Now the PC brigade dictate what shops can sell...
Discussion
www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006100460,00.html
The Sun said:
Gollies public enemy No1
By ANDREW PARKER
COPS raided Donald Reynolds’ shop — and seized three GOLLIES on display in his window.
Stunned Donald, 53, is being investigated over the “racially offensive” black dolls and could face prosecution.
Police rang on a Sunday saying there had been “an incident” at his premises.
Fearing a break-in, he dashed to the shop — but was told there had been a complaint about the gollies.
Donald said: “I thought it was a joke but the officer loaded them in his car.
“I’m furious. It’s political correctness gone mad. I’m not racist, just trying to make a living.”
Donald had stocked up with several hundred gollies along with other gift items to sell in his hardware shop in Bromyard, Herefordshire.
Dozens of the gollies were snapped up in weeks.
Donald said: “They went to to middle-aged people who remembered them from childhood. I’m in shock. If the police put as much time into catching criminals as they have into this nonsense, the country would be a safer place.”
West Mercia Police acted under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. It outlaws displaying “offensive material likely to lead to alarm, harassment or distress”.
A spokesman said: “It is not a crime to sell these dolls but a member of the public found them racially offensive. We take these matters very seriously.
“Inquiries are ongoing. We cannot say yet if Mr Reynolds will face charges.”
Worcester Racial Equality Council said gollies “may worsen race relations”.
# SUN journalist Anthony France, a black Briton, called the police action “lunacy”.
He said: “I spoke to several black and Asian friends about this. None had a problem.
“We do have a problem with rap records which use the N-word in lyrics. But I can’t see the police raiding HMV.”
This whole PC-correctness rubbish has gone too far.
Actions like this do not promote racial equality - they promote surprise, derision, and ultimately resentment. That in turn causes the extremists (on all sides) to decry these policies and to encourage divisions.
I read somewhere that these complaints rarely arise from the people who might have cause to be offended - more often than not, they arise because some shiny-arsed jobsworth in a town hall is paid to find things to be offended about. They scan job adverts, contracts, newspaper articles etc looking for this kind of irrelevant junk.
Unfortunately the police have to enforce the law. The fact that some laws are stupid laws, drawn up to satisfy minority (but nevertheless potentially vote-winning) interests is not relevant.
A driver can't smoke in his own van because it's his workplace. Bollocks.
In Glasgow (I think it is) you can't smoke outside near cheildrens' play areas. Outside! Bollocks.
If a group of teenage louts decides to kick your head in, you have to let them because if you lift a finger, you'll be the one in court. Bollocks.
Policeman loses his job because he grabs a golf club off a wee ned and snaps it (the club not the ned) over his knee. Bollocks.
Police advertise for recruits, get 169 replies but interview none because none are from "ethnic minorities". Bollocks.
Those are only the ones I can think of, while writing this now.
It's madness I tell you!
Actions like this do not promote racial equality - they promote surprise, derision, and ultimately resentment. That in turn causes the extremists (on all sides) to decry these policies and to encourage divisions.
I read somewhere that these complaints rarely arise from the people who might have cause to be offended - more often than not, they arise because some shiny-arsed jobsworth in a town hall is paid to find things to be offended about. They scan job adverts, contracts, newspaper articles etc looking for this kind of irrelevant junk.
Unfortunately the police have to enforce the law. The fact that some laws are stupid laws, drawn up to satisfy minority (but nevertheless potentially vote-winning) interests is not relevant.
A driver can't smoke in his own van because it's his workplace. Bollocks.
In Glasgow (I think it is) you can't smoke outside near cheildrens' play areas. Outside! Bollocks.
If a group of teenage louts decides to kick your head in, you have to let them because if you lift a finger, you'll be the one in court. Bollocks.
Policeman loses his job because he grabs a golf club off a wee ned and snaps it (the club not the ned) over his knee. Bollocks.
Police advertise for recruits, get 169 replies but interview none because none are from "ethnic minorities". Bollocks.
Those are only the ones I can think of, while writing this now.
It's madness I tell you!
plod said:WTF?
It is not a crime to sell these dolls but a member of the public found them racially offensive. We take these matters very seriously.
So something that isn't a crime is such a priority for the police that they take it very seriously? Yet if someone nicked these golliwogs to the tune of less than £75 they couldn't give a 5h1t? This is policing? It's a f
g joke, and the police are turning themselves into one as well. Jeez, unbelievable.So all you need to do now is claim that you are "racially offended" by something and the bib descend onto the scene in full riot gear......
I hope there are no action men dolls being sold by anyone other than white caucasian males....
otherwise we all might find it "racially offensive"
I hope there are no action men dolls being sold by anyone other than white caucasian males....
otherwise we all might find it "racially offensive"
Action Man was not a doll 
To be fair Plod between rock and a hard place with this one.
Option 1
Take action after complaint, ridicule results.
Option 2
NFA and complaint filed in round filing cabinet, (which imho is where it should have gone) well it would not have been left to lie there considering the nature of.....
Know what I mean? say no more!
To paraphrase the classic line out of lock stock:-
I f hate professional s**t stirrers / PC do good ws
Option 1
Take action after complaint, ridicule results.
Option 2
NFA and complaint filed in round filing cabinet, (which imho is where it should have gone) well it would not have been left to lie there considering the nature of.....
Know what I mean? say no more!
To paraphrase the classic line out of lock stock:-
I f
hate professional s**t stirrers / PC do good wsThose books were the best ever as a kid - Wiggy Waggy and Wolly if I remember correctly.
Really sad that people are so petty in this day and age. Surely these dolls should be embraced as we are celebration multiculturalism as there aren't just caucasion (sp) dolls on the market. (PC gone mad if you ask me)
I'd love it if my kids could read those books - lovely lovely stories.
Really sad that people are so petty in this day and age. Surely these dolls should be embraced as we are celebration multiculturalism as there aren't just caucasion (sp) dolls on the market. (PC gone mad if you ask me)
I'd love it if my kids could read those books - lovely lovely stories.
mungo said:
WRONG! Self defence= a legal assault. You have a legal right to give them a good helping of pain to protect yourself! As long as you don't go overboard and start kicking them when they are down etc it's all reasonable and you can justify the reason you used force in the circumstances.
Anyway, back on topic - I can't see the CPS run with this. I could be wrong though.
Was discussing this the other day at Krav...
Apparently the physicality of the 'opponents' comes into play when decideing upon necessary force.
EG: An 8 stone woman Vs an 18 stone man = she can do more if needed
We have a guy who is partially disabled (legs only) and therefore cannot run...
So if you try to corner him 2-1 for example he can apply enough force to ENSURE that his aggressors will not follow him....
mungo said:City centre policing - yep, decades of martial arts will help there
Indeed! There are other variables to take into account in reality too such as... "If I hit this drug user who is trying to murder me with a bike frame he just picked up in his teeth and he has infectious blood diseases and I break the skin on my knuckles and he bleeds too I could catch something - better use a different technique" these are the thought processes that often go through my head at work 
17 years of martial arts training helps when you police a busy city centre...Anyway thats off topic and for another thread perhaps
But do the courts and plod actually expect people to analyse variables when being threatened by some feckwit? It's oh so easy to sit on a fat ass in court and pass judgement on some poor sod that's just lamped a chav, but when it's happening just how much time do you ask your assailant for in order to consider the variables?
Agreed, if someone is down and not looking like they're getting up leave them alone, but plenty of people get up and if so making sure they're asleep has to be fair game.
Totally agree...
As you rightly say Mungo there are many variables, like people on drugs / alchohol who may just keep coming unless you stop them properly.
I must say I am liking the sound of this potential new thread more than the gollywog one
'Necessary Force' - anyone for starting it up...
As you rightly say Mungo there are many variables, like people on drugs / alchohol who may just keep coming unless you stop them properly.
I must say I am liking the sound of this potential new thread more than the gollywog one
'Necessary Force' - anyone for starting it up...
gorvid said:
WRONG! Self defence= a legal assault. You have a legal right to give them a good helping of pain to protect yourself! As long as you don't go overboard and start kicking them when they are down etc it's all reasonable and you can justify the reason you used force in the circumstances.
Anyway, back on topic - I can't see the CPS run with this. I could be wrong though.
Was discussing this the other day at Krav...
Apparently the physicality of the 'opponents' comes into play when decideing upon necessary force.
EG: An 8 stone woman Vs an 18 stone man = she can do more if needed
We have a guy who is partially disabled (legs only) and therefore cannot run...
So if you try to corner him 2-1 for example he can apply enough force to ENSURE that his aggressors will not follow him....
I do hope that doesnt go the other way? If some skinny washed out crackhead threatens me im not allowed to give him a pasting because im bigger than him?
mungo said:
If a group of teenage louts decides to kick your head in, you have to let them because if you lift a finger, you'll be the one in court. Bollocks.
WRONG! Self defence= a legal assault. You have a legal right to give them a good helping of pain to protect yourself! As long as you don't go overboard and start kicking them when they are down etc it's all reasonable and you can justify the reason you used force in the circumstances.
Anyway, back on topic - I can't see the CPS run with this. I could be wrong though.
Too right, the sort of people who get convicted of assault in these case are the sort of self righteous people who after defending themselves say something to the police along the lines of "yeah then I gave him a good hiding like he disserved" as though they were doing a public service and should get an award for it.
In reality you can defend yourself as much as you think is necessary, you could potentially defend kicking a conscious assailant in the head when they were on the ground on the basis that you believed if you didn't they might get up and continue assaulting you.
Unless there are eye witnesses or serious forensic evidence (which is generated by you going totally crazy) so long as you claim self defence it is unlikely that you would get charged with anything as it is impossible to prove that you overstepped reasonable force.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff