Wonder what the jury will say

A 43-year-old woman has been arrested in connection with a “racially abusive” posting on a beauty salon’s Facebook page.
Thames Valley Police detained the woman after the posting – made following the Paris terrorist attacks – said that people from the “Islamic faith” were no longer welcome at the Blinks of Bicester spa and beauty salon.
The Facebook postings read: “Blinks of Bicester are no longer taking bookings from anyone from the Islamic faith whether you are UK granted with passport or not” and “Sorry but time to put my country first”.

As is well known, my position is that people can say anything they damn well want to, whoever it upsets. But apparently the law disagrees. The law goes well beyond my two exceptions of libel and incitement to violence.

But isn’t it marvelous when there’s 5 or 6 of the conspirators thought to be still on the run, the police arrest a woman for gobbing off about it?

All safer in our beds now, aren’t we?

54 thoughts on “Wonder what the jury will say”

  1. Outraging public decency has been a crime for centuries. This loony racist bitch is doing the terrorists’ work for them, and definitely needs a slap round the head.

  2. Islam is not a race. I personally avoid nutters who say it is or who incite violence against someone for an honest expression of their nonviolent convictions, whether I think them wise or not.

  3. That isn’t the nature of “outraging public decency” as a charge.

    Also, “doing the terrorists’ work for them” would be shooting up diners, gigs, match-goers, etc.

  4. Other than eyebrow threading, I can’t imagine what else anyone wearing the full post box is likely to need from a beauty salon.

  5. Since when is Islam a race?

    If you actually don’t like a group or a person, don’t mouth off about it. Just don’t call back, “accidentally” double-book appointments etc.

    Me, I believe that outside the state, everyone has a right to discriminate. There’s plenty of people out there that will serve gay couples wanting a wedding cake.

    The irony is that when you’ve reached a point that your lawmakers will enact anti-racism legislation, you don’t need anti-racism legislation. You only reach that stage when society generally thinks racism is bad, and that means there’s enough suppliers in the market to serve black customers, or hire black employees.

    I’d personally much rather my competitors were openly racist than maybe having racist views and keeping quiet for fear of arrest. I’ll gladly do work for black, Indian, Chinese, gay, lesbian, transgender and members of the squirrel fetish community that don’t want to deal with people that hate them.

  6. Apparently they need sunbeds as being indoors or in the full cover gear (not just the Burqa) leaves them with Vitamin D deficiencies. Not that they’ll go of course as the more enclosed communities have facilities for their ladies (away from prying eyes)

    I agree with the Bloke in France and suspect that most jury members will see “Attention Seeking Cow / dumb bint” or regional variation thereof rather than some female variant of Oswald Mosley.

    The British tend not to find people guilty of being idiots as otherwise we’d be throwing a fair proportion of the country behind bars.

    If the police have any sense they will get her to accept a formal caution (still a criminal charge) and then drop the matter. There are no winners here.

  7. Great, so the official narrative is now that we have to choose between knee-jerk intolerance and Special Facebook Branch of the New Bill.

    Who is Right and who is Wrong, place your bets, phonelines close at 1900.

  8. It’ll be interesting to see where this one goes. The precedent was that piece of work, insisted white people stay away from her little demo. She was questioned by police but there were no charges (although, wasn’t there something about a private prosecution?) As far as I’m aware, she hasn’t retracted her position. Just, justified it.
    So is it one law for us, one law for them?
    Business as usual?

  9. Bloke in North Dorset

    “The woman was arrested under section 19 of the Public Order Act which relates to the display of written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, and for producing malicious communications.”

    Its hardly threatening or abusive and I can’t see how its stirring up racial hatred, beyond those who are stirred up anyway.

    The way to deal with idiots like this is to use their competitors and put her out of business.

  10. While they’re at it, are plod planning to do anything about all those Muslims who’ve said less-than-lovely things about Jews?

    [tumbleweed]

    Yeah, that’s what I thought.

  11. Funny old world, isn’t it?

    In retaliation the French President declares its an act of “War” and bombs the shit out of men, women and children. Hero of the people!

