The right of a bigot to profit?

In the 1980's I was in a town in Herefordshire where I noticed a sign in a pub that said All Welsh people are banned from this pub – no Welsh allowed. My initial response to the sign was one of extreme anger, of personal insult – it shouldn't be allowed;. If there was a brick nearby I would have been extremely tempted to throw it through the pub's window.

I went into the pub and ordered a pint, expecting to be ejected and being able to phone the media to complain. I was served, unfortunately. The landlord didn't recognise my mid-Wales accent as Welsh, presumably he thought that all Welsh people speak with a valleys' accent (cf some of the media portrayals of Lloyd George).

Having been served I felt dirty, I had given this horrible bigot the profit on a pint and achieved nothing! If I had gone to the media his justification would have been that he HAD served me.

If the sign had been illegal at the time, and if, because of equality legislation, he was not allowed to refuse to serve me or express his bigoted view about Welsh people, would his personal opinion about the Welsh have been different? Probably not. But I might have stayed in his pub for more than one pint and given the jerk even more profit.

The same is the case with the B&B owner who refused to have a homosexual couple in her house.

Do gays want the law to force her to profit from them, despite her personal opinion?

Or do they want her to have a freedom of opinion that they can challenge and debate?

Brown's British Values

When one hears of reporters being manhandled and assaulted by undercover police for asking awkward questions of leading politicians, one usually thinks of places like soviet Russia, Communist China, Zimbabwe or some tin pot fascist dictatorship.

This couldn't happen here, after all freedom of the press is one of those Great British Values that Gordon Brown is so fond of reminding us about. Or is it? Apparently not according to this report in The Times:

Gordon Brown dodged reporters’ questions about his leadership when he arrived in Liverpool to address the North West Economics Conference before heading to Scotland to talk to the Scottish CBI tonight. A reporter was repeatedly manhandled away from Mr Brown by undercover police officers.

And later at the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool a Special Branch officer and two uniformed police officers interrupted a reporter’s interview with Andy Burnham, Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport. Mr Burnham said he was unaware of Mr Clarke’s comments so declined to respond. The reporter was forced to give his details to the police.

Despite being accredited for the event, the reporter, John Fahey from the Press Association, alleges he was forced away by Special Branch and members of the COI, the organisation which handles regional media events. He claims he was "belted in the solar plexus quite forcefully" after confronting Brown with questions about Charles Clarke's comments this morning.

If his account of events is correct, it seems extraordinary that special branch should interrupt an interview with the Culture Secretary...

Anonymous said...

I allow anonymous comments on my blog, many bloggers don't do so.

I understand why people might wish to remain anonymous - If their real names were linked to comments some could face problems in their work, social or family life.

Anonymity allows people to say what they think without repercussions.

The secret blog comment is as important to politics today, as was the secret ballot 150 years ago.

However I did think that this comment posted by a nonny was quite hilarious

Anonymous said...
Who is NM? Is his identity publicly known? Or maybe it's a she? Just wondering

People who post comments under Anonymous said... clearly have no right to try to "out" those who post under regular monikers!