is getting upset about a pub land lord being ‘cancelled ‘ for not being allowed to display golly dolls |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
Yeah, go out, find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy
I shall probably spend the evening analysing my soft toy collection to determine whether any of them could be considered remotely "offensive" to anyone on the planet.
Wouldn't want to be woken by half a dozen fuzz breaking my door down at 3am."
What ever floats your boat , |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
Yeah, go out, find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy
Second person you've insulted today. You do realise you're calling him racist don't you?
That is if you belive golly dolls are racist, which im sure you do.
Are you a mind reader, I am not calling anyone a racist, the poster is getting upset about a pub land lord being ‘cancelled ‘ for not being allowed to display golly dolls "
Are you sure?
"find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy"
What does the actual golly dolls have to do with his happiness? You said yourself he's upset about the landlord being cancelled. Nothing to do with the dolls. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
Yeah, go out, find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy
Second person you've insulted today. You do realise you're calling him racist don't you?
That is if you belive golly dolls are racist, which im sure you do.
Are you a mind reader, I am not calling anyone a racist, the poster is getting upset about a pub land lord being ‘cancelled ‘ for not being allowed to display golly dolls
Are you sure?
"find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy"
What does the actual golly dolls have to do with his happiness? You said yourself he's upset about the landlord being cancelled. Nothing to do with the dolls."
He is upset that the pub in question can no longer display golly dolls, so finding a pub that does display then will help him with his irrational fears that the uk is run by lefty wokists |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
Yeah, go out, find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy
Second person you've insulted today. You do realise you're calling him racist don't you?
That is if you belive golly dolls are racist, which im sure you do.
Are you a mind reader, I am not calling anyone a racist, the poster is getting upset about a pub land lord being ‘cancelled ‘ for not being allowed to display golly dolls
Are you sure?
"find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy"
What does the actual golly dolls have to do with his happiness? You said yourself he's upset about the landlord being cancelled. Nothing to do with the dolls.
He is upset that the pub in question can no longer display golly dolls, so finding a pub that does display then will help him with his irrational fears that the uk is run by lefty wokists"
I'm not sure you have the capacity to understand what he is 'upset' by.
Hint: It's not that the dolls can no longer by displayed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
Yeah, go out, find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy
Second person you've insulted today. You do realise you're calling him racist don't you?
That is if you belive golly dolls are racist, which im sure you do.
Are you a mind reader, I am not calling anyone a racist, the poster is getting upset about a pub land lord being ‘cancelled ‘ for not being allowed to display golly dolls
Are you sure?
"find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy"
What does the actual golly dolls have to do with his happiness? You said yourself he's upset about the landlord being cancelled. Nothing to do with the dolls.
He is upset that the pub in question can no longer display golly dolls, so finding a pub that does display then will help him with his irrational fears that the uk is run by lefty wokists"
Your posts are sounding increasingly bizarre. I'm wondering if maybe you should take a break from internet forums and take up another hobby or something. Maybe go outside. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Looks like the only person being triggered here is you, by some cloth dolls.
I just hope the pub can re open with a landlord that isn’t racist . "
I believe they own it not just run it a independent supplier will be along soon to supply hope it re opens asap |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
Yeah, go out, find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy
Second person you've insulted today. You do realise you're calling him racist don't you?
That is if you belive golly dolls are racist, which im sure you do.
Are you a mind reader, I am not calling anyone a racist, the poster is getting upset about a pub land lord being ‘cancelled ‘ for not being allowed to display golly dolls
Are you sure?
"find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy"
What does the actual golly dolls have to do with his happiness? You said yourself he's upset about the landlord being cancelled. Nothing to do with the dolls.
He is upset that the pub in question can no longer display golly dolls, so finding a pub that does display then will help him with his irrational fears that the uk is run by lefty wokists
Your posts are sounding increasingly bizarre. I'm wondering if maybe you should take a break from internet forums and take up another hobby or something. Maybe go outside."
I am sat outside, I appreciate your concern, it has been noted |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
Yeah, go out, find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy
Second person you've insulted today. You do realise you're calling him racist don't you?
That is if you belive golly dolls are racist, which im sure you do.
Are you a mind reader, I am not calling anyone a racist, the poster is getting upset about a pub land lord being ‘cancelled ‘ for not being allowed to display golly dolls
Are you sure?
"find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy"
What does the actual golly dolls have to do with his happiness? You said yourself he's upset about the landlord being cancelled. Nothing to do with the dolls.
