Now they’re banning an ad about freedom of speech

An advert for an Enid Blyton giftshop tea towel featuring a golliwog clutching a pint of ginger beer has been banned by advertising bosses.

The Ginger Pop store advert, which was taken out in a local paper in June this year, was banned because it would likely cause “serious or widespread offence”, the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) said.

It comes after the store, which is based at the foot of the 11th century Corfe Castle in Dorset, where the author visited in 1940 while on holiday, was disqualified from a window dressing competition when owner Viv Endecott covered the window of her shop with the tea towels.

The advert, which was published after the disqualification, invited residents to buy one of the tea towels, which Ms Endecott designed herself.

The towels show a golliwog in the centre surrounded by various words such as “freedom of speech” and “political correctness gone mad”. “English Freedom” is also written in capital letters directly underneath the golliwog.

And yes, we really do get this:

Adnan Choudry, the chief officer of Dorset Race Equality Council, said in June: “Golliwogs don’t just offend black people, they’re offensive to people of any race.

“People used them as a means to abuse black people in the 1970s and 1980s – people still remember those days.

“I thought we had all moved on but obviously not. I have had dealings with her in the past – I have told her my opinion, that they should not be sold, but goes on selling them.”

Your opinion is that they should not be sold. Her opinion, and that of her customers, is that it’s just fine to go on selling them.

And guess what? You can fuck off because we don’t ban things based upon your opinion.

71 thoughts on “Now they’re banning an ad about freedom of speech”

  1. I have told her my opinion, that they should not be sold, but goes on selling them.”

    You can just imagine the spluttering rage and disbelief as he says this, cos his opinion is so much more valid than hers.

  2. ‘Adnan Choudry, the chief officer of Dorset Race Equality Council’

    A sentence that Blyton would not have recognised, but Philip K Dick might have.

  3. By the way, I grew up in the 1970s and 80s and I never knew anyone who ‘used golliwogs to abuse black people’.

    The abuse meted out to black people by people from Choudry’s ancestry, on the other hand, was and remains enormous. How many indigenous white Brits have married blacks? How many Brits of Indian and Pakistani heritage?

    Also, does the ASA have any actual power?

  4. There was a tweet doing the rounds the other day with a photo of a Robinson’s golliwog tattooed on an arm.
    “I asked for a tattoo of the guy from the jam, this looks nothing like Paul Weller.”

  5. “Golliwogs don’t just offend black people, they’re offensive to people of any race.”

    No, they are offensive only to jumped up little snowflakes who think the world revolves around their wishes.

  6. When Cameron promised a bonfire if the quangos, I was rather hoping non-jobs like the Dorset Racial Equality Council would be the first to go.

  7. I like freedom of speech, it’s really important to me that I get to exercise it..So I will.

    Anyone who thinks of linking golliwog with English Freedom is a very very sad sad Fucker.

  8. No–the sad fucker is a man who has enough sense to see the value of freedom in economic matters but whose values have otherwise been fucked by CM scum–possibly parents or at Uni–and swallows ANY of the waycism bollocks–let alone most of it.

    Long Live Golly. Golly for President 2024 (assuming Trump wins and gets 2 terms–if The Sick Cunt wins there won’t be anymore elections ).

  9. Any one who supports freedom of speech for stuff they like it believe in, doesn’t support freedom of speech.

    Ms Endecott should have freedom of speech (and even of tea towels). Adnan Choudry should have freedom of speech (although I’m less keen on his petty facism being supported by taxes. And especially mine – given how much local govt funding comes from the Treasury.)

    Hell, even Anjem Choudary should have free speech. Even though he’s the poster villain for the Benefits Cap. Or was, and should still be.

  10. “You can fuck off because we don’t ban things based upon your opinion.”

    Yes we do. We also fine people for telling racist jokes, and prosecute them for insulting Isis, if we think we can get away with it.

    It doesn’t matter if you don’t like this because the recommendations of the Macpherson Report were made into law and because the CPS is controlled by people who disagree with you.

    To quote the judge at the Gazza trial “we live in the 21st century — grow up with it or keep your mouth closed”.

  11. By the way, I grew up in the 1970s and 80s and I never knew anyone who ‘used golliwogs to abuse black people

    I heard it used once, by my Grandad, who was born in 1912. It was a generational thing, solved by the passage of time, not laws and definitely not parasitical twats like Adnan Choudry.

  12. @TN

    “I heard it used once, by my Grandad, who was born in 1912. It was a generational thing, solved by the passage of time, not laws”

    That’s a great point. I’d like to see laws following changes in society, rather than leading them. Imagine how much better life would be if laws ended up codifying societal norms rather than attempting to form them.

  13. For the avoidance of doubt I do think the Macpherson Report and the legislation that followed it was the worst thing to have happened to the law in this country in my lifetime. But fashionable opinion (which counts for everything) simply doesn’t agree.

  14. I think someone should send Viv Endecott (name sounds like she might once have been in a punk band) a design of a tea towel showing a white farmer being cooled by a punkah wallah while being served a gin and t by a chai wallah and being sucked off by a girl in a sari just to wind the Chaudry cvnt up properly.

  15. Charlie Suet

    Well noticed – that statement by the judge in the Gazza trial was quite reminiscent of the Volksgerichtshof – indeed said a little more maniacally it could have been the late Roland Freisler himself.

    You are also right that post Macpherson the climate has changed quite severely for white Anglo -saxons in particular. I am constantly extremely deferential to people of different gender or race (or indeed whose sexual orientation is outwardly apparent) as you know post Macpherson in an altercation with a woman, ethnic minority or LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM person as a white heterosexual male the police and CPS will automatically side against you.

    As for Adnan Choudry (quite why Dorset needs a Race equality council is beyond me – may be Bournemouth has had a big influx?)he could also have said this famous statement, which I fear would be very right:

    “When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already. … What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community”

  16. Question to eh peerless Surreptitious evil. I agree with you that the likes of Adnan Choudry should be entitled to express their opinion. However, one thing I would ask is how do you deal with people (always of a Leftist persuasion practically) who demand unlimited freedom to express their own ideas while simultaneously banning those they consider violates whatever creed they follow? Just allowing them to prevent people speaking surely is not an option – hence for me they have to be subject to some sanctions to enable the (normally) right wing people to be allowed to speak…

  17. “I thought we had all moved on but obviously not. I have had dealings with her in the past – I have told her my opinion, that they should not be sold, but goes on selling them.”

    Those uppity white people eh?

    Might have been out by a few years but this seems rather prescient:

    “…In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

  18. To quote the judge at the Gazza trial “we live in the 21st century — grow up with it or keep your mouth closed”.

    Not quite the same thing: Gazza racially abused an employee at a function, this should be a prosecutable offence.

  19. TN

    “function”

    It was but a trifle, at a comedy gig. When the hate laws were enacted, everyone was assured it would never apply to things like humour. We all knew, even then, that they were simply lying.

    Like privacy, free speech, and lots else – one very slippery slope, away from freedom.

  20. “abused” is way too strong a word.

    No, it shouldn’t be a legal matter at all. We’ve already got libel, slander, defamation, perjury and misrepresentation.

    Do we really need much more than that, before we cease to have anything that could reasonably be called freedom of speech?

  21. TIm Newman

    If I decided that someone showing a blaxploitation flick at a film festival which used the term ‘Honky’ was offensive would I be entitled to claim redress? Where does one begin to draw the line?

    Arguably the two most prominent racists in public life, Lee Jasper and Diane Abbott both claim the idiotic defense (but one this judge would no doubt agree with) that ‘because black people have no power ergo they cannot be racist – this from one person who was Deputy Mayor of London and the other an elected representative for more than 30 years, for 18 of which her party was in government.

    It does not need much wider vision to see that all are not equal before the law. If this had been, say, Ian Wright, before a primarily black audience making fun of a white person, does anyone imagine he would have been prosecuted?

  22. Gazza racially abused an employee at a function

    “”Can you smile so that I can see you?””

    We can restrict prosecutions to those able to pay damages, but even so, we’re going to need an army of police.

    Besides, where’s the abuse?

  23. Lets face it the term “wog” is offensive…..like nigger is.

    My opinion is the tea towel is a piss take by sniggering racists under the cloak of decency by using words such as “courtesy” and “integrity”.

  24. When the hate laws were enacted, everyone was assured it would never apply to things like humour. We all knew, even then, that they were simply lying.

