Restore Britain.

[Wisbech Eagle]

Agreed. This is stale news. The shop rightly pointed out they were not obliged to make a cake with a political message.

So if Tommy Robinson went to a T shirt shop and ordered 50 shirts with a legal political slogan and the owner refused the left would be outraged? Of course not they would be supporting the owner all the way.

It’s certainly stale news, but your description is not stale. It’s smelly.

The shop made cakes. For all. They owned the ingredients until they became a cake and money exchanged hands. They had no interest in the design, other whether if what was asked was technically possible.

The owners were known to hold particular views so were targeted by political activists in an effort to expose them. Which they did. The fact that a Court ruled in the shop’s favour doesn’t change that. What it does is highlight the need to clarify the law so if it happened again they could not refuse.

The shop owners don’t have to make cakes with political messages. They don’t have to make any special cakes. They can just offer standard ones with a restricted list of messages. If though they offer to put a customer’s message on a cake they cannot impose their politics on the customer. The message isn’t theirs. They are the craftsmen.

A left wing bench maker couldn’t refuse to make a bench for where Reform politicians sit in the HoC. It’s not their bench.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

It’s certainly stale news, but your description is not stale. It’s smelly.

The shop made cakes. For all. They owned the ingredients until they became a cake and money exchanged hands. They had no interest in the design, other whether if what was asked was technically possible.

The owners were known to hold particular views so were targeted by political activists in an effort to expose them. Which they did. The fact that a Court ruled in the shop’s favour doesn’t change that. What it does is highlight the need to clarify the law so if it happened again they could not refuse.

The shop owners don’t have to make cakes with political messages. They don’t have to make any special cakes. They can just offer standard ones with a restricted list of messages. If though they offer to put a customer’s message on a cake they cannot impose their politics on the customer. The message isn’t theirs. They are the craftsmen.

A left wing bench maker couldn’t refuse to make a bench for where Reform politicians sit in the HoC. It’s not their bench.

That'll work when halal butchers start selling pork chops.

 

[Living In Hope]

That any player might have felt pressure, not so much from his peers as from his employer and his union, to comply is beside the point. They still had the choice. In fact I sense a great deal of brotherhood between the players, whatever their ethnicity, and sympathy for the awful racism that some suffer. They appeared to do so willingly.

You make the same incorrect assertion about “Black Lives Matter” that was widespread at the time. The protest had no association whatsoever with the organisation which calls itself by that name. They had no involvement at all and the protests were entirely separate to it, being spontaneous reactions to Floyd’s murder.

I stand to be corrected, but I don't know where you get this notion of an incorrect assertion. I don't agree at all and have never even heard this argument let alone seen evidence that these were different things. The whole BLM issue emerged from the Floyd murder in the USA (which also vexed me as there is little equivalence between the race issues in the USA and those in the UK), and my understanding of the situation both now and at the time was that "Black Lives Matter" came directly from that organisation, and was not a phrase which was created coincidentally at the time in the UK. For my part I always understood this issue as a Marxist organisation seeking to promote its agenda on the basis that no-one would dare object for fear of being accused of racism.

I also ask you to search within yourself when you argue that white players had a genuine choice about taking the knee (of course Wilf could refuse without being accused of being racist). The choice was similar to that of a dissident in a dictatorship. Of course theoretically you can do it, but it will probably destroy your life.

 

[Phil’s Barber]

I will call out coercion when it’s the subject. Coercion can though be resisted. It’s a choice.

Anyone feeling compulsion to do anything should seek help to overcome it, if it is their wish to. We all have to balance our feelings against those of others and decide how to respond. We make choices. Sometimes, as with Covid, following the law, or deciding to break it, makes a choice simple for every law abiding citizen.

No one is under threat from not supporting a political stance. They are only under threat if they participate in unlawful, or otherwise restricted, actions. Not supporting is passive.

I would continue to do precisely what I do now. Act lawfully. Argue fiercely.

This “left” bogeyman must have taken up permanent residence in your brain. He is dominating you.

Using any logo means nothing, other than some wet behind the ears work experience graduate, tasked with producing the graphics, messed up. Your “left” bogeyman is cohabiting with your “anti-white” one. In your mind they are already producing “transgender” offspring.

I no more defend BLM, the organisation, than I do your politics. Which is not at all. I can understand where both spring from, but regard the answers as self defeating.