    In retaliation silly woman in Bristol refuses to serve people who probably don’t frequent her gaff anyway and gets arrested.

  12. The woman was arrested under section 19 of the Public Order Act which relates to the display of written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, and for producing malicious communications.

    If only she’d thought this through, she could have said something completely innocuous like “BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT CHRISTIANITY” and the police would have carefully and deliberately turned their backs on her.

  13. “section 19 of the Public Order Act …relates to the display of written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, and for producing malicious communications.”

    How come this isn’t applied to any of shariah’s promoters? It is not as if she had called for the death of gays, adulterers or apostates, the reintroduction of slavery or a discriminatory tax based on religious background.

  14. I’m with NielsR on this one.

    I’ve had Facebook friends galore over the weekend putting the French flag on their page and reminding everybody just how nice most muslims are (they can count the number of muslims they know of course). They don’t stop to think how the attacks were planned, how the attackers hid in plain sight, what we might need to do to stop it. Hey don’t want to think about it. On the other hand we’ve, on this blog, calls for internment, for mass deportation and ending of free speech for muslims because “they’re not us”.

  15. Displacement activity from the cops: they can’t find the terrorists now Snowden has told them what not to do (hence no “chatter” in advance), the yuman rites brigade are making the undercover work that can find them very difficult, so they throw them a bone.

  16. They wouldn’t have found the terrorists even if they were doing the things Edward Snowden made public.

    Do you really think they’ve stopped doing those things just because Snowden made them public, anyway?

  17. Ironman,

    > They don’t stop to think how the attacks were planned, how the attackers hid in plain sight

    People always get this wrong. They think that the number that matters is the number of Muslims who are terrorists, or maybe the number who actively approve of terrorism. But it’s not. The number that matters is the number of Muslims willing to grass on people they know are terrorists. And that’s a world away from merely disapproving.

    We saw this in Ireland. Somebody might have a private fight with a man because they’re angry with him for joining the IRA — it could go so far as his no longer being invited to family weddings, his own family refusing to talk to him, people telling their kids not to play with his kids, etc — but they’ll still provide an alibi if the police come asking.

  18. > Do you really think they’ve stopped doing those things just because Snowden made them public, anyway?

    Long before Snowden, a lot of jihadists had stopped using electronics for important communications and had taken to simply meeting up and talking in person, very quietly, with lots of background noise.

  19. This case is also interesting in that Islam trumps her being black(normally only whites can be racist) and female in the victim stakes.

  20. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “I’ve had Facebook friends galore over the weekend putting the French flag on their page and reminding everybody just how nice most muslims are (they can count the number of muslims they know of course). They don’t stop to think how the attacks were planned, how the attackers hid in plain sight, what we might need to do to stop it.”

    I agree. The fools. They should think about what we might need to do to stop it.

    “Hey don’t want to think about it. On the other hand we’ve, on this blog, calls for internment, for mass deportation and ending of free speech for muslims because “they’re not us”.”

    Not because they are not us but because they, or at least a significant number of them, hate us and want us dead. But other than that, at least we are aware of what we need to do to stop it.

    I assume you are still holding out for British society just lying back and accepting as many dead people as the masses of Islamists you wish to inflict on us want to inflict on us.

  21. What Squander Two said. There was an intelligence chap on one of the news programmes over the weekend who said terrorists have long since gone back to cold war methods – one time pads, dead drops etc.

    I blame SpyCatcher.

  22. So Much For Subtlety

    At least we know why the police never come if you get broken into. They are too busy surfing the internet and updating their Facebook.

  23. “I assume you are still holding out for British society just lying back and accepting as many dead people as the masses of Islamists you wish to inflict on us want to inflict on us.”

    What a silly little thing to write. If you can find any evidence anywhere that this is what I think then go right on ahead and produce it. Otherwise the flip side of free speech applies: I am exercising my right to respond to your idiocy you silly little prick.