He is upset that the pub in question can no longer display golly dolls, so finding a pub that does display then will help him with his irrational fears that the uk is run by lefty wokists
I'm not sure you have the capacity to understand what he is 'upset' by.
Hint: It's not that the dolls can no longer by displayed."
You can read his mind aswell? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
Yeah, go out, find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy
Second person you've insulted today. You do realise you're calling him racist don't you?
That is if you belive golly dolls are racist, which im sure you do.
Are you a mind reader, I am not calling anyone a racist, the poster is getting upset about a pub land lord being ‘cancelled ‘ for not being allowed to display golly dolls
Are you sure?
"find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy"
What does the actual golly dolls have to do with his happiness? You said yourself he's upset about the landlord being cancelled. Nothing to do with the dolls.
He is upset that the pub in question can no longer display golly dolls, so finding a pub that does display then will help him with his irrational fears that the uk is run by lefty wokists
I'm not sure you have the capacity to understand what he is 'upset' by.
Hint: It's not that the dolls can no longer by displayed.
You can read his mind aswell? "
I can read posts, something you should try 
I'm done now anyway, ignorants and racists round here apparently so I'll bow out |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Would guess the pub will stay closed as the owners will still be living there.
Workers made redundant.
But it is wat it is
The landlord is moving, the pub will re open,
Will it? With all the pub closures every day it's a brave person who will take it on.
Still, "racism", innit. Some of the workers have to be sacrificed for the greater good.
All the landlord had to do was remove the dolls, unfortunately they are just thick racists
Sure they are. All anyone needs to do is just whatever the Maoist police tell them to.
Looking forward to seeing them banged up for all the crimes they haven't committed shortly.
It not a crime to be a thick racist ,
Good to see that the Nazification of the Left continues apace.
Police arresting soft toys, workers losing their livelihoods for no reason, anti-Semitism rife. This Socialist nirvana is all looking excellent.
The Tories, who have been in power for 13 years, are not left wing
Have you decided where the mass graves are going to be situated yet?
To paraphrase the landlord of The Grays pub, if you don’t like it here, go else where
Yes I've probably wasted quite enough time on the Ubermenschen for one day.
Yeah, go out, find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy
Second person you've insulted today. You do realise you're calling him racist don't you?
That is if you belive golly dolls are racist, which im sure you do.
Are you a mind reader, I am not calling anyone a racist, the poster is getting upset about a pub land lord being ‘cancelled ‘ for not being allowed to display golly dolls
Are you sure?
"find yourself a pub that has some golly dolls on display to make you happy"
What does the actual golly dolls have to do with his happiness? You said yourself he's upset about the landlord being cancelled. Nothing to do with the dolls.
He is upset that the pub in question can no longer display golly dolls, so finding a pub that does display then will help him with his irrational fears that the uk is run by lefty wokists
I'm not sure you have the capacity to understand what he is 'upset' by.
Hint: It's not that the dolls can no longer by displayed.
You can read his mind aswell?
I can read posts, something you should try
I'm done now anyway, ignorants and racists round here apparently so I'll bow out "
Seeya |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick "
but if not breaking any laws why should they just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick but if not breaking any laws why should they just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal "
It can be considered illegal under the crime abs disorder act 1998, behaviour that is racially aggravated |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
I have not seen pictures of these dolls on display but some say they were being hanged. Is that noose around the neck or being suspended with a bit of cord so they can be seen?. If it's noose around the neck I would say that crosses a line but otherwise I would not have a problem at all. Assuming that once told to remove them and he was advised of the consequences for not removing them, then I would say he should have complied. He could then have contacted the press himself to give his side of the story and highlight what he has been forced to do after 10 years |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have not seen pictures of these dolls on display but some say they were being hanged. Is that noose around the neck or being suspended with a bit of cord so they can be seen?. If it's noose around the neck I would say that crosses a line but otherwise I would not have a problem at all. Assuming that once told to remove them and he was advised of the consequences for not removing them, then I would say he should have complied. He could then have contacted the press himself to give his side of the story and highlight what he has been forced to do after 10 years"
Total over reaction from the police, I find it very worrying that people are pushing you must comply be coerced with police orders even when you know you have not broke any law. I will remind people of Mrs everard. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick but if not breaking any laws why should they just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal
It can be considered illegal under the crime abs disorder act 1998, behaviour that is racially aggravated "
it could be is not so black and white either make it illegal or not that way not defence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is what cancel culture looks like.
This is what ignorance looks like
I see you're up to your usual standards...
You don't think this is what cancel culture looks like? All of those associations/companies refusing to work with them after said artefacts are gone?
You could get involved or you could just choose to insult people instead
They were warned , btw, I wasn’t calling you ignorant, I was calling the thick as shit landlords ignorant
Sure looked like you were calling me ignorant...
Anyway, you dont think this looks like cancel culture?
I apologise if it looked that way . No, it’s not cancel culture, they were given the chance to remove the dolls, they refused, they are obviously thick but if not breaking any laws why should they just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal
It can be considered illegal under the crime abs disorder act 1998, behaviour that is racially aggravated "
"Can be considered".
Looking forward to the landlords being charged with that soon then....the clown police will be laughed out of court. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The leaseholders Ms Ryley and her husband, Chris, have run the White Hart Inn for 17 years and now plan to retire after closing it on Monday night.
A spokesperson for Admiral Taverns, which owns the pub building, said: "The licensees have made us aware of their decision to leave the pub.
No formal changes will be made.
So is hunting legal No so the fox and hounds by me should close or be renamed. As that must be offensive to lots of people?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's never clear of some are taking a stand against "cancel culture" in general... Or think it's okay to display Golliwogs so defending the specific case.
I can see why some people are deeply uncomfortable with the dolls. Even if you don't believe them to be a racist symbol in themselves, they are the source of an offensive term. I can understand why someone who has been called that may be affected by seeing thw source material displayed.
Common decency says don't display them if you are running a public facing business.
Anyway it wouldn't surprise me if there's something else going on here. I'm 20-1 the landlords rang the complaint in as an exit strategy, and 5-1 the relationship had soured and the brewery have used this as an excuse to pull their support. 50-1 the breweries called it in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
Sounds a bit like telling a r ape victim that she should have dressed more modestly."
Erm? WTF? Seriously. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?"
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion. "
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
"
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5"
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
"
Why are you asking me this?
I have no idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The leaseholders Ms Ryley and her husband, Chris, have run the White Hart Inn for 17 years and now plan to retire after closing it on Monday night.
A spokesperson for Admiral Taverns, which owns the pub building, said: "The licensees have made us aware of their decision to leave the pub.
No formal changes will be made.
So is hunting legal No so the fox and hounds by me should close or be renamed. As that must be offensive to lots of people??"
No, the fox and hounds should not be renamed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they?"
They were found guilty of being racist and as thick as shit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they?
They were found guilty of being racist and as thick as shit "
Have they appeared in court, that was quick. Did they get a fine or other punishment? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they?
They were found guilty of being racist and as thick as shit
Have they appeared in court, that was quick. Did they get a fine or other punishment?"
No, they were found guilty of this by CAMRA and their suppliers |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they?
They were found guilty of being racist and as thick as shit
Have they appeared in court, that was quick. Did they get a fine or other punishment?
No, they were found guilty of this by CAMRA and their suppliers "
Who is CAMRA? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they?
They were found guilty of being racist and as thick as shit
Have they appeared in court, that was quick. Did they get a fine or other punishment?
No, they were found guilty of this by CAMRA and their suppliers
Who is CAMRA?"
Campaign for Real Ale |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they?
They were found guilty of being racist and as thick as shit
Have they appeared in court, that was quick. Did they get a fine or other punishment?"
They haven’t been charged with any offence as the investigation is still ongoing.
Potentially they could be charged under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,
Behaviour that is racially aggravated is an offence if at the time “the offender demonstrates towards the victim hostility based on the victim’s membership or presumed membership of a racial or religious group”.
Securing a conviction would however be difficult for a prosecuting lawyer to convince a jury of an intent to cause offence.
Especially in this case as it appears the dolls were on display for years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with."
"Public Order Act 1986, Section 5"
Doesn't apply. The prosecution would have to prove that the dolls were intended to be abusive. Not that they *were* abusive, but that the owners intended them to be abusive.
Besides, section 5 explicitly lists a defence that the activity happened inside a dwelling. Pubs, or 'public houses', have a peculiar status in law that they are places of business, but also the residence of the landlord, and therefore they count as a 'dwelling'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
Doesn't apply. The prosecution would have to prove that the dolls were intended to be abusive. Not that they *were* abusive, but that the owners intended them to be abusive.