Deluded!

 

[georgenorman]

It’s certainly stale news, but your description is not stale. It’s smelly.

The shop made cakes. For all. They owned the ingredients until they became a cake and money exchanged hands. They had no interest in the design, other whether if what was asked was technically possible.

The owners were known to hold particular views so were targeted by political activists in an effort to expose them. Which they did. The fact that a Court ruled in the shop’s favour doesn’t change that. What it does is highlight the need to clarify the law so if it happened again they could not refuse.

The shop owners don’t have to make cakes with political messages. They don’t have to make any special cakes. They can just offer standard ones with a restricted list of messages. If though they offer to put a customer’s message on a cake they cannot impose their politics on the customer. The message isn’t theirs. They are the craftsmen.

A left wing bench maker couldn’t refuse to make a bench for where Reform politicians sit in the HoC. It’s not their bench.

So a bricklayer would be obliged to build a wall around a concentration camp in your brave new world.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I stand to be corrected, but I don't know where you get this notion of an incorrect assertion. I don't agree at all and have never even heard this argument let alone seen evidence that these were different things. The whole BLM issue emerged from the Floyd murder in the USA (which also vexed me as there is little equivalence between the race issues in the USA and those in the UK), and my understanding of the situation both now and at the time was that "Black Lives Matter" came directly from that organisation, and was not a phrase which was created coincidentally at the time in the UK. For my part I always understood this issue as a Marxist organisation seeking to promote its agenda on the basis that no-one would dare object for fear of being accused of racism.

I also ask you to search within yourself when you argue that white players had a genuine choice about taking the knee (of course Wilf could refuse without being accused of being racist). The choice was similar to that of a dissident in a dictatorship. Of course theoretically you can do it, but it will probably destroy your life.

There is a political organisation, with some extreme ideas, who call themselves “Black Lives Matter”. They were not behind or responsible for organising the protests, which had no central organisation and did, indeed, spring from the Floyd murder, taken up here and expanded to include a more general resistance to racism. Some on the right tried to establish a connection to the BLM organisation and taint the protests. The phrase “black lives matter” was used simply because it’s accurate.

This was explained at the time as can be read here:-

What's taking the knee and why is it important?

Taking the knee has spread across the sporting world as a statement against racism.

www.bbc.co.uk

Everyone had a choice. Whether people are strong enough to exercise it is another matter. I have had to make personal stands against overwhelming opposition several times in my life. Having ultimately been proven right I don’t regret any. I didn’t, and wouldn’t, risk my life. That’s not exercising choice. It’s being pragmatic. You cannot resist if dead.

Wilf stopped not because he didn’t agree with the reason behind the protests but because he felt they had become stale and pointless. He wanted a new direction to be taken.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

That'll work when halal butchers start selling pork chops.

Halal butchers sell halal meat. Just as pork butchers sell pork products.

You wouldn’t go to a pork butcher for a halal product.

A cake maker can either offer to make a cake to your specifications or offer a restricted, standard range to their specifications. That’s their choice. Once made they are obliged to honour their commitments.

 

[georgenorman]

Halal butchers sell halal meat. Just as pork butchers sell pork products.

You wouldn’t go to a pork butcher for a halal product.

A cake maker can either offer to make a cake to your specifications or offer a restricted, standard range to their specifications. That’s their choice. Once made they are obliged to honour their commitments.

They were not charged with not honouring some perceived commitment. They were charged with refusing to put a slogan on their product because the gay-rights agitator was a homosexual. That was clearly not why they refused, Gareth Lee had been their customer previously without any issues.
[In my opinion, businesses should be able to decline custom for any reason.]

 

[Stirlingsays]

There is a political organisation, with some extreme ideas, who call themselves “Black Lives Matter”. They were not behind or responsible for organising the protests, which had no central organisation and did, indeed, spring from the Floyd murder, taken up here and expanded to include a more general resistance to racism. Some on the right tried to establish a connection to the BLM organisation and taint the protests. The phrase “black lives matter” was used simply because it’s accurate.

This was explained at the time as can be read here:-

What's taking the knee and why is it important?

Taking the knee has spread across the sporting world as a statement against racism.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is a provable lie and can be shown as such.

It's not, 'some on the right tried to establish a connection to the BLM organisation'.....This is the BLM logo created and used by that organisation.