    Yeah, but he abused somebody who was working in the venue. That’s a lot different from abusing somebody who wasn’t there, or making racist jokes in general. I think a black person should be able to come to work without being racially abused, and I’m not sure it’s a free speech issue.

  25. I don’t see why verbal abuse should be an offence.

    It won’t just mean the death of stand-up comedy, it’ll be the death of freedom to speak one’s mind.

  26. Besides, where’s the abuse?

    The guy turned up to work and got humiliated because of his skin colour. Sorry, the guy is out there trying to earn a living, and he ought to be able to do that without having his skin colour becoming the butt of somebody’s jokes. I bet nobody told him during the interview that he could expect to be made fun of racially during the execution of his duties, did they?

  27. Where does one begin to draw the line?

    That’s not really an argument. Do you think managers should be able to comment on a woman’s tits during a meeting? No. Do you think managers should be fired for complimenting a woman on her dress? No.

    “Where do you draw the line?” is a poor argument.

  28. Tim

    The “employee” bit. It’s a fair point, do we know if that was a absolutely clear distinguishing point in the judgement?

    Ie did the judge say, “if this wasn’t an employee protection issue, then obviously this is all just a complete load of bollocks”?

    I don’t trust these people or where it inevitably leads.

  29. The “employee” bit. It’s a fair point, do we know if that was a absolutely clear distinguishing point in the judgement?

    I don’t, no.

    Ie did the judge say, “if this wasn’t an employee protection issue, then obviously this is all just a complete load of bollocks”?

    If not, then I wouldn’t agree with the judgement.

    I don’t trust these people or where it inevitably leads.</em

    Nor me. I'm just trying to make the distinction – which the judge might not have made – between somebody being offended by general remarks, and an employee (who cannot simply walk away) being specifically abused in his place of work. Had Gazza made a racist joke in general and the employee merely "taken offence", I'd have less sympathy. But even then, the employee should be given fair warning and offered a different shift, I don't think black waiters should be compelled to serve drinks in a place where a supposed comedian is telling racist jokes.

  30. The guy turned up to work and got humiliated because of his skin colour

    Possibly, but I doubt that it was humiliating. It’s just a physical attribute like height, or weight. Common courtesy has a role to play, for sure, but the majesty of the law?

    Maybe Gazza is actually more colour-blind than the rest of us and we need to grow up with him.

  31. Tim, verbal abuse in an employment situation is, or should be a matter of private contractual law, not a matter for public criminal sanction.

  32. Wickie Wubbleway – “Lets face it the term “wog” is offensive…..like nigger is.”

    Is it? Terry Wogan should never have been allowed on TV? I loved gollywogs as a child. It never occurred to me to link it to rude words starting with w. In the same way I have no problems saying niggardly. Why should I?

    “My opinion is the tea towel is a piss take by sniggering racists under the cloak of decency by using words such as “courtesy” and “integrity”.”

    Perhaps. But if we protect their rights, we will also protect ours. If we don’t, where will the radicals draw the line and stop? We know that already. They won’t.

  33. Tim, verbal abuse in an employment situation is, or should be a matter of private contractual law, not a matter for public criminal sanction

    One might say that if our resident barrister is against a gorgeous new legal revenue stream on this scale, then it must be wrong.

    That may have actionable implications though, so I’ll keep that thought to myself.

  34. @ so much for subtlety.

    Ah yes the radicals will get a bit looney, no doubt about that but this “English Freedom” means nothing but a snide cheap stunt for publicty and is racist.

    I bet punters were going in the shop asking for “wog” tea towels….its like Nigger the dog in the Dambusters film….you can’t expect that term to be used now cos its was OK back in the day.

  35. Tim Newman – “Gazza racially abused an employee at a function, this should be a prosecutable offence.”

    Why? Jeremy Clarkson hit an employee at a function. For that he was merely fired. Should he have been prosecuted too?

  36. Ironman – “I like freedom of speech, it’s really important to me that I get to exercise it..So I will.”

    A pity you will not extend that same right to anyone else.

    “Anyone who thinks of linking golliwog with English Freedom is a very very sad sad Fucker.”

    On the contrary, when you outsource your morality to the Guardian – devoid of any basis in English history, culture, or Western civilisation – and completely contrary to the entire corpus of Western religious thought – you end up with very little freedom at all. Stalinism is not a good basis for morals. And if God objected to racism, there would be Eleven Commandments. The Church may well condemn racism but there is nothing in the Western tradition that says free speech should be sacrificed for it.

  37. Tim, verbal abuse in an employment situation is, or should be a matter of private contractual law, not a matter for public criminal sanction.

    Indeed, and this should have been handled by the people hiring Gazza.

  38. He was only not prosecuted because the person he hit didn’t press charges.

    I don’t think that the chap (asked to smile by Gazza) pressed any charges or anything.

    It was some SJW fuckwit in the audience who decided to get all offended on his behalf, and from there…

  39. Tim Newman:

    “Do you think managers should be able to comment on a woman’s tits during a meeting? ”

    Yes.

    Free speech means exactly that. If she is upset she can always say “Dream on Dickless” or whatever in return.

    Good manners should prevail but if they don’t it is not a matter for the scum of the state.

    All hate and so-called hate speech laws must be struck down and those who brought them in made an example of–loss of careers/compo/pensions etc.

  40. The more I think about it, maybe Gazza got fined by this judge simply for telling a crap joke.

    It was such a bad joke that no one laughed. If he’d come up with something slightly more amusing but no more offensive, the audience might have smiled / laughed (and hence no fuckwit).

    So the crime basically was telling a shit joke. So there is an upside – I can think of quite a few “comedians”…

  41. The shop isn’t far from me and I’ve spoken with the woman who runs it. Not surprised the racial equality man can’t stand her.

    Not sure why we need a Race Equality Council in Dorset though; there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of racial tension. That’s probably why he’s having to manufacture a fuss about tea-towels.

  42. As for Gazza, I can’t see how it can be an employment issue – if it were, the action would have been against his employer. It looks like a straightforward restriction on speech – “you can’t say that now”.

  43. So Much For Subtlety

    Wickie Wubbleway – “Ah yes the radicals will get a bit looney, no doubt about that but this “English Freedom” means nothing but a snide cheap stunt for publicty and is racist.”

    So what? Who cares? The way to avoid giving them publicity is to stop persecuting them for harmless tea towels.

    “I bet punters were going in the shop asking for “wog” tea towels….its like Nigger the dog in the Dambusters film….you can’t expect that term to be used now cos its was OK back in the day.”

    Again so what? Who cares what you think? You have no evidence for this delusion and even if it was true, so what? Who cares what two consenting adults say to each other when it has no effect on anyone else? No harm, no foul. These stupid laws do harm. They are the problem.

  44. Free speech means exactly that. If she is upset she can always say “Dream on Dickless” or whatever in return.

    I’m not sure if you’ve worked in the lower ranks of a large corporation, but the power dynamics are normally such that “lower” grades cannot react with anything other than sheep-like compliance. And they’ve got kids to feed and mortgages to pay. I’ve seen women in Russia subject to horrendous sexual innuendos by their (western) managers, and they’ve just had to suck it up and take it. I’ve not got much sympathy for those who are climbing the greasy pole themselves and want to be big bosses dishing out their own brand of bullying (I see plenty of those), but leave the waiters and junior staff alone: they can’t fight back, and the bosses know it.

    Good manners should prevail but if they don’t it is not a matter for the scum of the state.

    I agree it should have been a police matter, but IMO the employee in question had the right to seek redress through either his employer, and his employer should have a duty to ensure he is not subject to direct, racial abuse while at work.

  45. “A pity you will not extend that same right to anyone else” says SMFS.

    Oh yes I will and you can’t point to anywhere I try to deny that right.

    However, when you’ve exercised your precious freedom of expression, I then decide to exercise mine and point out that you are racist, you are thick and you are demonstrably a prick. It’s always at that point that you object; how beautifully ironic.

  46. So Much For Subtlety

    Ironman – “Oh yes I will and you can’t point to anywhere I try to deny that right.”

    No you won’t. And you repeatedly defend these laws and attack people who criticise them. You have a massive paper trail on this and it is absurd to deny it now.

    “However, when you’ve exercised your precious freedom of expression, I then decide to exercise mine and point out that you are racist, you are thick and you are demonstrably a prick. It’s always at that point that you object; how beautifully ironic.”

    I have never objected to being called thick or a prick. I am pretty sure I have not objected to being called racist either. As usual you lie.

  47. ‘I’ve seen women in Russia subject to horrendous sexual innuendos by their (western) managers, and they’ve just had to suck it up and take it.’

    Fnaar fnaar.

  48. The ASA is a trade association, not “Advertising bosses”, and no they don’t have power.

    You can just tell them to take a hike, as BrewDog did.

    (Oh wait – that was the Portman Group – but they have the same status.)

  49. TN: If you mean that the employer could go and say “You’ve upset our staff Gazza –so fuck off and you aren’t welcome back”–that is a private matter and fair enough.

    If Gazza was making them a fair amount of cash they could just as likely have said “Sorry Mate” to the black bloke. They are a business.

    They are circs in which no redress is possible . As somebody said ” The World is full of prejudice, cruel humour, snobbery, bad service, shoddy workmanship, mediocre performances, unfair advantages and the timeless tendency for those with social, economic or cultural power to enjoy their ability to exclude the ones without it. Sometimes the innocent suffer and the bad guys win, Sometimes the valiant and noble are pushed aside and the callous and indifferent are praised and rewarded.”

    To invite the murdering, dictatorial scum of the Earth into trifling matters is a very foolish and dangerous activity. Asking to be eaten so to speak.

  50. There’s no such thing as “pressing charges” in England and Wales.

    I’m unclear what the employment relationship was in the Gazza case, and therefore what the contractual nexus was but, in principle, there is no reason why this might not have been dealt with via an employment tribunal.

  51. V_P

    It’s a problem. The best answer is to never, ever let them get their grips on any actual power. Otherwise they’ll start sneeking the smallest fuckwitted piece of statist cuntery in (I think they get issued the immoral equivalent of feeler gauges for this) and once that slips through, get the next larger out. Viz a viz US universities and the way ours are going / have gone.

    Otherwise the answers are your choice of 9mm, piano wire, or DK’s cockroaches because these people are utterly impervious to facts or reason.

    Incidentally, I’ve just read Roger Scruton’s, well, very polite rant about Ronald Dworkin.

  52. SE

    This quote has to me always summed up the ‘Progressive Left’ well: Kudos to anyone who can get the source from which it is adapted:

    ‘Listen, and understand. The Corbynites are out there. They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead’.

  53. ‘I’ve seen women in Russia subject to horrendous sexual innuendos by their (western) managers, and they’ve just had to suck it up and take it.’

    One of the joys of being self-employed is that risqué backchat and innuendo (that famous Italian suppository) are commonplace among my colleagues. There’s no one to sue, you see?

    I’ve had conversations with female colleagues about this, to see if it bothered them. Now, it may be that they’re all so brutalised by the environment that they say what they think I want to hear (although I’d take a lot of persuading on that; girl barristers are mostly as hard as nails – and the more overtly feminine they are, the more deadly … although that’s true of women generally), but, their answers have always reassured me that they couldn’t give a damn or they enjoy it and relish giving as good as they get.

    So perhaps I’m a Sidjamesossaurus, but in my experience there is, among those of us still relatively free from ordinary workplace tyrannies, life in the joy of the sexes.

    Come to that, my significant other, who is both very feminine and very deadly, routinely receives wolf-whistles, cat-calls and unsolicited innuendo, but takes it in her stride. And she is employed. Enjoys it, couldn’t give a hoot.

  54. There’s no one to sue, you see?

    I flat out don’t believe the security guy was offended by Gazza’s rubbish, but not racist joke. (Black people really are darker, and really do have more noticeable and better teeth). Bored probably.

    No one but a sleb would have been put on trial for this bullshit. And it’s likely the security sniffed some bonus wedge.

    It seems that Gazza is 2,500 down, the security guy 1,000 up, and the state many, many quids down.

    Well done everyone.

    Oh, and Lud: you may be guilty of humble-bragging. I’m getting flsahbacks.

  55. Meanwhile, if that’s the standard, the police may need to get on Facebook from the 24th June.

    They might be sometime.

  56. “And you repeatedly defend these laws and attack people who criticise them. You have a massive paper trail on this and it is absurd to deny it now.”

    No I don’t defend illiberal laws.

    Granted I do make fun of the thick racist pricks who criticise them; candy from babies etc. By contrast I habe great respect for the liberals on this blog who criticise illiberal laws.

Leave a Reply

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