  24. I thought having your hair done was haram, anyway?

    This illustrates once again the iron law of policing: easy targets make easy arrests, especially with a bit of publicity thrown in. Which is why the government’s plan for mass surveillance is even worse than people think: it will just provide tens of thousands of trivial ‘offenders’ for the police to hoover up and make it look like they are doing something.

  25. The average 50 year old Muslim man’s wife / girlfriend is about 9 years old (in accordance with the example set by the founder of the cult) so there won’t be many available beauty treatments they’ll need.

  26. By coincidence on Friday I was rereading The Barbie Murders where a murderer hides in plain site amongst a community of people who all alter themselves to look identical.

  27. Not sure it’s only a PC / racism thing. Isn’t there a *really* old law about having to serve anyone who comes into your shop, and sell them anything at the published price? She would be breaking this one. It leaves no room for discretion as a fairness and equality issue.

    I thought this has been the law for literally centuries. Anyone know the answer?

  28. Firefox

    Isn’t the really law that you DON’T have to sell to everyone who.walks into your shop?Displaying goods is only an ‘offer to treat’, which can be withdrawn.
    Lawyers, is that right?

  29. In the general case, the shop doesn’t have to sell you anything. The good on sale is an invitation to make an offer (‘an invitation to treat’). You can wave any money at the shopkeeper and he is at liberty to refuse it.

    But the shopkeeper would be committing a civil offence if he refused to serve someone on the grounds of their ethnicity or nationality or what he perceived to be the person’s religious beliefs.

  30. ‘I’ve had Facebook friends galore’

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha… pause wheeze Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…

  31. ‘But the shopkeeper would be committing a civil offence if he refused to serve someone on the grounds of their ethnicity or nationality or what he perceived to be the person’s religious beliefs.’

    There is no such animal in English law as a ‘civil offence’.

  32. Still quietly pissing myself at the Blog’s Most Pompous Man and his ‘Facebook friends galore’. How fucking old are you, chief?

  33. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “What a silly little thing to write. If you can find any evidence anywhere that this is what I think then go right on ahead and produce it.”

    It is not remotely silly. It is a reasonable inference. You want us to take a lot, perhaps even unlimited numbers of ISIS members – one of the Paris attackers was rescued at sea as his ship was sinking – and do nothing to prevent them from carrying out attacks – or inciting others to do likewise. You have offer no other plan, nor do you show any signs of going so.

    Like a lot of other foreigners, you simply do not care about this community and it was a mistake to let you in.

  34. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Long before Snowden, a lot of jihadists had stopped using electronics for important communications and had taken to simply meeting up and talking in person, very quietly, with lots of background noise”

    The problem with Snowden isn’t that he gave away what was going on, everyone with a half a brain cell and a few seconds to think about it should have assumed it was happening. What Snowden gave away was how successful the NSA was, that was the dangerous bit.

    One of the conclusions of the 9/11 reviews was lack of HumInt. SigInt and Elint can only get you so far, real people getting their hands dirty has always been needed but that was forgotten or ignored.

  35. S2: agreed that the number willing to inform on the real scumbags is the key. Which is why I can’t agree with with the stronger measures suggested on these pages. The ones trashing existing law and/or stripping people of British citizenship.

    You want stricter immigration policy? OK, just make it a points system filtering for people willing to integrate, rather than ‘no Muslims’. Limits to child support? On their way, surprised it took this long. Plenty of Brits taking the poss in that respect.
    I’d pull any and all support for translation services outside of the justice system, in favour of basic English classes.
    Want to protest? Fine, but we’ll start by taking any sign calling for physical violence.

    ‘lying back’? No. Just willing to gamble *some* more lives on defending basic principles of justice. Including my own, commuting into Waterloo.
    If we run out of ideas, or the UK gets atrocities more often than once a decade, I’ll help DocBud and Co set up the internment camps.

  36. So Much For Subtlety

    NielsR – “The ones trashing existing law and/or stripping people of British citizenship.”

    They are the only two choices you have. Pick one. The Blair (and Whitehall) route is to trash existing civil liberties. We have been down this route quite a way since Windrush. It has not made Britain a better place.

    “You want stricter immigration policy? OK, just make it a points system filtering for people willing to integrate, rather than ‘no Muslims’.”