Here are images from the period showing footballers wearing the official BLM logo.

What was used on the shirts:

• Sleeve patch: A circular black badge with the text "BLACK LIVES MATTER" (often with a raised fist symbol in some versions, though the Premier League/FA versions were generally plain text in a circle).
• Back of shirts: Players' names were replaced with the full phrase "BLACK LIVES MATTER" for the first 12 matches of the restarted 2019/20 season.

The FA explicitly sanctioned 'a Black Lives Matter logo' on shirts for both the Premier League and FA Cup.



These were not generic "anti-racism" designs created from scratch by the FA or Premier League. They used the name, phrasing, and branding of the Black Lives Matter movement that emerged after George Floyd's death.

The FA only disassociated itself from the BLM organisation itself after extensive criticism.

Nothing in the link Wisbech provided addressed any of why this logo was used nor provided an explanation.

Let there be no doubt to the reader who first comes upon this, Wisbech has been told all this previously yet continues to push this lie. This is his MO, he doubles down on everything because of his personality disorder. When shown proof in opposition to his statement he just denies the evidence like every other troll out there.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Halal butchers sell halal meat. Just as pork butchers sell pork products.

You wouldn’t go to a pork butcher for a halal product.

A cake maker can either offer to make a cake to your specifications or offer a restricted, standard range to their specifications. That’s their choice. Once made they are obliged to honour their commitments.

And their choice is refusing to provide a product on ideological grounds.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

This is a provable lie and can be shown as such.

It's not, 'some on the right tried to establish a connection to the BLM organisation'.....This is the BLM logo created and used by that organisation.

Here are images from the period showing footballers wearing the official BLM logo.

What was used on the shirts:

• Sleeve patch: A circular black badge with the text "BLACK LIVES MATTER" (often with a raised fist symbol in some versions, though the Premier League/FA versions were generally plain text in a circle).
• Back of shirts: Players' names were replaced with the full phrase "BLACK LIVES MATTER" for the first 12 matches of the restarted 2019/20 season.

The FA explicitly sanctioned 'a Black Lives Matter logo' on shirts for both the Premier League and FA Cup.

View attachment 3163

These were not generic "anti-racism" designs created from scratch by the FA or Premier League. They used the name, phrasing, and branding of the Black Lives Matter movement that emerged after George Floyd's death.

The FA only disassociated itself from the BLM organisation itself after extensive criticism.

Nothing in the link Wisbech provided addressed any of why this logo was used nor provided an explanation.

Let there be no doubt to the reader who first comes upon this, Wisbech has been told all this previously yet continues to push this lie. This is his MO, he doubles down on everything because of his personality disorder. When shown proof in opposition to his statement he just denies the evidence like every other troll out there.

As I tried to explain yesterday this was probably a marketing mistake. It has the smell of something done by someone on a work experience placement given a task no one else wanted. They saw the design and copied it. It was undoubtedly an embarrassing error but nevertheless it was still just an error. It wasn’t properly thought through. It was though understandable as the use of the logo had become widespread in the USA after Floyd’s murder and those protests were not coordinated by anyone either. The logo itself became a rallying symbol. Not the organisation which created it.

There was never any kind of formal, or informal, association with the “Black Lives Matter” organisation which the FA went out of their way to point out.

Suggesting that evidence has been shown providing “proof” to the contrary is garbage. The proof is in the FA’s own statements, which is the only actual evidence available. That’s not doubling down. It’s stating a fact. You double down on a lie. As done in the post above.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

And their choice is refusing to provide a product on ideological grounds.

Which they can achieve very easily by refusing to provide any product that they don’t have control over.

If they offer customers the opportunity to choose their own words they have abandoned control over them. Deciding subsequently to refuse some, whilst accepting others is discriminatory.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Which they can achieve very easily by refusing to provide any product that they don’t have control over.

If they offer customers the opportunity to choose their own words they have abandoned control over them. Deciding subsequently to refuse some, whilst accepting others is discriminatory.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

 

[georgenorman]

Which they can achieve very easily by refusing to provide any product that they don’t have control over.

If they offer customers the opportunity to choose their own words they have abandoned control over them. Deciding subsequently to refuse some, whilst accepting others is discriminatory.

So a publisher should be obliged to print any book manuscript brought to them?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Nick Dixon's reaction to the Ipswich Town Farage situation.