Besides, section 5 explicitly lists a defence that the activity happened inside a dwelling. Pubs, or 'public houses', have a peculiar status in law that they are places of business, but also the residence of the landlord, and therefore they count as a 'dwelling'."
Is it the police, or members of the public that should be deciding this? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
Doesn't apply. The prosecution would have to prove that the dolls were intended to be abusive. Not that they *were* abusive, but that the owners intended them to be abusive.
Besides, section 5 explicitly lists a defence that the activity happened inside a dwelling. Pubs, or 'public houses', have a peculiar status in law that they are places of business, but also the residence of the landlord, and therefore they count as a 'dwelling'.
Is it the police, or members of the public that should be deciding this?"
I think I know the answer to this..
We should let members of the public to decide what is law and allow them to dish out the punishments  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with."
"Public Order Act 1986, Section 5"
"Doesn't apply. The prosecution would have to prove that the dolls were intended to be abusive. Not that they *were* abusive, but that the owners intended them to be abusive.
Besides, section 5 explicitly lists a defence that the activity happened inside a dwelling. Pubs, or 'public houses', have a peculiar status in law that they are places of business, but also the residence of the landlord, and therefore they count as a 'dwelling'."
"Is it the police, or members of the public that should be deciding this?"
Neither. The judiciary should decide whether an offence has occurred or not. The police only have a rudimentary understanding of the law, and their job is to collect evidence, and pass it to the judiciary for a decision to be made as to whether there is a case to answer or not.
I'd love to know what grounds the police officers used for seizing the dolls, and whether they really believed that an offence had taken place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
Doesn't apply. The prosecution would have to prove that the dolls were intended to be abusive. Not that they *were* abusive, but that the owners intended them to be abusive.
Besides, section 5 explicitly lists a defence that the activity happened inside a dwelling. Pubs, or 'public houses', have a peculiar status in law that they are places of business, but also the residence of the landlord, and therefore they count as a 'dwelling'.
Is it the police, or members of the public that should be deciding this?
Neither. The judiciary should decide whether an offence has occurred or not. The police only have a rudimentary understanding of the law, and their job is to collect evidence, and pass it to the judiciary for a decision to be made as to whether there is a case to answer or not.
I'd love to know what grounds the police officers used for seizing the dolls, and whether they really believed that an offence had taken place."
I thought it was the CPS that decides rather than the judiciary. But agreed it's not the police.
The police seem to be in an odd predicament. They are desperate to advertise their woke credentials as strongly as possible, but no matter what they do, any report into them finds them to be more racist, misogynist, homophobic and transphobic than before.
So the endless diversity training and targets have made no difference, but the answer to the failure is just more diversity training and ridiculous posturing on Twitter.
Meanwhile the number of actual crimes being solved is negligible, so low that there is not really any point in having a police force, and the general public thinks they are a laughing stock. Plus many of them just seem to be fat slobs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
Doesn't apply. The prosecution would have to prove that the dolls were intended to be abusive. Not that they *were* abusive, but that the owners intended them to be abusive.
Besides, section 5 explicitly lists a defence that the activity happened inside a dwelling. Pubs, or 'public houses', have a peculiar status in law that they are places of business, but also the residence of the landlord, and therefore they count as a 'dwelling'.
Is it the police, or members of the public that should be deciding this?
Neither. The judiciary should decide whether an offence has occurred or not. The police only have a rudimentary understanding of the law, and their job is to collect evidence, and pass it to the judiciary for a decision to be made as to whether there is a case to answer or not.
I'd love to know what grounds the police officers used for seizing the dolls, and whether they really believed that an offence had taken place.
I thought it was the CPS that decides rather than the judiciary. But agreed it's not the police.
The police seem to be in an odd predicament. They are desperate to advertise their woke credentials as strongly as possible, but no matter what they do, any report into them finds them to be more racist, misogynist, homophobic and transphobic than before.
So the endless diversity training and targets have made no difference, but the answer to the failure is just more diversity training and ridiculous posturing on Twitter.
Meanwhile the number of actual crimes being solved is negligible, so low that there is not really any point in having a police force, and the general public thinks they are a laughing stock. Plus many of them just seem to be fat slobs."
I think the CPS decide if to prosecute or not. I suppose in a way they make a judgment but it's for the court's to ultimately decide. Might have that wrong but think it's roughly correct. The police could come out of this looking bad if the landlord is either not charged or if he is then found to be innocent |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have not seen pictures of these dolls on display but some say they were being hanged. Is that noose around the neck or being suspended with a bit of cord so they can be seen?. If it's noose around the neck I would say that crosses a line but otherwise I would not have a problem at all. Assuming that once told to remove them and he was advised of the consequences for not removing them, then I would say he should have complied. He could then have contacted the press himself to give his side of the story and highlight what he has been forced to do after 10 years"
This is just one picture but we imagine the photo in the below article is a good example of their placing, quite prominent behind the bar. Come to your own conclusion, though its nice to see someone questioning what is not being elaborated on by media. 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/golliwog-dolls-grays-essex-pub-closes-b2331804.html |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
Doesn't apply. The prosecution would have to prove that the dolls were intended to be abusive. Not that they *were* abusive, but that the owners intended them to be abusive.
Besides, section 5 explicitly lists a defence that the activity happened inside a dwelling. Pubs, or 'public houses', have a peculiar status in law that they are places of business, but also the residence of the landlord, and therefore they count as a 'dwelling'.
Is it the police, or members of the public that should be deciding this?
Neither. The judiciary should decide whether an offence has occurred or not. The police only have a rudimentary understanding of the law, and their job is to collect evidence, and pass it to the judiciary for a decision to be made as to whether there is a case to answer or not.
I'd love to know what grounds the police officers used for seizing the dolls, and whether they really believed that an offence had taken place."
Was it "gathering evidence"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they?
They were found guilty of being racist and as thick as shit
Have they appeared in court, that was quick. Did they get a fine or other punishment?
No, they were found guilty of this by CAMRA and their suppliers
Who is CAMRA?
Campaign for Real Ale "
Hold your horses, campaign for real ale found the couple guilty?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they?
They were found guilty of being racist and as thick as shit
Have they appeared in court, that was quick. Did they get a fine or other punishment?
No, they were found guilty of this by CAMRA and their suppliers
Who is CAMRA?
Campaign for Real Ale
Hold your horses, campaign for real ale found the couple guilty?
"
They barred them from their membership, so yes, they didn’t want to be associated with thick racist . Maybe CAMRA have become Woke, good news if that is the case |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
Doesn't apply. The prosecution would have to prove that the dolls were intended to be abusive. Not that they *were* abusive, but that the owners intended them to be abusive.
Besides, section 5 explicitly lists a defence that the activity happened inside a dwelling. Pubs, or 'public houses', have a peculiar status in law that they are places of business, but also the residence of the landlord, and therefore they count as a 'dwelling'.
Is it the police, or members of the public that should be deciding this?
Neither. The judiciary should decide whether an offence has occurred or not. The police only have a rudimentary understanding of the law, and their job is to collect evidence, and pass it to the judiciary for a decision to be made as to whether there is a case to answer or not.
I'd love to know what grounds the police officers used for seizing the dolls, and whether they really believed that an offence had taken place."
It's a CPS decision whether to proceed with a prosecution based on two tests 1) the evidence and 2) public interest. As you've already said, the evidence in this case was questionable, and almost certainly not considered to be in the public interest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they?
They were found guilty of being racist and as thick as shit
Have they appeared in court, that was quick. Did they get a fine or other punishment?
No, they were found guilty of this by CAMRA and their suppliers
Who is CAMRA?
Campaign for Real Ale
Hold your horses, campaign for real ale found the couple guilty?
They barred them from their membership, so yes, they didn’t want to be associated with thick racist . Maybe CAMRA have become Woke, good news if that is the case "
I think you are stretching found guilty here, I could be wrong but CAMRA not wanting to be associated with the pub is them distancing themselves quickly without having all of the information to be sure it is the right thing to do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they?
They were found guilty of being racist and as thick as shit
Have they appeared in court, that was quick. Did they get a fine or other punishment?
No, they were found guilty of this by CAMRA and their suppliers
Who is CAMRA?
Campaign for Real Ale
Hold your horses, campaign for real ale found the couple guilty?
They barred them from their membership, so yes, they didn’t want to be associated with thick racist . Maybe CAMRA have become Woke, good news if that is the case
I think you are stretching found guilty here, I could be wrong but CAMRA not wanting to be associated with the pub is them distancing themselves quickly without having all of the information to be sure it is the right thing to do."
They made the right decision, they have over 150,000 members, they don’t want to be associated with a couple of morons |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I thought it was the CPS that decides rather than the judiciary. But agreed it's not the police."
The CPS is a quality control step. They decide whether the thing that the police have gathered evidence on is or isn't an actual offence. If it is, they look to see if there's enough evidence that the offence did actually take place. If there is, it then gets passed to the judiciary to examine in detail to determine if a person is guilty or not.
It's not uncommon for the police to spend months gathering evidence on someone's activity, only to pass it to the CPS and discover that the activity is not an offence. It's also common for the police to assume that the facts are clear, so they don't bother looking for any further evidence, only for the CPS to throw it out because there are nuances that the police didn't cover. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'd love to know what grounds the police officers used for seizing the dolls, and whether they really believed that an offence had taken place."
"Was it "gathering evidence"? "
The police aren't allowed to gather evidence, and then look for criminal activity. They have to have a 'genuine belief' that a specific crime has taken place, and then they can gather evidence to support that belief.
I'll bet that they used the usual tactic of going in and taking the stuff, and then saying, "the accused protested that he was innocent, so evidence had to be gathered to support his claim". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'd love to know what grounds the police officers used for seizing the dolls, and whether they really believed that an offence had taken place.
Was it "gathering evidence"?
The police aren't allowed to gather evidence, and then look for criminal activity. They have to have a 'genuine belief' that a specific crime has taken place, and then they can gather evidence to support that belief.
I'll bet that they used the usual tactic of going in and taking the stuff, and then saying, "the accused protested that he was innocent, so evidence had to be gathered to support his claim"."
Fair enough. I don't have any knowledge of this kind of process. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they?
They were found guilty of being racist and as thick as shit
Have they appeared in court, that was quick. Did they get a fine or other punishment?
No, they were found guilty of this by CAMRA and their suppliers
Who is CAMRA?
Campaign for Real Ale
Hold your horses, campaign for real ale found the couple guilty?
They barred them from their membership, so yes, they didn’t want to be associated with thick racist . Maybe CAMRA have become Woke, good news if that is the case
I think you are stretching found guilty here, I could be wrong but CAMRA not wanting to be associated with the pub is them distancing themselves quickly without having all of the information to be sure it is the right thing to do.
They made the right decision, they have over 150,000 members, they don’t want to be associated with a couple of morons "
But they haven't found them guilty, you made that bit up, they have distanced themselves from them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they?
They were found guilty of being racist and as thick as shit
Have they appeared in court, that was quick. Did they get a fine or other punishment?
No, they were found guilty of this by CAMRA and their suppliers
Who is CAMRA?
Campaign for Real Ale
Hold your horses, campaign for real ale found the couple guilty?
They barred them from their membership, so yes, they didn’t want to be associated with thick racist . Maybe CAMRA have become Woke, good news if that is the case
I think you are stretching found guilty here, I could be wrong but CAMRA not wanting to be associated with the pub is them distancing themselves quickly without having all of the information to be sure it is the right thing to do.
They made the right decision, they have over 150,000 members, they don’t want to be associated with a couple of morons
But they haven't found them guilty, you made that bit up, they have distanced themselves from them."
Ok if you prefer, they found them to be racist morons that don’t belong in their organisation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Maybe I'm wrong. But it seems like these people had racist dolls on display in their pub, and those companies didn't want to be associated with the pub and have the right to choose who to do business with.
But they've had those dolls on display for over 10 years, and those companies had no problem with it. It's only when the social media furore started that those companies suddenly developed a conscience.
The companies do indeed have the right to choose who they supply, and I would applaud them if they said in advance that they were going to stop supplying racist pub owners. I'm less impressed if they put up with racism for years and only take action when the press start asking them for quotes.
How do you know they knew about it?
Drink companies have 'representatives' that turn up regularly to discuss sales with the landlord. They like to push the latest promotions, and 'help' the landlord to sell more stuff. They also send in secret shoppers to make sure that the branded equipment isn't being misused.
This is why I feel its cancel culture.
Innserve serviced their lines, not sure how they could've done that without actually going onto the premises.
So if they had stopped supplying the pub as soon as they found out, it wouldn't be cancel culture. But because it happened after social media caught on. It is?
That's my view. They were happy to serve the pub for a decade until a social media backlash.
The only reason they've stopped serving them is optics. Nothing to do with 'conscience'
That's fair enough as a definition.
In which case some cancel culture isn't a bad thing.
It's not a bad bad thing for those staff or customers because one person took offence. Of course it isn't.
Seems like more than one person took offence though?
I'm comfortable with your definition of "cancel culture". Just seems to be that not all CC is necessarily an awful thing. Some of it seems to work in moving society away from, in this case, normalising racist dolls.
I'd maybe agree with you if it didn't affect people's livelihoods but it does.
Even if you dislike the landlord and landlady, the staff are now redundant because someone else decided so.
Do they bear no responsibility for their own actions? This didn't just happen to them because someone else decided so.
What responsibility would you like the bar staff, kitchen staff and cleaners to bear?
I have no idea what part they played. So I can't speculate.
However the owners should not be excused from taking ownership of their actions. In my opinion.
Still waiting to hear what actual breach of the criminal law has been committed by the landlords here, and what crimes the police have charged them with.
Public Order Act 1986, Section 5
So basically you can't read.
And they've been charged with something have they?
They were found guilty of being racist and as thick as shit
Have they appeared in court, that was quick. Did they get a fine or other punishment?
No, they were found guilty of this by CAMRA and their suppliers
Who is CAMRA?
Campaign for Real Ale
Hold your horses, campaign for real ale found the couple guilty?
They barred them from their membership, so yes, they didn’t want to be associated with thick racist . Maybe CAMRA have become Woke, good news if that is the case
I think you are stretching found guilty here, I could be wrong but CAMRA not wanting to be associated with the pub is them distancing themselves quickly without having all of the information to be sure it is the right thing to do.
They made the right decision, they have over 150,000 members, they don’t want to be associated with a couple of morons
But they haven't found them guilty, you made that bit up, they have distanced themselves from them.
Ok if you prefer, they found them to be racist morons that don’t belong in their organisation. "
I would prefer the truth and less sensationalism |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have noticed that Asda sells "superior white rum" and Morrisons "superior white potatoes""
I think you should write a very strongly worded letter and have them remove 'superior' from the branding |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I have noticed that Asda sells "superior white rum" and Morrisons "superior white potatoes"
I think you should write a very strongly worded letter and have them remove 'superior' from the branding "
Joking aside, is that offensive in the same way that Gollies are? The run is white (well clear) and the potatoes are white. Are they better quality ergo superior? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have noticed that Asda sells "superior white rum" and Morrisons "superior white potatoes"
I think you should write a very strongly worded letter and have them remove 'superior' from the branding
Joking aside, is that offensive in the same way that Gollies are? The run is white (well clear) and the potatoes are white. Are they better quality ergo superior?"
I think the 'superior' tag is just to do with the quality. Not joking aside though, someone probably finds it offensive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I have noticed that Asda sells "superior white rum" and Morrisons "superior white potatoes"
I think you should write a very strongly worded letter and have them remove 'superior' from the branding
Joking aside, is that offensive in the same way that Gollies are? The run is white (well clear) and the potatoes are white. Are they better quality ergo superior?
I think the 'superior' tag is just to do with the quality. Not joking aside though, someone probably finds it offensive. "
This is where the lines have been (deliberately) blurred so that obviously silly things may offend someone (undermining the actual good principles of being woke).
If the rum and potatoes are indeed “white”. And if they are objectively superior quality to other similar products, then there are bo grounds for offence.
The same cannot be said about gollies (including their historical context). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have noticed that Asda sells "superior white rum" and Morrisons "superior white potatoes"
I think you should write a very strongly worded letter and have them remove 'superior' from the branding
Joking aside, is that offensive in the same way that Gollies are? The run is white (well clear) and the potatoes are white. Are they better quality ergo superior?
I think the 'superior' tag is just to do with the quality. Not joking aside though, someone probably finds it offensive.
This is where the lines have been (deliberately) blurred so that obviously silly things may offend someone (undermining the actual good principles of being woke).
If the rum and potatoes are indeed “white”. And if they are objectively superior quality to other similar products, then there are bo grounds for offence.
The same cannot be said about gollies (including their historical context)."
Grounds or not, someone will find offence, its just the way the world works now.
We disagree on gollies but tbh I'm done with that subject, notnsure how much more I can say without being accused (again) of being a far right racist |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I have noticed that Asda sells "superior white rum" and Morrisons "superior white potatoes"
I think you should write a very strongly worded letter and have them remove 'superior' from the branding
Joking aside, is that offensive in the same way that Gollies are? The run is white (well clear) and the potatoes are white. Are they better quality ergo superior?
I think the 'superior' tag is just to do with the quality. Not joking aside though, someone probably finds it offensive.
This is where the lines have been (deliberately) blurred so that obviously silly things may offend someone (undermining the actual good principles of being woke).
If the rum and potatoes are indeed “white”. And if they are objectively superior quality to other similar products, then there are bo grounds for offence.
The same cannot be said about gollies (including their historical context).
Grounds or not, someone will find offence, its just the way the world works now.
We disagree on gollies but tbh I'm done with that subject, notnsure how much more I can say without being accused (again) of being a far right racist"
Not read the whole thread so someone may have already explained why Gollywogs (let’s use their actual name rather than the less offensive Gollies) are offensive...
“The Gollywogg character was inspired by Black Faced Minstrel shows which were popular in the US. Black Face Minstrel shows were a performance where White actors would wear Blackface and draw on exaggerated features to create a cartoonish ‘Black’ character who they would then degrade and humiliate in the performance by portraying them as lazy, stupid, hyper-sexual and as criminals.”
But yeah, let’s just say they are dolls! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have noticed that Asda sells "superior white rum" and Morrisons "superior white potatoes"
I think you should write a very strongly worded letter and have them remove 'superior' from the branding
Joking aside, is that offensive in the same way that Gollies are? The run is white (well clear) and the potatoes are white. Are they better quality ergo superior?
I think the 'superior' tag is just to do with the quality. Not joking aside though, someone probably finds it offensive.
This is where the lines have been (deliberately) blurred so that obviously silly things may offend someone (undermining the actual good principles of being woke).
If the rum and potatoes are indeed “white”. And if they are objectively superior quality to other similar products, then there are bo grounds for offence.
The same cannot be said about gollies (including their historical context).
Grounds or not, someone will find offence, its just the way the world works now.
We disagree on gollies but tbh I'm done with that subject, notnsure how much more I can say without being accused (again) of being a far right racist
Not read the whole thread so someone may have already explained why Gollywogs (let’s use their actual name rather than the less offensive Gollies) are offensive...
“The Gollywogg character was inspired by Black Faced Minstrel shows which were popular in the US. Black Face Minstrel shows were a performance where White actors would wear Blackface and draw on exaggerated features to create a cartoonish ‘Black’ character who they would then degrade and humiliate in the performance by portraying them as lazy, stupid, hyper-sexual and as criminals.”
But yeah, let’s just say they are dolls!"
Florence Kate Upton did indeed take inspiration from 'black face minstrels' but instead chose to show that her Golliwog 'looked scary but was infact a positive character'
That's the opposite of racism to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Not read the whole thread so someone may have already explained why Gollywogs (let’s use their actual name rather than the less offensive Gollies) are offensive...
"
I'm intrigued as to when one term became more offensive than the other. Surely the word Gollywog existed for many years before anyone thought of extracting its final three letters and using them as an offensive word in its own right? It cannot possibly be the root from which the word Gollywog was coined. Please, don't anyone come up now and blame it on that ludicrously implausible backronym referring to wiry or wily gentlemen from any part of the globe. That is a much more recent phenomenon.
I am probably older than most contributors, have a long memory and have watched the evolution of this word usage and its understandable vilification over many years.
My interest, in making this post, is an etymological one. It has nothing to do with the motivation of the publican in creating the, very likely, provocative display. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Not read the whole thread so someone may have already explained why Gollywogs (let’s use their actual name rather than the less offensive Gollies) are offensive...
I'm intrigued as to when one term became more offensive than the other. Surely the word Gollywog existed for many years before anyone thought of extracting its final three letters and using them as an offensive word in its own right? It cannot possibly be the root from which the word Gollywog was coined. Please, don't anyone come up now and blame it on that ludicrously implausible backronym referring to wiry or wily gentlemen from any part of the globe. That is a much more recent phenomenon.
I am probably older than most contributors, have a long memory and have watched the evolution of this word usage and its understandable vilification over many years.
My interest, in making this post, is an etymological one. It has nothing to do with the motivation of the publican in creating the, very likely, provocative display."
why can't the offensive name possibly come from the doll?
Unless the offensive name came first, it doesn't seem unreasonable even if the doll was around for may years before the name. Indeed the other view, that it appeared out of the ether and yet is so close to the charicatured doll seems the less likely. Unless they had a similar root...
All said, the full dolls Anne is also used as a slur. So it's probably academic to try and distance the entemology.
I'd certainly not walk up to a black copper and use the full name ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