    So basically Not-in-Front-of-the-Children-Racism as opposed to honest and open racism? You want to cleverly disguise discrimination by pretending it is something else? I take it you would support a zero level for asylum seekers? The problem though is that children of immigrants revert to the mean. The children of Africans immigration to America do not do as well as their parents. They rapidly assimilate. The children of hard working immigrants become suicide bombers. It is not as if ISIS and al-Qaeda are not full of the children of the middle class. So it is no solution.

    “No. Just willing to gamble *some* more lives on defending basic principles of justice. Including my own, commuting into Waterloo.”

    What basic principles of justice? That people committed to ethnic cleansing should not be ethnically cleansed? That a mistake made 50 years ago should not be rectified? How about we agree that everyone who openly accepts the right of Israelis to remain in Israel should be allowed to stay? Those that want to expel cannot complain about being expelled.

    “If we run out of ideas, or the UK gets atrocities more often than once a decade, I’ll help DocBud and Co set up the internment camps.”

    France has now had three attacks, with AK-47s, this year.

  37. Dear Mr Worstall

    No jury trial for such a trivial offence: magistrates’ court and ‘guilty’. Juries are being phased out gradually so that inconvenient perverse verdicts will not occur.

    And another sample of DNA on the database for life. That seems to be one of the main objectives of the police these days, meting out extra-judicial punishment, contravening the Declaration of Rights 1688/9. But, hey, what are constitutions for?

    @ Corvus Umbranox November 16, 2015 at 11:55 am

    “There was an intelligence chap on one of the news programmes over the weekend who said terrorists have long since gone back to cold war methods – one time pads, dead drops etc.”

    Oops. I can’t see the HomSec being pleased that this week’s surveillance bill, nor the one she was hoping for Christmas and the one for her next birthday, being revealed as not needed to fight terrorism. No OBE for him.

    DP

  38. As has been repeated cited a survey carried out after the Charlie Hebdo massacre reported that 27pc of British Muslims felt “some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks”

    These are the people that hide the nutters. They may not fire a gun but they are most definitely on the same side and it ain’t ours.

    Oh and Ironman, you’re a virtue signalling twat, Now fuck off to CiF.

  39. @SMFS

    “They are the only two choices you have. Pick one.” – yes, I get that you think the only answer at this point is to get rid of all the Muslims just in case.

    “So basically Not-in-Front-of-the-Children-Racism”
    Well, no. Aside from the whole Islam-is-not-a-race thing, I’d be looking for evidence someone is willing and able to function within secular democracy, without isolating themselves. Not sure how that’s racism. Discrimination, sure, I’l cop to that, but then that’s the point.
    “The children of hard working immigrants become suicide bombers.” – what, all of them? As for the middle-class kids joining ISIS, I don’t have a clever answer. When you’re talking about regression to the mean, are you arguing these kids are surrounded by peers and mentors recommending they sign up for the glorious Caliphate? Doesn’t that make this a symptom of the problem we’re already trying to solve?

    Basic principles of justice? Evidence of having committed a crime, for one. Lumping all Muslims under the heading of murdering bastards and chucking them out of the country doesn’t really respect that one.
    Not sure how Israel suddenly came into this, though.

    “France has now had three attacks, with AK-47s, this year.”
    So why haven’t we had any? If the place is crawling with incubating jihadis?

  40. So Much For Subtlety

    NielsR – “yes, I get that you think the only answer at this point is to get rid of all the Muslims just in case.”

    Which is true but also beside the point. The chances of the government doing nothing is nil. Something will be done. Either the Blair route or the separation route. I don’t think the government will embrace the separation route so it is the slow bleed of civil liberties instead. You can pretend there is a third alternative but I have not seen one.

    “Well, no. Aside from the whole Islam-is-not-a-race thing, I’d be looking for evidence someone is willing and able to function within secular democracy, without isolating themselves. Not sure how that’s racism.”

    Disparate impact. A non-White cannot, in the end, show that. It is not as if they have a track record to point to. A Dutch person can.

    “what, all of them?”

    How many is too many?

    “As for the middle-class kids joining ISIS, I don’t have a clever answer.”

    Any answer at all? We have a million people in the UK who are at higher risk of this sort of attack. Attacks are inevitable. Do you have any solution at all?

    “Basic principles of justice? Evidence of having committed a crime, for one. Lumping all Muslims under the heading of murdering bastards and chucking them out of the country doesn’t really respect that one.”

    No it doesn’t. But it works.

    “So why haven’t we had any? If the place is crawling with incubating jihadis?”

    Harder to get AK-47s? We will see. France has a bigger and longer-resident population. It can only be a matter of time.

  41. “You can pretend there is a third alternative but I have not seen one.”
    I’ve offered several. You’ve rejected them for not carrying enough of a guarantee. If you want to be certain there can *never* be another terrorist attack, sure, block the borders and chuck out the undesirables. Nothing else will do.
    But just as the chance of govt doing nothing today is nil (looks like Cameron is already chucking cash at GCHQ and the SAS) the chance of the government not abusing that precedent is also nil.

    “Disparate impact. A non-White cannot, in the end, show that. It is not as if they have a track record to point to. A Dutch person can.”
    What, because only white people have jobs outside their community, or can learn languages, sciences?
    Your argument, if I’ve understood it, is that Islam contains key traits that lead to isolation and violence against western principles and culture. All I’m arguing is that we target those traits, rather than simplistically assuming all forms of Islam, and only Islam, can incorporate those traits.

    ‘“As for the middle-class kids joining ISIS, I don’t have a clever answer.”

    Any answer at all? We have a million people in the UK who are at higher risk of this sort of attack.’
    Not from a handful of teenagers, we don’t. Nor are our own kids immune to romanticised violence, as you can see whenever they gather to trash a Starbucks or hipster cafe.
    I’m not dismissing it. On one level it’s on a par with Jehova’s witnesses refusing blood transfusions, or whatever. Ineradicable human stupidity. But Jw’s are unlikely to get violently radicalised in foreign countries.
    It’s a bellwether for the deeper problem. A small scale problem in itself.

  42. “Your argument, if I’ve understood it, is that Islam contains key traits that lead to isolation and violence against western principles and culture. All I’m arguing is that we target those traits, rather than simplistically assuming all forms of Islam, and only Islam, can incorporate those traits.”

    What if he’s right? That Islam does indeed contain the key traits that lead to isolation and violence against Western principles? That you can’t decide exactly where on the spectrum any given Muslim is, given one can’t read minds?

    I mean its not exactly a leap to make is it? All the public pronouncements of even fairly moderate Muslim leaders, and surveys of wider Muslim attitudes still puts them at odds with Western mores on sexual and gender equality, religious freedom, and free speech. And thats just the moderates, the extremists we all know about.

    If you want to remove the key traits of Islam that are against Western mores, there won’t be much left will there?

  43. If we target those traits and he’s right, we’ll remove as much risk as a ‘ban all muslims’ policy. Maybe more. And we can point to hard evidence to show it was necessary.

    And if he’s wrong, we still solve the problem, without creating many more pissed-off muslims.

    And yes, this is hard, it may be impossible to isolate such specific traits. If it doesn’t work, we would have to resort to something more crude. But to switch from appeasement straight to expulsion is too rich for me.

  44. @NielsR: the thing is I don’t know what you can do to ‘target those traits’. I mean what exactly are you going to do – tell all Muslims that they have to like gays now? And let their wives walk alongside them, with uncovered faces? And that we can all draw pictures of Mo to our hearts content and they have to sit there with fixed grins?

    Because basically, irrespective of whether someone wants to become an Islamic terrorist, even the moderate Muslims aren’t going to like that. Its the very basis of their religion. The vast majority are going to find that very distasteful, as distasteful I’d guess as just being told to leave because ‘we don’t like your religion’.

    In fact its a very passive aggressive stance – ‘You’re all very welcome in the UK, but you all have to agree to x, y, z…….’ Might as well just chuck them out, it’d be more honest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *