The end of civilization

[John in Covina]

Protests and a letter writing campaign.

I can't imagine why a no hats policy is necessary or even particularly useful. I personally find the practice offensive (not that I'll ever experience it), and were I said 84 year old lady would have politely said no I won't take off my hat but I'll be happy to leave, instead, which I would have promptly done. Alas, I doubt there are enough hat wearers (who would meaningfully object to the policy or just hat wearers, period) to make a difference to this particular pub chain. Bud

********
A call to action is needed, every person that thinks you should be allowed to be PRO CHOICE when it comes to wearing HATS needs to first show up en masse at pubs with these rules and protest, then protest at the the offices of several of the house of commons and lords offices.

Also, here in the US there are cameras in many places airports at the superbowl etc, I guess our cameras and programs must be better than in the UK as no one gets asked to take of their hats here.

Now there are clubs that have NO HAT policies, many of the big nightclubs in Las Vegas don't allow hats, but it is because the "Instant Idiot, just add alcohol" types have a thing for screwing with a guy wearing a hat. You can go thru psycology and list reasons til the cows come home but those in society that act like the coloquial expression for rectum in places like bars abound. Bar keepers would rather have no problems and look at it as removing a proven target as a pre-emptive strike. Say you have a dog that kills chickens, after a while instead of trying to teach the dog not to kill chickens, you just keep the dog and the chickens apart. Unfortunately idiots don't have it stamped on their foreheads so you can just keep them out of the bar.

Benjamin Franklin is credited with this and it seems very appropreate: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

"I never thought the end of democracy would come with the sound of applause."

 

[John in Covina]

However the real problem lies not with how we catch villains but what we do when we catch them. I just believe in fairness, but with criminals absolutely not. Sod the fairness, criminality is a choice, not something we are born into.

*******
In California we have a Three Strikes Law that makes it so repeat offenders will serve real time after a third offense. Of course there are those that say it isn't fair but the criminal holds the key to the cell. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Sincerely,

 

[jamespowers]

Benjamin Franklin is credited with this and it seems very appropreate: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

"I never thought the end of democracy would come with the sound of applause."

Exactly and that is the problem I see with cameras all over the place. It tells me that the people in charge think of me as a thief, malcontent or worse who will try to steal, cause fights or worse if I were not monitored every second of the day. It is 1984 with the huge screen watching you everywhere you go. Big Brother is watching you. I just don't like it.
Of course we have the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution in the US so it gives one grounds to sue based on providing evidence to incriminate yourself---yourself. A friend of mine recently described the ideal government to me as "small, impoverished and afraid of the citizens." Clearly this government involved is only afraid of its citizens. It is clearly too large and has money enough to use in surveillance of its citizens. The government that doesn't trust me is equally unworthy of my trust. It reeks of authoritarianism. I am leaving my hat on. Let them prove I am up to no good by my actions not by my "hat wearing though crime." :cheers1:

Regards to all,

J

 

[Alan Eardley]

The facts

The big question is just how big was her hat?

Why was an 84 year old woman going into a pub?

Maybe she was an angry drunk?

Don't come to a conclusion until you know the facts.

Shamus,

We DO know the facts (see BBC News link above). None of your surmises applies to Mrs Wilbraham.

Her hat was well away from her face. She was behaving normally, was not drunk and in my book has a perfect right to go into a pub at lunchtime to shelter from the rain and to have a meal, whatever her age.

Treating an old lady who is a pillar of her community in the same way as a potential violent hooligan or criminal in the interests of 'fairness to all' is a concept so bizzare that it is alien to me.

 

[matei]

A few months back I went to "The Living Room" with some friends who came over to visit us from Ireland. The bruiser at the door stopped me (almost clothes-lined me actually) as I was entering the bar and demanded I remove my hat.

At the time I thought it was just to reinforce good manners (how naive on my part), but now I realise why this demand was made. Hmmm...

I've had an overzealous security screener at an airport once tell me I couldn't wear a hat in the airport or on the airplane. "Yup, sure thing - whatever..." I rounded the corner and it went back on my head.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

Yes, my dears, we are frogs in (soon to be) boiling water. They are doing it in this country, too, chipping away at our freedoms while claiming it is for "national security," but they can't even prepare for a hurricane, let alone a terrorist act.

Too bad there are not enough hat wearers over there to go en-masse to that pub, as John stated, and demand to be served. Then, stay, and demand to be arrested.

What's next to "protect" us? Cameras in our homes? I.D. chips under our skin, with bar codes tattooed on us? James is correct -- that kind of protection criminalizes all of us. That will lead to more and more and more control. We are not only criminalized, but infantalized -- turned into great blithering babies who cannot make a decision for ourselves or do anthing without the "protection" of those in charge.

It is an insidious way to slowly take our freedoms away. And it is not being done by those in charge now, hardly liberal and certainly not elite.

karol

 

[matei]

It is indeed a bit scary, a bit Orwellian.

They're pushing some kind of mandatory ID card thingee here in the UK. Blair is determined to get it through. It doesn't apply to foreigners like us unless we're here for more than a certain amount of time...

 

[geo]

Vespasian, I appreciated your comments very much. The second paragraph of your post sums up today's society very accurately.

 

[shamus]

Shamus,

We DO know the facts (see BBC News link above). None of your surmises applies to Mrs Wilbraham.

Treating an old lady who is a pillar of her community in the same way as a potential violent hooligan or criminal in the interests of 'fairness to all' is a concept so bizzare that it is alien to me.

Well actually we DON'T know the facts. The article says she was an 82 year old woman and you said 84.

How was this woman a "pillar of her community"?

I was just raising some questions that maybe some didn't think about.

The pub has a No-Hats policy... reguardless of age. I don't see the big deal is about asking a woman to remove her hat, if the Pub has a policy of no-hats?

 

[Alan Eardley]

Well actually we DON'T know the facts. The article says she was an 82 year old woman and you said 84.

How was this woman a "pillar of her community"?

I was just raising some questions that maybe some didn't think about.

The pub has a No-Hats policy... reguardless of age. I don't see the big deal is about asking a woman to remove her hat, if the Pub has a policy of no-hats?

I was listening to a live radio broadcast and misremembered her age. Two years makes a difference to the case, does it?

There was more information in the radio broadcast than is on the BBC website. The lady has lived in the area all her life, was a school teacher for over 40 years and a member of the Womens Institute (which does a lot of charity work), for a similar length of time. She has never broken the law or even been suspected of a crime. I, personally, look up to and respect people like this. That's why I use the phrase 'pillar of the community'.

There is usually a poster in places that use these CCTV surveilance systems. It says something like, 'Images are being monitored and recorded for your safety and security'. The pub management can impose what regulations they like on their own premises, but applying such regulations to a law-abiding 82 year old lady in the name of my 'safety and security' is anathema to me. You're entitled to your own opinion.

 

[John in Covina]

Well actually we DON'T know the facts. The article says she was an 82 year old woman and you said 84.

********
82 or 84? Thats like throwing out someones story because they said a person was wearing a red tie and it was actually a red checked tie. That is manuscia.

If you are familiar with nearly all police reports most witnesses including the victim get one major description item wrong. It happens.

As to her being a mean drunk, then the bar would have her on a list of people that can't come in period.

Now is the no hats policy POSTED? If the NO HATS rule is posted outside, then you can make the decision as to whether or not you'll go in as a condition then you can't complain. BUT if they are capricious in their observance or they only tell you as you enter and half of your friends have already gone in that in a word is steer manure in a big crock all hot and steamy.

Posting NO HATS outside that would be OK, but what if a Hasidic Jew wants to enter, can you force him to take off his Fedora. Can you force an Islamic woman to remove her veil?

 

[John in Covina]

Free Hats from Bondage!

One condition of tyranny is to have enough conflicting rules to make it for all people to fail in the eye of the law. This enables the ruling party to have law enforcement agencys in control of the populace because LE can at any time arrest and detain anyone.

Unintended Consequences is the key word, it is the results of any law that occurs because all ends have not been thought out. It is like the Disabilities Act, much good came from it but now much bad for government or small and large business alike.

I keep thinking of the guy that runs the city in Baron Munchausen.

 

[BellyTank]

Can you force an Islamic woman to remove her veil?

Apparently you can if she wants to get a passport-

The chances of a Hasidic Jew Gentleman drinking at a pub in Ely aren't so high... perhaps.

No sarcasm intended.

We have ID cards in Denmark- it's no biggie- it actually makes life a lot easier.

Simply posting a "No Hats" sign would solve the issue- the Landlord, or any retailer on private property, has the right to refuse any potential patron- on 'any' grounds.

B
T

 

[Salv]

The problem we have here is the treason of the intellectuals, a vociferous liberal elite who did a bit of soft science, got into social work and then started hacking away at the foundations of what was turning into quite a nice society. Single parents applauded, families derided, heterosexuals seen as boring, gay and lesbian as cool, minorities pandered to, the majority told to shut up because whenever they speak they are uneducated and racist. Men made fun of in the media and women presented as unable to do wrong.I detest racism, I detest homophobia and I quite like the company of women but they are rational considerations. I just believe in fairness, but with criminals absolutely not. Sod the fairness, criminality is a choice, not something we are born into. What happened in that pub wasnt wrong in my opinion, just another example of how society cannot trust its members because the liberal elite have ruined the rule of law and fostered the prison society mentality. And if you dont believe it then ask a lawyer how their business would fare if persistent offenders were locked up. Then take a look at who makes up the majority of the government in the UK. Lawyers. Cameras are big bucks, courts are lucrative for the intellectual elite and prisons, well theyre too costly. Easier to tell old women to take their hats off. The point being, finally, if crime wasnt treated with such a cavalier attitude then we wouldnt need so much security and the majority would just get on with their lives without unneccesary rules.

No, the problem we have here is the fallout from the wholesale destruction of communities, and the insistence that "there is no such thing as society" by successive Tory governments in the 1980's and 90's. The criminal classes now are those who grew up under Thatcher, and the children of those who grew up under Thatcher - treated with contempt by the Tories and still believing that the government is not interested in them. This October 1987 quote from Thatcher has done far more harm to society than any pronouncement by any imaginary "liberal elite"

I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.

So what does this tell us: you're on your own, the government won't help you. So the government may decimate the coal industry and close down the mining community where you, your family and friends live, but don't expect them to offer anything in the way of alternative employment. You're not entitled to anything, and that includes the free education and health care you've been enjoying for the last 50 years. The children that grew up under that regime are todays parents and they have instilled this contempt for society in their own offspring.

This 'liberal elite' that is the rights favourite bogeyman is no more than a shabby diversion tactic designed to point the blame away from their own failings.

 

[Raindog]

The really sickening thing about all this so called protection is that it's no protection at all. Terrorism by it's nature is impossible to secure against.
Here in the UK we went through two world wars and 100 years of terrorism by the IRA.....And we didn't give up our freedom despite being bombed over and over.
This whole security thing is a facade to keep us all under control. The government fears us.
As for the hat rule, blame it on the scumbag criminals. We should bang the bastards up like they did years ago. Not penalise law abiding people 'just in case' they break the law.
The person who enforced this rule on an old lady is probably a jobsworth with a brain the size of a pea.
How much 'trouble' can an 80 odd year old woman do?
Also agree about the infantilisation of the public, especially in the UK. The desire to emigrate grows stronger by the day!


Jeff.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I think the policy of telling people exactly why they have to remove their hats is a good one. At least then you don't have some silly arguement about whether a company dislikes hats.

Remember the shopping centres banning hoodies? One would get the impression that those companies believe that everyone wearing a hoody was a criminal, or that the company just hated hoodies so much that they couldn't allow them in their stores. Ridiculous. And all because they wouldn't come out with it, and say that they were banning hoodies so that their cameras could see who you were when you decided to rob the place, or beat someone up. If an 84 (82?) year old were wearing a hoody, i'm sure she'd be asked to put the hood down when in one of those shopping centres.

If a pub is going to have cameras, i'd rather they could see who people were when they've had too much :beer: and get :rage: and start :fing28: (that's supposed to throwing punches. Seems a little happy, perhaps he's been on the cider)

bk

 

[John in Covina]

So what does this tell us: you're on your own, the government won't help you. You're not entitled to anything, and that includes the free education and health care you've been enjoying for the last 50 years. The children that grew up under that regime are todays parents and they have instilled this contempt for society in their own offspring.

*******
When a person depends on their government for everything, doesn't that make them a "dependant?" Either serf or slave or subject but certainly not a citizen. Government does very few things BETTER than the private sector.

there are those who cannot build or create or produce and expect others to provide for them as an entitalment, all the while eschewing the concept charity. Using government to cut down those at the top to prop up those at the bottom. In the end their contempt make them try to stamp out all personal initiative, curb all freedoms and and bring all under the control of a few, again.

Slavery can be define as when the goods and services that you produce are taken with out renumeration as the property of others. It means the same if it is a person a group or a government that does so.

 

[Raindog]

It used to be that we could deal with trouble ourselves. If some crim tried to cause trouble in a pub or shopping area people dealt with it.
Now we're mollycoddled, and we mollycoddle the crims as well.
We're so afraid now that some teenager can do what he likes and we can't do a thing because we'll be sued if we touch him. To me a criminal has no rights.
This stuff turns me from a gentle peace loving liberal into a raging pro hanging redneck. I don't like that.
Keep wearing your hats. Stuff 'em all


Jeff.

 

[Brad Bowers]

Have any other businesses in the U.K. banned hats?

In the U.S., banks in several states have "No Hats" rules, for the very same reason that cameras can't see the criminals' faces. I don't know if other businesses have adopted such measures.

Brad

 

[Raindog]

A few shopping centres have banned caps and hoodies. I think some pubs have too.



Jeff.