Thresher's Nottingham boycott over attack, racism

Are there a lot of Sikhi's in Nottingham having a problem with not being able to buy booze?
Maybe you should consult your Sikhi community before making them the focus of a campaign to get them access to an off license.

Stop Corporate Bigotry clearly has way too much spare time on his/her hands! Loads of businesses have bans on wearing hoods and hats, large shopping malls do, for instance - if you are so offended, why not campaign against those kinds of places instead? Beats picketting some poxy off-licence!

I can't see the ban affecting religious headwear anyway, as turbans and skullcaps do not obscure the top of the face in the way that baseball caps do. And as for hoods, they only have to be taken off when entering the shop, to be put on again on leaving the premises. Ditto hats. Hardly a lifestyle restriction.

This has to be a joke - right? If this is genuine then you people need to get out a bit more. So Threshers don't want to get robbed? so what...good job that gun crime in nottingham isn't an issue you fools.

This is just one instance of an increasingly common unofficial policy to force people to take off headgear in shops and public spaces so that they can be ID'd by surveillance cameras. This 'policy' does discriminate against youth as hoodies and baseball caps and widely worn, but of course one of the main reasons why hoodies and caps are so popular is precisely because they hide the face from high-mounted cameras. And a bloody good thing too. I don't usually wear headgear, other than woolly hats in winter, but I'm tempted to get a hoodie simply to stick one up the arse of surveillance society, even if I would end up looking like a pillock.

Maybe the Thresher's manager is racist and/or anti-youth, maybe not, but that's not the main issue. The real issue is surveillance and our resistance to it, and I suspect that the manager is simply carrying out, rather over-zealously, orders from his head office. If we don't stand up to attempts to tell us what to wear simply so that the cameras can see our mugs, then it'll soon become suspicious behaviour in itself to wear any headgear. What are the odds on shopping malls enforcing headgear bans in the near future, and throwing out people wearing caps? It's almost a cert that the cops will view hoodies and caps as a reason to stop and search.

So perhaps what we should all do, to give the non-violent finger to surveillance society and to assert our right to wear what we want when we want to and where we want to, is to wear headgear as a matter of course. The more of us with caps and hoodies on the streets and in public places, the less conspicuous we'll be, and if shops bar us then it's the shops that will be losing custom.

So, as well as a boycott, why not a campaign to get everyone - 'dodgy youth', 'solid citizens', 'old gits', whoever - to wear hats in Nottingham? It could be quite fun, it would be a positive campaign, and would be a nice consciousness-raiser. Plus it is summer, after all, and we need caps to keep that blazing sun out of our eyes. I'm sure activists could think up some appropriate designs to put on them.

G

How will we know when the policy has been reviewed, if we are boycotting the shop?

So, Threshers have come up with a policy on headwear in their shops, some activists have taken it upon themselves to begin a campaign against this basing it on Threshers being racist and also attacking youth culture.

I honestly think Threshers are just attempting to avoid being robbed (which makes me laugh because do you really think a gang of masked up, hooded robbers are going to jump out of a car armed, see a sign that reads "no headwear" and say "come on, we'd best try somewhere else").

Now I don't like corperate chainstores, but I also don't think we should be crying rasism if it isn't, I'd like to hear if any Sikhs have been turned away for wearing turbans, if so, then Threshers are being fuckers and deserve all they get, if not, I think you should be concerntrating your efforts on a more worthwhile target like the Army Recruitment Office.

Another thing, personally I feel put off by angry shouty demo's of this nature that have an intense feel. why not make it fun, you could stage a day of going into Threshers wearing the most outrageous headwear and attempt to by booze, make hats so big that you can just get in the door.

First point. There haven't been any demos, there hasn't been a specific singling-out of Threshers - there has been a variety of campaigning recently targeting signs at a whole range of businesses.

What makes this store special is that the manager physically attacked an activist who was suspected of writing slogans against the policy. (Not during a "noisy demonstration", just while walking down the street). In other words, they have escalated repression - and if activists let this pass, it will be a green card for corporate goons to beat up whoever they like.

Second point. Yes, the motive for this crackdown freakery is probably anti"crime" fanaticism - aimed mostly at low-intensity shoplifting (armed robbers and the like would ignore anyway) - this is no excuse as anti"crime" fanaticism is the pretext for the whole control/surveillance agenda. Do you really imagine that bigots never have an "understandable" reason for what they do? I daresay the BNP would similarly protest that they are against "crime", that they're just out to protect all the decent people from muggers and yardies. Does that make them any the better? Fuck that.

Gerry is absolutely right about the reasons this is important. It isn't about one store, one "policy". It's about a dominatory micropolitics which is being gradually imposed across the whole of society. Pseudo-private organisations (in fact reliant on public cooperation) are policing what people can wear and do, introducing random and arbitrary restrictions which cause discrimination, resentment and conflict.

The right to dress how you like, wherever you go in public, is a fundamental human right. If the council brought in a law banning hoods in public places, there'd be an outcry. Why is it different just because the "law" is being imposed by a corporation?

Thirdly. We'll know the policy has been revoked when the poster is removed or a public announcement is made by Threshers.

Yes it's a bigger problem than just one store. But there aren't that many places which have blanket bans on headwear. It's not true that "loads of businesses" have these rules - though they are becoming more and more pervasive. Many places have no formal bans at all, the rest mainly just ban crash helmets or full-face coverings. And you can only fight a big struggle by starting with the beast's tentacles, starting with a particular instance of where it has its reach. In this case we have a specific store which has set itself aside in two ways - firstly by imposing an especially extreme version of a repressive rule, and secondly by backing it up with physical violence against critics.

Thus, a blow in this particular case is a blow against the trend in general.

And yeh, Gerry and Howdy have some great ideas for taking this forward.

Sure, I like some of the points you've made, I am still really concerned about the "no Sikhs" sticker, to have that sticker circulated I think we have to be sure that they are turning away Sikhs. If it is not properly researched It could have repercussions, especially if the Sikh community pick up on it and turns out not to be true, it would be playing a race card of sorts

Surely "no headgear" automatically means "no turbans", hence "no Sikhs in turbans"? So if some Sikhs take it as a matter of principle to wear turbans and won't remove them, they're not allowed in the store.

If they aren't turning away Sikhs then they aren't doing what it says on the poster, so it's not clear what it's there for. If they aren't being racist/religiously-discriminatory then they have a racist/religiously-discriminatory sign which they aren't acting on - same as if someone had a "no blacks" sign but didn't actually refuse entry to black people.

It's possible the issue hasn't come up, either because there aren't enough Sikhs in the area, or because they use a different store, don't drink wine, don't wear turbans, etc. This doesn't mean they aren't discriminated against, it just means the issue hasn't come up. (They're discriminating against Muslim women who wear the hijab as well, but usually Muslims who wear head-coverings wouldn't drink alcohol either, so it doesn't come into effect).

In any case there's an underlying point - authoritarian restrictions on dress, behaviour etc. go against cultural tolerance and as such are a threat to minorities of all kinds.

To all the people reading this article!

It's funny what you come across when you are browsing the internet isn't it? I, being the assistant manager at the Thresher in question, feel as though I not only need to clear the air about the whole "No Hats" policy but also about the alleged assault and the details surrounding it.
First of all we did not employ the no hats policy until last february when I middle aged man snuck into the storeroom and stole over £600 pounds of my personal belongings, including an i-pod and my car keys. The only reason that the police could not identify this man was because he was wearing a cap which covered his face, and due to this I never retrieved any of my belongings. Therefore we had to bring in the "No Hats Policy" as a protective measure for our staff, our stock, and the shop in general, rather than being a discriminatory measure as has been accused above.
Secondly the policy itself is to be used at our discretion. In other words when we see someone who looks dodgy with a hat on then we request that they take it off, however if not then they are free to wear it within the shop and if the "activist" who was vandalising our shop had ever been inside then he would know this. As you have probably guessed by now this means that with regards to sikh people or people wearing religious headwear this is no problem as we would allow them to keep it on. We have many sikh customers and not one of them has ever complained about the policy to us, as they use their common sense to realise that it would not apply to them.
Now in terms of the alleged assault I was present on the night in question. A customer came in and alerted us to the fact that a man was vandalising the walls outside. My manager went out to confront the man and when asked to stop various times the "activist" just ignored him. At this point my manager tried to grab THE MARKER off him, as if we allow graffiti on the shop we would lose our jobs. The activist swung at my manager, and after he pushed him away my manager came in to call the police. However by this time the man had grabbed his pen and ran away and as he was not on CCTV there was little point in getting the police involved.
Now i'm all for freedom of speech but why would people feel the need to attack this policy when it is there to protect the staff who are just trying to do an honest days work. How would you feel if you were in my situation and had lost personal stuff to a thief all because he had a hat on? In addition to this the immaturity of scrawling graffiti on the shop only encourages criminals and under-age kids to question the policy when they do come in on the nick. It's alright just preaching because you are an activist but I suggest that next time you check the facts of the situation and perhaps from now on dedicate your "spare time" to a more worthy cause!

This is further the comment above posted by the deputy manager of the store in question. I too am an employee of Thresher on Derby road and have been for a year and a half. I am upset personally by the accusations being made, and I emplore the person making them to use better judgement and to attempt to inform themselves better before inciting aggression and blind activism towards the staff of that store. I too have some important points to draw your attention to.
1. The "no hats" policy.
As my colleague pointed out above there was no such policy in place until the beginning of this year, and only began as a direct result of an incident whereby a man who appeared to be a normal customer sneaked into the shop's office/store-rooms while my colleague was in there moving stock around and i was at the counter serving customers. He then hid in the staff toilet until my colleague had finished in the office and closed the secure mid-door behind him. Then for fifteen minutes he moved freely around the office going through all staff belongings and other accessable areas, pocketing everything of value. Using the cctv unit to watch for a suitable busy moment to make his exit, he then strolled up the shop, came right upto the counter, bought a bottle of coke and left the shop. The counter area is understandably well-covered by cctv and the thief would have been easily identifiable if it weren't for the fact that his baseball cap covered half of his face to the cameras. I also lost personal items of significant monetary and sentimental value and personal importance, a few of which were irreplacable. I had to spend the following week replacing vital documents, cancelling cards, changing locks etc to great personal expense(I would like to add that thresher will not cover the loss or theft of ANY personal items in the store!).
The "no hats" policy was brought into place because it was realised that in order for the cctv to serve it's purpose(that is to protect the money, stock, and most importantly the personal safety of the staff from violent individuals)we would have to ask customers to remove obstructive headgear, which most basically means baseball caps and motorcycle helmets(which some may recognise as one of the preferred disguises of the potential armed robber). This policy was for the store in question only and NOT directed by the company as a whole as most stores don't have as many crime issues as we do.
2.Applying the policy.
When the policy first began we were feeling understandably cautious and did ask almost every customer wearing a hat if they could remove it. I feel it is important to mention that during this time not a single customer was asked to remove any religious headgear or garments OF ANY KIND, nor would they have been, regardless of which member of staff was working. Bearing in mind the staff who worked during this period came from various different religions, ethnic backgrounds, social backgrounds, sexualities and nationalities(hardly sounds like the recipe for biggotry to me!). Nor was any customer in my recollection actually refused entry due to the policy.
In the following months the policy became more relaxed, most of the regular customers understood why we had the policy in place and the sign has served only as a measure of courtesy, and certainly not intended to discourage customers from entering the store. These kinds of measures are almost always intended only to make it clear to potential shoplifters or robbers that the store is taking an active approach to their security.
3.The alleged assault.
Obviously I fully back-up what my colleage has said above regarding the incident. It is slanderous and dangerous to accuse people of violent acts such as this when you were not witness to the event and have only the second-hand and one-sided view of someone who has already admitted to being a criminal themselves (i'd like to remind you that vandalism is illegal). During that point we as the staff were constantly concerned that we were being personally targeted by a hate campaign devised by people who themselves were making unfair and uninformed judgements of our characters and intentions, and with hateful grafitti constantly on display our safety and integrity was subject to compromise. It is also in serious doubt that the activist/vandal had ever been a customer or even attempted to enter the store, so his experience of the policy was limited only to reading the sign displayed on the door.
4.The position of the staff.
I am by no means campaigning for threshers, they are nothing more than a steady paycheck to me. As much as i have a responsibility towards my job and the company, all i am standing for here is myself and my safety in that shop. Ever since i began working at that shop i have been well-aware of the very large amount of incidents of theft, robbery, abuse and violence the staff of that branch have had to and continue to endure, myself included. I am extremely upset that someone is not only attempting to label me a racist, or infringer upon beliefs or culture of any kind, but is also willing to direct hatred and activism towards me and compromise my personal safety, as an employee of that branch, because they cannot simply comply with what used to be considered an act of common courtesy in this country and take off their baseball cap when they come into the shop.

"(I would like to add that thresher will not cover the loss or theft of ANY personal items in the store!)"

On top of probably paying you a pittance in pay, whilst the bosses rake it in from all the hard work you put in, that's the thanks you get?! If I was you, I would be robbing from Threshers myself.

I'm sorry but I have just sat and read through all these comments and this article from the 'activists' and I really do think that he/she/they are absolutely pathetic. It sounds like they've read an "how to be an activist" book thought yeah we should speak out agaisnt everything we don't agree with even though we don't really understand what really has happened. Granted you write with passion but really like other people have said don't you have anything better to do with your time? If you really care about racism/bigotry why not put this passion to better use and get involved with some real causes? Causes that, before shooting their mouths off, find out facts and evidence and don't just go off one persons version of events. Causes that are actually fighting agaisnt things that go beyond one off license! For example peasants in china who have had the livelyhood they managed to have taken away from them because the state wants more industrial expansion; that is making more cars like we really need anymore new ones! And this is just one example of the horrible things going on in the world let alone things that are happening in our very own city, gun crime, drugs problems, prostitution, gang rivalry, homelessness, etc etc. If you want to start with something start with something like that and think about the reasons why people are asked to remove things that hide their faces.
It's really made me mad that this policy of no hats has been taken so badly!!! How old are you? You give people who stand agaisnt racism a bad name because I know the girl who works at Threshers she is a very good friend of mine and I personally would prefer to know that she can feel safe in her employment by politely asking a customer to remove their BASEBALL CAP than take the chance of being made a victim of crime AGAIN! You call yourself an activist again I think you are giving the term activism a bad name. I consider myself to be an activist of sorts because I choose to live life a certain way that means I try not to support corporate companys or use products that are tested on animals or unfairly traded. There's more than one way to be an activist and what makes you think that writing something on a wall is going to do anything? Again put your time to better use. I would really be interested to hear some replies from these 'activists' but to be honest I think they might have sheepishly slid off quietly into a corner and realised that they have really made a huge mountain out a a very very small molehill!

Not everyone has the choice to do the job they really desire and that they may have to take a job that just pays the bills in an ideal world we would all live in harmony and there would be no crime, no prostitution, no problems at all but we live in the real world and bad things happen.

Finally how much is it really going to affect someone if they were asked to remove their hat? Yes they may have hat hair but other than a little embaressment whats the big deal? If I was wearing a hat and someone did not feel comfortable with me I would not feel victimised at all. I would understand the type of shop I was in and that they have probably at some point been robbed and that would be as far as it went. Do you really think the people who work at Threshers would be stupid enough to ask someone to remove their Turban?
Please if you're going to write about something find something better to write about so we don't all waste our time getting infuriated having to write long and labourious comments about how silly we think you are!

The person who wrote this article please comment back on these comments posted, I'd like to hear your defense!

Protesting against a 'no hats' rule? You're kidding right?

Don't go around writing on people's shops if you don't want to have your pen removed.

I'm sure the boycott will have a massive impact, so good luck with that. The decrease in sales of cheap cider and Cutter's Choice will surely bankrupt them.

It seems a plethora of Thresher's staff (or shareholders perhaps?) have leapt into the breach in defence of their gallant drug dealing capitalist enterprise. How valliant!

Says 'Thresher' on the 'True story':-

"First of all we did not employ the no hats policy until last february when I middle aged man snuck into the storeroom and stole over £600 pounds of my personal belongings, including an i-pod and my car keys. The only reason that the police could not identify this man was because he was wearing a cap which covered his face, and due to this I never retrieved any of my belongings. Therefore we had to bring in the "No Hats Policy" as a protective measure for our staff, our stock, and the shop in general, rather than being a discriminatory measure as has been accused above."

They had to do it. They were losing their i-pods (ghasp!) to people they couldn't grass up to the police.

"Secondly the policy itself is to be used at our discretion. In other words when we see someone who looks dodgy with a hat on then we request that they take it off"

That's reassuring then. Anyone want to guess what race/class 'dodgy' people are?

Of the altercation with a graffitist Thresher says:

"At this point my manager tried to grab THE MARKER off him, as if we allow graffiti on the shop we would lose our jobs."

Do you really believe that?

"The activist swung at my manager, and after he pushed him away my manager came in to call the police. However by this time the man had grabbed his pen and ran away and as he was not on CCTV there was little point in getting the police involved."

Another good reason to wear hats and avoid CCTV methinks.

"Now i'm all for freedom of speech"

ha ha!

"but why would people feel the need to attack this policy when it is there to protect the staff who are just trying to do an honest days work."

From dangerous activists and their marker pens you mean? Or just dodgy people that you want to sell booze too? Of course, they're not honest workers though are they, so they don't need to be protected.

"How would you feel if you were in my situation and had lost personal stuff to a thief all because he had a hat on? In addition to this the immaturity of scrawling graffiti on the shop only encourages criminals and under-age kids to question the policy when they do come in on the nick."

Oh come off it Thresher. Your stuff would still have been nicked if the thief wasn't wearing a hat. You just want him caught and punished. And why so defensive about people questioning your policy if it's so "decent" and "honest"?

Next wades in Threshergirl:
"I also lost personal items of significant monetary and sentimental value and personal importance, a few of which were irreplacable. I had to spend the following week replacing vital documents, cancelling cards, changing locks etc to great personal expense(I would like to add that thresher will not cover the loss or theft of ANY personal items in the store!)."

Well of course that's not very nice. But maybe putting pressure on Threshers for better treatment of its staff is a better course of action for you than trying to get the police to punish someone for your loss.

"The "no hats" policy was brought into place because it was realised that in order for the cctv to serve it's purpose(that is to protect the money, stock, and most importantly the personal safety of the staff from violent individuals)"

That doesn't make sense. If someone is going to steal or conduct an armed robbery, CCTV is not going to stop that from happening. All that it might aid is the police catching and punishing someone. It is highly unlikely that the stolen items will be recovered, and thinking that CCTV is going to stop you from being attacked is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

"It is slanderous and dangerous to accuse people of violent acts such as this when you were not witness to the event and have only the second-hand and one-sided view of someone who has already admitted to being a criminal themselves (i'd like to remind you that vandalism is illegal)."

Why does being a criminal make someone any more "one-sided" than being a law-abiding citizen? I presumed the person making the accusation was the victim, so their testimony is at least as good as the shop owner's (perhaps better as they would seem unlikely to benefit from making the story up, unlike someone having to prove their innocence).

"I am by no means campaigning for threshers, they are nothing more than a steady paycheck to me. As much as i have a responsibility towards my job and the company, all i am standing for here is myself and my safety in that shop."

Read: Despite the fact that I am in the pay of Threshers and acknowledge its benefit, that in no way influences the way I think about them. Make of it what you will.

"I am extremely upset that someone is ... willing to direct hatred and activism towards me and compromise my personal safety, as an employee of that branch, because they cannot simply comply with what used to be considered an act of common courtesy in this country and take off their baseball cap when they come into the shop."

From what I've read, there is no hatred directed towards you or the other employees of the shop by this campaign against surveillance. How graffiti compromises your personal safety is beyond me. Maybe you should realise that your view of what is common courtesy is not shared by everyone, and that some people are insulted and feel stigmatised by your wish that they comply with these arbitrary, punitive rules.

Finally we get "boo":
"It sounds like they've read an "how to be an activist" book thought yeah we should speak out agaisnt everything we don't agree with even though we don't really understand what really has happened."

Surely it's a good thing to speak out against things we don't agree with? Or would you rather we all comply and be good little citizens even if we have our doubts?

"If you really care about racism/bigotry why not put this passion to better use and get involved with some real causes?"

And who decides what those 'real' causes are? Surely it's better to act in a local community that you know, with issues like surveillance that directly affect you than making an effort to fit into other campaigns.

"For example peasants in china who have had the livelyhood they managed to have taken away from them because the state wants more industrial expansion; that is making more cars like we really need anymore new ones!"

What about people whose livelihood is being taken away from them because Threshers insists on selling them booze? Or people that it pushes to get locked up because they have to steal to get by? Or people who are psychologically damaged by the constant surveillance by CCTV that is unavoidable in our fucked up society? We can show our solidarity with people in China, by acting to create freedom from capitalism in our own society.

"I consider myself to be an activist of sorts because I choose to live life a certain way that means I try not to support corporate companys or use products that are tested on animals or unfairly traded. There's more than one way to be an activist and what makes you think that writing something on a wall is going to do anything?"

What makes you think your actions will do anything? Probably the same things that drive the activist here.

"Finally how much is it really going to affect someone if they were asked to remove their hat? Yes they may have hat hair but other than a little embaressment whats the big deal?"

The big deal is that certain kinds of people (those who look 'dodgy' according tho Thresher, will be discriminated against by this policy. They are likely to be people who are already discriminated against because they might steal because they look poor, or because they are from a certain ethnic group, are a certain age and gender. It's more than just a little embarrassment to go around having to deal with people who think you're a thug or a thief, that you're to be distrusted. Thresher worries about her/his car keys being nicked, but the person who nicked them might never get to own their own car. Yet they are the one who is labelled a criminal. Where's the justice in that? Besides, some people just don't want to be surveilled by cameras every where they go. When were your customers ever asked whether they would accept being filmed or not?

Wow I didn't think it possible that there could be a person less reasonable than the person writing the article but Sin Nick just took the prize. It's easy to comment on this situations when you are not involved at all, and its also easy to be sarcastic about situations that don't impact upon your life at all, but surely you can't have your head so far up your own arse that you actually believe what you have written on here.

Sin Nick writes: "They had to do it. They were losing their i-pods (ghasp!) to people they couldn't grass up to the police."
erm.... Yeah I'm am pissed off about loosing my goods that I WORKED to pay for to some1 who was out on the nick, perhaps u'd like to provide your work/home address and the staff of Thresher will come down in hats and rob you and see how you feel about it??? Is reporting a crime really grassing someone up to the police? That's a funny street mentality you have there, maybe we should all jus do what we want and not give a shit about anyone else cuz thats what being an activist is all about!!!! Next time somebody takes my belongings i'll just think... "well suppose he deserves it really. Finders keepers and all that" and rest assured in the fact that while I don't have any money at least i've not got a reputation as a snitch.

Sin Nick writes:"That's reassuring then. Anyone want to guess what race/class 'dodgy' people are?"
U'll be surprised to know that the majority of shoplifters we have are white actually. You can argue that i'm lying, but then again I work there and you don't, so while all your arguments are pure speculation mine are actually based on fact and REAL LIFE experiences.

Sin Nick Writes: " Another good reason to wear hats and avoid CCTV methinks."
So what you've just said is it's good he wore a hat cuz otherwise he might have been arrested for doing somethin illegal. Is it not a slight paradox that you are arguing that our no hats policy is hyper sensitive and Big Brother-esque whilst also encouraging all up and coming muggers, vandals, rapists and murderers to avoid CCTV and wear a hat because then people can't identify them?????

Sin Nick then goes on to say: "Oh come off it Thresher. Your stuff would still have been nicked if the thief wasn't wearing a hat. You just want him caught and punished. And why so defensive about people questioning your policy if it's so "decent" and "honest"?"
1. ERM yeah I want him caught and punished!
2. People aren't questioning it, they are attacking it using ill informed arguments and completely made up accusations of racism against Sikhs.

Then: "Well of course that's not very nice. But maybe putting pressure on Threshers for better treatment of its staff is a better course of action for you than trying to get the police to punish someone for your loss."
Oh ok don't punish the robbers, blame the people handling the insurance. When terrorists attack our country are the terrorists to blame or national security for "letting" them attack the country?

Even more Stupidly :"That doesn't make sense. If someone is going to steal or conduct an armed robbery, CCTV is not going to stop that from happening. All that it might aid is the police catching and punishing someone. It is highly unlikely that the stolen items will be recovered, and thinking that CCTV is going to stop you from being attacked is, quite frankly, ridiculous."
ERM... Surely if a robber knows that cuz they can't wear hats then their face will be on CCTV and they will be more likely to be caught by the police then they are less likely to risk robbing the shop, thus making CCTV a detterent? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? perhaps you should tell all these shops with CCTV that they are wasting their time with it and should instead let people jus run off with their stock/personal belongings.

Finally: "From what I've read, there is no hatred directed towards you or the other employees of the shop by this campaign against surveillance"
Actually this whole article accuses the shop of racism and asks people to boycott that particular shop only. I'd say that is a pretty personal attack.


I could contest all your other comments but i'm bored. I no longer work for Thresher and neither does my manager, and by all means boycott the shop. However I posted on here because the comments made about my former manager, the "incident", and the racism of the policy were untrue. It's funny how Sin Nick believes anything written by Anti- Thresher posts, but attacks anything written supporting Threshers. That's really balanced. How many people involved with the shop or the incedent have u spoken to? How many times have you been In the shop? Are you one of those pesky underage kids who keeps getting turned away and wants his revenge??? I do believe in freedom of speech and I support activists fully when they campaign for something worthwhile and against a true threat rather than a made up one. This whole article came about because that "activist" vandalising our shop got caught and therefore went out of his way to attack the shop.
I look forward to hearing your reply!

Just a few collected concepts that I'm having a little trouble understanding;
So apparently threshers is guilty of discrimination for not allowing the social demographic of "people who's baseball caps don't detach from their heads" into the store to purchase cigarettes and alcohol. This is obviously a rare affliction hence their immense embarrassment at being asked to remove them,
Yet AT THE SAME TIME are the disgusting corporate machine that both enables and encourages alcoholism, drunkenness and all other related forms of social degradation that blight this fair isle,
Yet AT THE SAME TIME COR BLIMEY are being too hard on those poor souls who have to steal from the shop just to get by, because god only knows how they would get through life without a constant supply of tennants super and haribo, and it is of course a well known fact that it is everyones god given right to a nice cold stella at one o'clock on a tuesday afternoon, not to mention some funky tunes courtesy of the i-pod that the staff so kindly left out for them behind a locked security door,
And OF COURSE I had simply neglected to notice that as I have taken up part-time employment with said disgusting corporate machine I am automatically a corporate whore, completely incapable of independent thought and all of my defences and opinions are as dictated by the company handbook as opposed to rational judgement,

I dunno I guess I must just be stupid.
Oh excuse me one moment it looks as if this drunk man with a dirty face and no wallet wants to buy something, he seems to be wearing an awfully large coat for July, lots of padding, must have been why I saw him on the cctv unit filling his pockets with nice cold beers, obviously wants to cool himself down. Come to think of it if he knew I could see him he would be terribly embarrassed I'll have to take those cameras down an give the poor fellas some privacy to do whatever it is they do when they come into my shop. come to think of it it's obviously not my shop, it's their shop, I know we pay rent for it and hold a licence for it and lock it up at night and have the legal right to refuse entry to whomever we see fit, but what was I thinking. These licensing laws were obviously put in place to stand between the honest law breaking citizen and his got given beer.
Mind you I can't help be feel solely responsible for the terrible state of this poor guys life, apparently without knowing it I have been personally force feeding super strength cider to this man for twenty-five years, which is a little confusing seeing as I'm only twenty three but who am I to question this. I ought to be ashamed. But I guess I have a responsibility to him now.
"Can I help you sir, oh you don't want to buy anything after all. You'll just be having those beers then"
"Oh no, heaven forbid I would suggest you were going to steal them. I'm sorry have I offended you, would you like to hit me in the face? It's okay I've switched the cctv off theres no need to be shy"
"Oh please take some sweets aswell I know how much you like those"
What a nice man, I hope he enjoys all that beer and chocolate.
"oh hello mister managing director! shall I bend over now, or maybe you would like like to go into the office. That way while our attention is occupied all those poor down-and-outs can have a party at our expense"
"yes of course I realise that it would be my fault and you'd have to fire me but it has just been bought to my attention that booze and fags are a basic human right, and you might want to rethink that underage drinking policy, cus to be fair, we've probably got them all hooked already anyway."
"And I must stop keeping my valuables locked away."

(Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture, the first person to get it wins a free tube of smarties!)

1. Do you deserve the right to feel safe in your work place?

2. Do you believe that something you have worked hard to get should be given to the person who has been sat on their arse all their life? Let's say you've bought a house, someone moves in without your'e permission. Do you think it would be ok for them to do it because well they haven't had the opportunity to get that house for themselves!

3. And in relation to question 2 is it not your right to go to the police and tell them that someone has decided to claim your house for their own and get the police to remove them and make sure that they don't do the same to anyone else. This is hyperthetical please don't start going on about squatters rights that's a whole different kettle of fish.

4. What do you do for a living? I'd be very interested to know what you do, you see we all have to pay for the bills even though we don't want to but it's just part of the messed up society we live in!

Look Sin Nick I really don't understand why you insist on trying to make the people who work at Threshers look like racists and dishonest people. And no I am not a shareholder, I just happen to be someone who cares about the wellbeing of their friend. It's very simple really:

THRESHERS DON'T WANT TO GET ROBBED - I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM LOOSING PROFIT THE INSURANCE WILL COVER THAT! I CARE ABOUT MY FRIEND GETTING HURT. YES CCTV IS NOT GOING TO STOP THAT HAPPENING BUT IF AN EVENT HAPPENED TO ANY PERSON WHO WORKS IN THAT SHOP I BELIEVE THAT IT'S JUSTIFIED TO WANT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE TO BE PUT BEHIND BARS SO THEY CAN'T DO IT TO ANYONE ELSE!!! WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH WANTING TO STOP PEOPLE HURTING OTHER PEOPLE!!!

Well, well, we have some annoyed little corporate representatives here, full of self-righteousness and a hearty helping of lies. So let's respond a point at a time.

The following should be made clear:

1) the sign on the shop says no hats FULL STOP, not "customers MAY be asked to remove hats". Expecting people to use "common sense" to interpret a sign as meaning something it doesn't say is simply doublethink. "No headwear" means no old women in shawls, no police in helmets, no Sikhs in turbans - if you don't believe me then get a dictionary (or is this one of those times where "common sense" supposedly gets the better of "book learning"?). It is NOT clear from the sign as it was written at the time (it may have been revised), that the "policy" is "discretionary" or that its use in religious discrimination is not condoned. If this is now your policy, then EITHER you've done a rapid u-turn in the face of negative publicity, OR you lack the intelligence to say what you mean in the first place. Meanwhile, I'm sure your statist buddies would like it if we interpreted ALL signs as "discretionary". There are "no such-and-such" signs everywhere (no speeding, no parking, no dog poop, no smoking, no littering, no diving, etc etc)... how many of these does "common sense" tell you are "discretionary"? Perhaps your "common sense" takes the ban on physically assaulting and wrongfully imprisoning people to be discretionary? That would explain a lot.

2) the incident in question has been totally mis-described by the manager. The activist in question was not "called to to stop" but was jumped unprovoked from behind. Furthermore he did not "take a swing" at the manager - had he done so, the manager would have sustained injuries which he did not. Further, the manager did not "go inside the store to call the police" but was outside the entire time, and spent most of it physically assaulting the activist. Check the CCTV footage from inside the store and it will clearly show that the individual in question did not re-enter and then leave the store, but was outside for the entire period. (Which explains why no further action has been taken in spite of ongoing incidents of sabotage of the outside posters - the store's version of the story is full of easily falsified fabrications and store staff while pretending to be against crime, have committed assault and attempted wrongful imprisonment among other offences - and admit to having committed attempted theft of a pen).

The line taken by some of the pro-corporate propagandists, that an activist simply "got caught" for an act which they deem unethical, ignores that the activist - who was not proven to have done ANYTHING - was not simply "caught" but was VICIOUSLY ASSAULTED by a shop employee. Such is the lynch-mob mentality these people display while accusing others of criminality and hate. I put it to you that jumping someone from behind without warning, slamming them against a wall, twisting their arm and trying to drag them into a building, all the while shouting abuse and threats - which is what the store manager/staff member did in this incident - is the REAL "hate campaign" here, an act of hatred perpetrated in a spirit of aggression.

3) as for the excuses for the "policy" - if you live in a capitalist society, you're at risk of theft. This is no excuse for attacks on lifestyle freedom. "Items of sentimental value" shouldn't be brought into work and it's astounding that these kinds of items are simply sitting in the open for someone to walk in and pick up. It's sad that these things happen but we don't live in a perfect world, and if people use every little incident as a pretext for attacking basic liberties, every freedom is at its end. You have to realise that these kinds of authoritarian impositions are likely to rile people in a climate where basic liberties are under attack and the government and corporations are making repeated attempts to destroy individual freedom and track everyone wherever they go. So instead of whining that other people aren't seeing things from your (narrow, biased) perspective, why don't you take a leaf out of your own book and ask yourself what effect this sign would have on other people, how it would be interpreted, how people might react.

Granted, it used to be considered "common courtesy" to submit to all kinds of arbitrary and racist edicts. It used to be considered "common courtesy" for black people to sit at the backs of buses. Does this mean it isn't discriminatory?

"Boo" - you really think these supposed crime problems are more serious than the vital problem of defending civil liberties? This issue DOES go "beyond one off-license" - it's one small part of a struggle against the spread of lifestyle policing, CCTV and repression in everyday life. This might not seem a big deal to you, but how do you think the Chinese government get away with what they do to peasants? What is to stop the British government doing the same thing? Well I really don't want to be a VICTIM OF LOSS OF LIBERTIES again, as all of us have been over and over. Too bad if this doesn't fit your distorted priorities, if you only see danger in social outsiders and not in the creeping surveillance of our lives. The kinds of problems you list are only an epiphenomenon of poverty in any case - the real issue is fighting against poverty, not "drugs" or "prostitution" or "homelessness" (which typically means persecuting the homeless, or sex workers, or drug users).

Perhaps you also think the posters INCITING VIOLENCE AGAINST HOMELESS PEOPLE by portraying them as in league with drug dealers should have been left untouched?

And if you really want to STOP PEOPLE HURTING OTHER PEOPLE then surely you are obliged to oppose the violent police and the prison system which hurt many, many people. What about the fact that the police caused hundreds of thousands of deaths by stopping anti-war protesters from shutting down the Iraq invasion? What happens then to "stopping people hurting other people"?

Incidentally, the whole question of whether people "deserve" what they "earn" in a capitalist market is a massive and controversial one, introduced here as a distraction - but really there is very little basis for saying that people "deserve" what they "earn" for a whole range of reasons, including that the market system is discriminatory, that what count as "jobs" is determined by a greedy elite, that much of what is hoarded in the west was stolen/plundered from other parts of the world, etc. The work system is also non-sustainable - there aren't enough jobs to go round, the system isn't inventing jobs at a sufficient rate to replace the ones it is replacing, and any solution to the pressing ecological issue would further eliminate a whole swathe of unnecessary jobs. Ivan Illich once estimated that 90% of work done today is not useful at all - it is either "make-work", duplicated work, inefficient work, or is simply system-maintenance or even a way to create more work (e.g. advertising). So we need to find SOME way to redistribute to those without work - we can't go on regulating access to resources through work, the system is excluding vast swathes of people. (And if you respond that whether a person gets a job depends partly on their ability, work-rate etc., I would add that, true or false, this alters nothing - if this person gets a job because of ability or work-rate, someone else must go without one).

If there are resources which two people want, I don't think legal entitlement provides any valid basis for deciding who is in the right. I either take a conflict resolution approach (trying to find a solution tolerable for both parties), or failing that, a "side with the oppressed" approach (supporting whoever is the worse-off and thus more in need of resources). The legalistic "you have a right to what you earn" approach militates against both of these - it makes one side too certain of its entitlements and thus impedes conflict resolution, and it tends to side with the privileged both in principle and in practice. Therefore I don't take legal entitlement as any indicator of moral entitlement. To confuse the two is to worship the existing system.

It is unwise for activists to go around disclosing what (if anything) they do as a job, given the climate of witch-hunting. From the point of view of the argument, it is an irrelevant ad hominem detail in any case - a claim doesn't become any more true because it is made by a shop worker or a corporate executive or whoever (and of course, people can CLAIM to be anything they want - online and in print, it's pretty much non-verifiable). Suffice to say that there are indeed people who live outside the money system, mostly in self-sufficient squatted or other intentional communities; there are others who work in niches which put them outside of the system's mainstream, and others who try to subvert the system from within. Gone are the days when just being a "worker" qualifies you as somehow radical. (Those, incidentally, being days when workers were both a lot more militant in their protests, and less squeamish about petty workplace deviance than our Thresher representatives here).

Threshergirl, you claim a "legal right to refuse entry to whoever you see fit" - all this proves is what I've said all along, that corporations have far too much arbitrary power and the state simply acts as their excuse and cover. Imagine for instance if someone was banned from all food shops; supposing this person couldn't grow food, s/he would starve to death simply because of this corporate "right"! Do you really think this would be just?! As for "ownership" - where would you be without the general public? Don't go pretending like we're talking about a private home. Stores are a public service dressed up as a private enterprise so as to justify the operation of arbitrary power. They aren't authentically private in any meaningful sense. You invoke various legal privileges which the authoritarian state gives you. Well, how does the mere existence of these privileges at all justify them? In the face of a legal system corrupted to the point of uselessness in its abeisance to corporations, we are left with the situation where direct action and boycotts are necessary responses to corporate abuse. I say again: legal entitlement is not moral entitlement. Confusing the two is state-worship.

4) And this isn't about "protecting" staff. Staff are more likely to be assaulted while attempting to enforce the policy than because it is in presence. Imagine a guy walks in in a baseball cap, a staff member tells them to take it off, and they tell the staff member to blank off. The result could easily be a physical confrontation between the customer and the staff member, which puts the staff member at additional, avoidable risk. By confronting the customer, the staff member has induced an unnecessary confrontation which puts them at risk. (Actually a lot of staff make themselves "feel safe" by not confronting customers even in cases of known theft, because they put their own safety ahead of corporate profits).

As for the "right to feel safe" - first of all, a right is either universal or it isn't a right. I believe that in a free society everyone would feel safe; but I don't think that social conformists have any justified "right" (privilege) to feel safe at the expense of the socially excluded being made even more insecure than they already do. So at one level maybe there is such a right; but its actualisation would first of all have to start with safety for the worst-off, for the oppressed and excluded. What you're really demanding is NOT such a right - simply a PRIVILEGE for the socially included to live in a bubble insulated from the disaster of the world outside. I would also add that, as a right, it is obviously a long way behind such basic liberties as lifestyle freedom. Otherwise for instance, adherents of one religion could go around prohibiting other religions because they claim these religions make them feel "unsafe" ("we can't permit the practice of such-and-such faith, their holy book contains phrases about killing infidels, or makes us feel unsafe by telling us we'll go to hell..."). So if you don't believe that states have the right to enforce a state religion in order to defend a "right to feel safe", it is inconsistent of you to defend a right for stores to enforce lifestyle restrictions in the name of the same right.

I don't "feel safe" with CCTVs pointed on me - I don't "feel safe" knowing that stores and bosses could abrogate my lifestyle freedom whenever they feel like it - I don't "feel safe" with crackdowns and repressive laws corroding every liberty I value - I don't feel safe knowing I could starve to death because food store owners arbitrarily decide they don't like my face. So why in all your arrogance feel that your right to feel safe is more valid than mine?

Finally, I would add that anyone can "feel" unsafe because of anything - it may or may not bear any resemblance to any source of fear. OK, if someone points a gun at you, you've got every reason to feel afraid. If, on the other hand, you feel "unsafe" because someone else chooses to wear a hat, then this is simply a case of what's known in political philosophy as morality-dependent distress, or else some kind of personal dislike. They aren't really threatening your safety by wearing a hat; by penalising them, you aren't actually making yourself safer (as has been demonstrated by posters over and over); therefore, you are simply satisfying an underlying repressive principle under the cover of the idea of "safety". What if I suddenly decided that people wearing red jumpers made me feel unsafe, because (let's speculate) I'd sometime been robbed by a guy in a red jumper... do I then have a "right" according to you, to go round demanding that people take them off? Would you like to ban everything, everywhere, that even one person is afraid of? What if somebody decided they would feel "safer" by making all their customers take all their clothes off on entering the store, thus revealing any identifying tattoos and removing places where they might have concealed weapons? What if somebody decided they would feel "safer" if all the kids in baseball caps were rounded up and shot? The argument that banning headwear is justified by a "right to feel safe" would equally apply in all the cases - reductio ad absurdum.

A big problem too, is that the source of fear is itself often social - people are often afraid of what the state, the media, the bosses tell them to be afraid of - so the slogan "right to feel safe" can operate as a placeholder for what is in fact an argument for attacking who or whatever the social system chooses to demonise (because if the system demonises it, therefore people feel unsafe, therefore they have a right to be free from it). So any defensible version of such a right would have to be very specific about what counts as a threat to safety.

5) the "purpose" of CCTV is to terrorise people into submission through the threat of state violence, so the attempt to enforce vulnerability to CCTV is not ethically valid. There are many reasons, other than being a robber, why people try to avoid being caught on camera. Furthermore, it is clearly admitted that CCTV was used in the commission of the robbery - clearly showing that this dangerous technology is open to abuse by whoever has their fingers on the controls. This kind of use of CCTV in crimes (including organised robberies where people are stalked through the streets using CCTVs, instances of women being stalked, and even rapes) is extremely common, far more so than is admitted - all that's needed is for someone with insidious intentions to infiltrate the staff watching the cameras, or gain illicit access to the control room. It is astounding that people still continue to have a positive evaluation of this technology in spite of its real effects.

Deterrence has been clearly proven by a series of sociological studies to be a myth. International comparative statistics reveal that punishments have no effect on overall crime rates or if anything increase them (there's more crime in America than Britain, less in Denmark for example). Demonising certain people as possible "criminals", as "dodgy", on the other hand, HAS been clearly shown to CAUSE CRIME by reinforcing deviant identities.

And yes, CCTV wouldn't stop someone walking into your office and taking your stuff. Nor would it most likely lead to you getting your stuff back. It just helps the state catch people - which does NOTHING AT ALL to make you safer (if someone steals from you and is caught, are you any less stolen-from than if they weren't?).

Another problem here is displacement and the race to the bottom. Suppose for a moment that CCTVs and hat bans reduce "crime" in a particular store (which in this case I doubt since if the store representatives had such statistics available, they would already have produced them). This doesn't mean that there's less "crime" overall - it probably just means that the "crime" happens somewhere else. Therefore, it's a prisoner's dilemma problem - if nobody has "security measures", everyone is better off (lower cost, same distributed risk of theft, greater freedom), but one store can gain an advantage by cracking down worse than the others, and as a result, we end up with a situation where everyone is worse off. If you are "safe", it's probably at the expense of someone else. People find shoplifting harder, so more people turn to mugging or burglary instead. Or maybe they head for a store with more lenient policies - which effectively means that by cracking down, you're sending all the thieves after someone else. All of which leaves people in general no safer than before your little crackdown. Indeed, there's a huge danger that the "security measures" taken by wealthy stores will put poorer stores - who can less afford the "security measures", and can less afford the theft - out of business. And there's a danger that rich stores protecting their property means that thieves are effectively encouraged to target private homes and private individuals.

6) the person who was assaulted by shop staff has not "admitted to being a criminal" (a pointless statist label in any case), but rather, was assaulted because seen outside the store with a pen - in other words, the person carrying out the assault did not see any "offence" being "committed" but was acting on suspicion. In any case, writing slogans against repressive attacks on liberties is a necessary form of resistance - corporations have almost unlimited space to advertise their side of every story, but dissidents have to make use of whatever spaces they can - "free speech" isn't free where access to the means to speak is unequal. The criminalising of such actions is simply part of the escalating state conspiracy to smash dissent. The store was confronted by means of written discourse with a challenge to their oppressive actions (or more accurately, their declaration of intent to commit oppressive actions). They had plenty of opportunity to respond by rescinding or rewording the policy; they chose instead to respond to their critics with violence.

It should be added that similar slogans were written on threatening posters left by the council on a local park banning ball games; the council responded by withdrawing the posters and providing a detailed explanation of why they don't want people to play ball games on this particular park. Not that either poster has stopped anyone playing ball-games, but at least the statists were persuaded to be a little less arrogant in their means of expression.

6) if the store were concerned about an alleged "hate campaign" then this is based on no particular evidence - there had been no threats against staff. It is simply paranoia - an extension of the usual corporate attempt to demonise dissent. Furthermore, the store had the opportunity at any stage to rescind or reword the policy. If a policy intended to protect staff was causing them to be subject to fear because the policy was arousing anger, this proves the policy to be counterproductive and provides conclusive grounds for it to be rescinded. The fact that the store did not rescind the policy, proves that these claims of being "in fear" of a "hate campaign" are simply LIES.

Notice that the latest post from Thresher describes CALLING A POLICY RACIST and CALLING FOR A BOYCOTT as acts of "hate" and a "personal attack". Like that evil criminal Rosa Parks, going around spreading hatred against bus drivers no doubt. Or that vile hate-monger Gandhi with his anti-British boycott calls.
"Finally: "From what I've read, there is no hatred directed towards you or the other employees of the shop by this campaign against surveillance"
Actually this whole article accuses the shop of racism and asks people to boycott that particular shop only. I'd say that is a pretty personal attack."

In other words - according to these people ANY CAMPAIGN pretty much would qualify as a "hate campaign"! A boycott campaign is a hate campaign! An accusation of racism is a "personal attack"! (ever heard of the McPherson Report, ever heard of "institutional racism"?) I wonder what form "free speech" would take according to these corporate goons, if it is to involve neither non-violent direct action nor boycotts? Perhaps it is to be allowed only on what they deem to be the "real" issues?

Incidentally - how do these people who keep mentioning China, feel about the heroic resistance which is being put up by the Chinese peasantry, sometimes by means of actions such as boycotts and sit-downs which these Thresher people condemn as "hate", and sometimes even by sticks and stones (and in one case, fishing explosives)? What about the poor CCP apparatchiks who are "just doing their job", no doubt creating wage opportunities in some high-polluting sweatshop? Is it one rule for Chinese protesters and another for British? Or does the sympathy for Chinese peasants suddenly evaporate the moment they take action? Is any of this sudden concern with the Chinese masses related to the inability of western chainstores to invest unregulated in the Chinese economy? Or maybe you just want us all to bugger off to China and get shot?

While we're on the subject of Chinese communism - interesting too, that one of you arrogantly signs yourself "The People of Lenton". Just like the Chinese regime declare their decisions in the name of the People of China. A good old populist trick, known as "substitutionism" (the party=the people, the central committee = the party, the general secretary = the central committee). May I know your mandate please, Spokesperson for the People of Lenton? Or are you perhaps another populist pretender, arrogantly speaking on behalf of The People (who, in the words of Bertolt Brecht, you will have to abolish if they disagree with you, and convene a new People)?

In fact, any activists reading these responses from Thresher representatives will instantly see the repetition of the typical corporate disinfo tactic derived from animal abusers and later taken up by the likes of EDO, DSEi and Caterpillar as a means to criminalise dissent and to make acts of non-violent direct action seem somehow menacing so as to spread anti-activist propaganda and provide a pretext for state persecution. The very recurrence of this kind of disinformation is indicative that the posters here have received advice from the witch-hunters involved in demonisation of activism, on how to conduct a propaganda strategy. Accusing an activist of "hate campaigns" in Britain today is like accusing someone of being a communist in McCarthyite America or of being a Trotskyite wrecker in the USSR. Everything they say should therefore be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

7) the individual in question objected ethically to the declared policy AS IT WAS SET OUT IN A PUBLICLY DECLARED SIGN, and thus probably never entered the store. It is not normal practice for people who ethically object to the actions of a corporation, to nevertheless become customers of the corporation in order to test whether what they object to is really as bad as it sounds! Imagine if someone thought a drug was unsafe - would they then be under an obligation to take it, just to test if it really is as unsafe as it seems (then if they die, maybe they can say "told you so" from beyond the grave)? It is the obligation of the store - not its critics - to set the record straight by not displaying misleading information and by responding promptly to criticisms. Blaming critics for your own failure to say what you mean is simply passing the buck.

Also, I daresay all this, "the individual probably wasn't a customer..." bullshit comes from resentment at not being able to find this person on CCTV footage. Activists today are taking a lot of risks in a very repressive climate. How many smart activists would really go around revealing their identity to corporations before taking any action? To do so is to risk being tarred and feathered by the police state, even if this particular individual did nothing further. If someone sends a letter to the corporation querying the policy, this individual risks later being victimised for any direct action taken - even if they did nothing (see the Shac 7 case and the EDO fiasco as examples). This is the way the police state works today.

Finally, the most crucial point:

DIRECT ACTION WORKS.

The store has now effectively backtracked on the policy it had displayed in its window, declaring the policy to be "discretionary", limiting it to "face covering" headwear and explicitly excluding religious headwear from the ban - this is a SUCCESS for the boycott campaign and the previous slogan-writing campaign, as no such public statement could be located prior to the campaign - albeit a PARTIAL SUCCESS since the arbitrary deployment of the policy is still condoned. What's more, by the sounds of the latest post the individual involved in the assault has been forced to RESIGN because of it. What a remarkable success already for such a low-key campaign!

And yet there are people here who want us to believe that this whole campaign was a waste of time! Tell us why we have extracted this partial climbdown, in that case!

This whole affair - the paranoid squealing to police, hiring a spotter to look out for activists, the resort to violence to suppress slogan-writing, the hysterical defences posted here by shop representatives, the exaggerated accusations of "hate" and the smears against activists both particular and in general - shows how afraid corporations are of their arbitrary power being challenged. They are absolutely terrified of scrutiny, of the limelight being shone on them. And so, they can be defeated. It's a risky path - they hate us, they fear us, and so they project their hatred onto us, viewing us as demonic figures and lashing out like a wounded beast. But it's a path which brings social liberation. Forward - to freedom!

Am I the only one who objects to the abusive use of the term "vandal"? This was the name of an ancient Germanic tribe and its use as a term of abuse is an attack on the indigenous peoples of European antiquity. The Vandals, Huns and Visigoths legitimately rebelled against Roman despotism but whereas the Romans frequently butchered entire populations and ransacked cities, the Vandals did not cause any notable destruction during the capture of Rome. Had they done so it would only have been a repetition of what the Romans did to them. The continued use of indigenous names (also including "thug", derived from tuggee - a type of Indian tantric holy-man) as terms of abuse is part of the continuity of the imperial logic which modern European imperialism has borrowed from ancient Rome.

The correct term for property damage is sabotage (derived from throwing a sabot or shoe in industrial machinery as a form of industrial action). Not that writing on something really qualifies as sabotaging it - "redecoration" or "subvertisement" would be a more accurate term in this case. But for goodness sake refer to political sabotage as political sabotage, don't go slandering indigenous peoples with centuries-old Roman garbage.

I daresay the world would be better today if we listened more to the Vandals (and to the Papuans, Bushmen and Mayans) and less to the Romans and their imperialist ilk.

Well, I do believe I have just wasted a large proportion of my spare time reading this tripe. Here are my conclusions;

To the activist:-
I think you would find your activism bore better results if you made some effort to listen to what other people have to say and not just what goes on in your scared, warped and confused little mind. I think these people are entitled to defend themselves just as much as you are entitled to speak your mind and act against what you disagree with, and you do appear to be quite a disagreeable person. Give them a break they're just people who work in an off-licence for goodness sake, I doubt they have the knowledge or inclination to be defending themselves in a complex and radicalistic political discussion. Loading all this stuff onto a couple of till operatives is like practising copulation with your pillow, only more embarassing. An important lesson I've learnt in the past is, if you want to introduce a concept you think might be a little extreme it's best to enter into it a little more gently, I think you speak with passion about a great many ills in the world but the way you present them has served to portray yourself as extremely paranoid and possibly insane.

To the people who work at threshers(and their friends, and everyone else who disagreed with the activist and has now also become the focus of his dislike):-
Just give it a rest. The activist clearly doesn't want to listen to anything you have to say so neither trying to reason with him nor appealing to his better nature are going to work. This guy is looking to tear the world apart, and for some reason he's decided to start with a small off-licence in a suburb of Nottingham. The best thing you can do to preserve your dignity and sanity is just to leave him to it, I'm sure the boycott/activism hasn't actually made any difference to your job but for some reason you're letting it make you pop veins in your head.

Boy am I glad I'm not you, either of you. Hahaha.

Interesting doublespeak from our latest "contributor"... I'm chided for trying to argue with people who you obviously think are too stupid for political discussions (you elitist), and for supposedly not engaging in discussion at all. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'm also apparently not supposed to take on social problems because it might be too much for these poor beleaguered conformists. Or I'm just supposed to ask nicely for all the adherents of reactionary politics to stop doing nasty things. Well tell me please, when this has EVER brought liberation?

You also load your discussion with personal insults against me, and prejudices against the psychologically different. All of which reeks of an attempt to put those you deem "normal" above criticism. And you apply idiotic double standards - the advocates of conformism are to be "listened to", yet are excused any such duty to listen; I'm supposed to be oh so concerned about how what I say looks to them, yet they are to utterly disregard how what they say looks to me.

First of all, I give working-class people the credit for being able to make their own political decisions, I don't think they are somehow below political responsibility just because they happen to "work in an off-license", so I don't spare them critique in the name of the kind of sanctimonious, patronising elitism you preach. If they really don't have the political intelligence to defend what they're doing against critique, then maybe they shouldn't be doing it! Some of us actually think before we act. If the bigots and conformists fail to do so, this is no excuse - especially when they CONTINUE to act, in extremely destructive and repressive ways, in spite of what you claim is their ignorance.

Secondly, people who are perpetrating oppression have no more right to "defend themselves" by means of vigilante violence, statist persecution and witch-hunting hysteria than does a racist have a right to "defend themselves" by murdering random black people. If they don't want social struggle then they should refrain from perpetrating oppression.

Thirdly, I have certainly "listened" to what these idiots have "said" - in fact I have shown it to be a load of utter nonsense, riddled with absurd statements, oppressive implications and barely-digested concepts. For you apparently this is not "listening"... maybe you think "listening" means "agreeing with"? You are just condemning me because I disagree with this narrow-minded perspective, which for you is above criticism - apparently because its holders are "only" store staff (IF indeed they are). Congratulations - you just managed to fuse uncritical working-class populism and anti-working-class elitism in a single post.

Fuck you, and fuck your prejudice and double standards.

For gods sake, give it a rest!
Your talking a load of old shit, and have no idea of the amount of anger your causing.
If Activists writing " fuck anti hat policy" and "pro nazi" amongst other things is acceptable then fine, if continually writing this on the walls of the shop (after they had been removed) not once, but 3 times is acceptable, then fine, if the other shop keepers on the road observing this taking place and notifying the branch is daft, again, roll on, but I personally cannot understand justification of these actions repeatedly taking place. That hats policy started back in 2002 if you check your facts, it was the management your ranting about that actually removed it (true!) but re-enforced it after many incidents. If all anyones trying to do is earn a living and get by, then why make it hard for people? whats the point, one little offy in Nottingham is hardly setting the world alight, and despite your supposed awareness, this policy never offended anyone but the trouble makers, and what the hells it got to do with you when your activists never use the shop, survival for low income families may result in thieft from somewhere like tescos, fine, they can afford it, and handle the added costs of it, but how can survival depend on robbing or nicking from Threshers? it's not core lines, its booze and fags for crying out loud!
Who knows if they'll take the hat policy out (again) and who actually cares?!! if they do, it won't be through your slander on here, it'll be from new management learning the hard way, and i'm sure it'll come around again in due course.
And for the record, the former manager didn't assault your annorak wearing, dodgy looking activist, he simply tried to restrain him from writing on the walls, which he was doing at 6pm on a summer night, in front of 6 witnesses stood outside the store, not spies, or watches as you say, but customers coming out of the shop. Facts are rather useful when casting accusations on people, try getting them before making out the manager assaulted your train spotter in disguise, he was writing on there walls for the 3rd time in a month, and didn't stop when asked, he was asked to stop writing on the shop front, he didn't so was pulled from the windows to be asked why he thought he could get away with writing obscenities on the glass, to this, he grabbed the managers arms and started swearing, said it was assault and that he could prosicute, thats when the manager agreed that the ploice should be called and tried to escort the guy into the shop, where the incident alert system had already been activated, but he refused and dissapeared down the raod, after a bit more foul mouthed obsenities. This was witnessed by the 6 people who saw him writing, and by at least the same number of people walking by at the time of the incident.
Now give it a rest, whats done is done, and things move on, if you don't like there policies, don't shop there, don't go anywhere near it, but don't start an all out war, offend the hard working staff and get them rattled, there earning a living, thats not a crime, its a basic need, something which more people could do with remembering, not all of us have time to go round tormenting folk, most are too busy earning a living the hard way and paying there way!
Offended observer sick of this tripe!

I'd be interested to know where "not amused" is getting his/her version of events. Could it be that "not amused" is the same person as "Thresher" above - though with yet another changed story? Notice the subtle changes in the account, with the more absurd accusations (e.g. the activist "took a swing" at the manager) removed.

The new account, however, is equally full of holes.

1) we have an alleged 6 witnesses, none of whom have come forward here. My source reports one person other than the activist on the street at the time of the incident. This is the person the activist referred to as a "spotter", on the basis that this individual was seen loitering outside the store on several occasions and behaving suspiciously with a mobile phone. Somehow another five "witnesses" have been conjured out of thin air.

2) your euphemisms and distortions change nothing. It is alleged that the activist didn't "stop when asked" but that he later "disappeared down the road" - if it had been his intent to "disappear" then why did he wait until after the confrontation to do so? The only explanation for this is that he was not "asked" to stop but rather was physically assaulted without warning. The account provided by "Not Amused" is utterly implausible.

Since a warning would probably have sufficed to cause him to flee, the assault cannot have been for purposes of restraint but must have been intended to terrorise or to cause harm. This assault is an obvious act of vigilantism committed by an out-of-control man obsessed with social order and hateful and violent towards his critics.

Attempting to "escort" someone against their will and confine them, without making a legal arrest, is wrongful imprisonment. You have also admitted that the store manager attempted to commit this offence - which I would add, is extremely serious. If the activist had "restrained" the manager and attempted to "escort" him to some off-site location so he could be held for investigation into assault, wouldn't he now be complaining about being wrongfully detained?

As always with fanatical supporters of social order, it is one rule for them and another for the rest of us. They think their standing on the side of repression puts them above all ethics and even above their own laws. Such is the arrogance of conformism - and the danger which those who struggle for freedom heroically stand against.

3. It's clear that all you want is for the problem to go away, for the lovers of freedom to stop protesting. Well, Thresher may well have moved down the list of priorities now they've modified the policy and the critic-basher has resigned - but I'm told a number of people who previously used the store are now boycotting it because of the assault, and that subvertisement incidents have continued for some time afterwards. I still think a lot has been achieved here - a weakening of the offensive policy, not to mention the warning to all those who might follow the path of oppression in the future, or think to use violence to silence their critics. (The latest remarks by "Not amused" suggest that the store is considering rescinding the policy, but doesn't want it to look like it caved in to protest, even if this is the real reason... perhaps a reason for giving them a bit of leeway in which to do so).

There's a need to take this campaign forward, but I agree Thresher is not necessarily the best target anymore, if it has now weakened the policy to the same level as several other stores. Obviously this is not enough - the policy should go altogether, its possible deployment is potentially arbitrary and could lead to labelling and deviance amplification - but I think the urgency of the issue has declined. Granted, their supporters are doing a great job of providing reasons for targeting the store, with their constant repetition of oppressive rhetoric, pale excuses and outright (and ever-shifting) lies about what happened. But maybe it's time to move on.

So we need to look how to broaden the freedom struggle. Maybe we need some kind of "name and shame" policy, with a site listing stores with oppressive policies? We also need to find ways to bring the disillusioned youths targeted by these policies into the struggle. To create a new movement like the Panthers or Soweto, drawing not on the precariously included but on the radically excluded.

4. As for your narrow-minded idea of "acceptability" (which simply means, acting sheepishly, not offending social conformists), it is simply a prejudice.

In my view, your standard of "acceptability" is simply a prejudice. Before dismissing your opponent as "unacceptable" - which is an excuse for not listening to their perspective - try thinking about why exactly what seems "unacceptable" to you, might seem "acceptable" to someone else. Now, go do some reading on the social construction of norms, and discover how "acceptability" is subculturally and culturally variant, how insisting on a single model is nothing more than cultural imperialism, how your uncritical assumptions are products of bias, ethnocentrism and privilege. Then think about what the difference in values is between yourself and the person who doesn't share your narrow conception of "acceptability".

What I think your opponents here take as crucial is: resisting authoritarian and repressive measures IS ALWAYS JUSTIFIED. Because this is an issue with enormous stakes - nothing less than the struggle between freedom and tyranny.

I add once again, that the stakes here are enormous. If this store gets away with banning hats - what then? Imagine if all the spaces covered by CCTVs started banning headwear - shopping centres, railway stations, parks, hospitals, housing complexes, "high crime" residential areas... Before we know where we are, we're all banned from wearing hats and hoods anywhere except our own homes! And, first they come for hats and hoods - who knows what next? Implanting people with chips so they can track us everywhere? Biometric ID access? Body scans, bag searches, cavity searches? Anti-hat policies are the tip of the iceberg, the foot in the door. It's thus completely understandable that people would take action to stop the lurch towards totalitarianism.

Not that subvertising the outside of a shop is really very drastic, as action goes. Tell me please, you order-fanatics, what you make of this?

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/18/wkor18.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/01/18/ixportal.html

This incident was widely reported in the western media as the first public act of resistance against the North Korean dictatorship. Yet for you, all it is, is "unacceptable", "vandalism", "crime"! Perhaps you approve of how the Korean tyrants "restrain" and "escort" their opponents to the firing squad! Or maybe they see something different in the exact same act, because it happens faraway or it isn't THEIR authoritarianism which is criticised? Such is the double standard of those who support repression.

And stop being so self-righteous about being one of the lucky few with a job, remember that on a global scale there are way more people than jobs - with mass displacement of peasants and mechanisation, the unemployed will soon outnumber the employed. This is a fact of the economic structure - nothing at all to do with willingness to work or any other subjective factor. In any case, just being concerned with your own pocket while the world falls apart around you is hardly the dignified stance you want to pretend it is. Like it or not - activists don't bring politics to the economy from the outside - collaborating in the oppressive agenda is already "making trouble", it's already choosing a side - activists are simply responding to the provocations made by the system and its constant corrosion of freedom. And anyway, I know plenty of people who work, and still find time to do something worthwhile in the world - not just acting as full-time slaves of the bosses. Some of them organise in the workplace to defeat repressive policies. Others take action during their time off work. Being a worker doesn't necessarily mean being a "little Eichmann" as Ward Churchill so appropriately puts it - remembering that Eichmann claimed to be "only doing his job". You still have a brain, a heart, and whatever appendages you went in with. You still have the ability to take action.

Another point. The issue isn't about whether people "need" or have a right to steal from shops (although some people opposed to the hat ban have taken the position that it is justified to steal, it isn't necessary for the argument against the ban). The issue is about whether a kneejerk reaction to theft, or any other kind of social deviance, is to be allowed to excuse attacks on basic liberties and the corrosion of freedom. I have already shown in a previous post that a "right to feel safe" is either an invalid right or less important than basic liberties. Wearing a hat or hood is a harmless action. Prohibiting a harmless action because doing so makes you feel safer from a harmful one is still an attack on the liberties of the innocent.

The struggle between the excluded and the included is the decisive issue of the current conjuncture. The struggle for freedom is pressing, and the system can't keep the floodgates of revolt closed forever. Rome is falling, the barbarians are at the gates and the social crisis is just beginning.

HA HA HA Congratu-fuckin-lations as you sir have changed the world.
Move over Rosa Parks, Move over Martin Luther King Jnr., there is a new hero of the people in town. The plight of Civil Rights and Womens rights campaigners pales in comparison to this tremendous victory for the Hat Wearers Rights Movement.
However while you have passed your time scribbling rubbish on walls and then running home to wank over pictures of Karl Marx, some people actually have a job and a life. Some of us are actually grown up adults capable of understanding the way the world works and what is important. Do you have a girlfriend? I'm guessing the only action your miniscule penis has ever seen is your own hand. Do you have friends? Once again, and I'm going out on a limb here, I reckon the answer is no, well besides all your interent buddies.
Don't let me put you off your tremendously important campaign though. You have changed so much. Let's see now:
- The anti-hat policy is still in place.
- Threshers have lost no business (trust me I know, i'm a local with a good knowledge of the customer base)
-Everyone thinks your a wanker
- And you have exposed yourself not only as a liar, but also a fool.
NOW If this activist really was "assaulted" by the manager of Thresher(which I hope he was to be honest) then why did he have to lie about the racism aspect of the policy to try and get people behind his shit boycott? Find me one sikh who has been asked to remove his turban and i'll call you a liar! I'LL TELL YOU WHY:
- He was never assaulted
- he got caught out at his amateur scrawling and had a tantrum, so tried to boycott.
- HE IS A LYING SHIT-STIRRING WANKSHAFT TRYING TO INSIGHT A RACIAL BOYCOTT OVER FALSE ACCUSATIONS TO SAVE HIS OWN FACE.
being a friend of many other patrons of local shops there they have assured me that the man who was writing on our walls is a known alcoholic and a mental who bangs his head on walls and shouts insults at strangers with his bottle of white lightening in his hand. WHY IS YOUR OPINION SO TRUSTWORTHY BUT THAT OF THE THRESHER STAFF IS NOT? IF ANYTHING THEY HAVE LESS OF A REASON TO LIE THAN YOU AS YOU ARE TRYING TO RALLY PEOPLE AROUND YOUR CAUSE AND THEY ARE JUST TELLING THEIR SIDE. For example you say they had a person outside looking out for you. that girl on her mobile is my friend, and I was in the shop while she saw u. I can assure she is no plant, she just saw somebody vandalising a shop and reported them to the staff.
YOU SIR ARE A CUNT. IF YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A COMMUNIST UTOPIA THEN FUCK OFF OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. YOU WON'T BE MISSED. If i ever find out where you live i'm going to shit on your doorstep and scrawl "fuck activists" all over your house.
How's that for freedom of speech you tosspot?

It's great to see these people revealing their true faces. Character smears, hatred, defamation, swearing, moral inconsistency and a will to violence which reveals their real intent (they at the same time DENY the assault and PRAISE it - this amounting to an admission of guilt). This is the real face of social conformism - a vicious hostility to people unlike themselves; a belief that only their narrow little world of conformity and false certainties is real or valuable; a hatred of any perspective but their own and of anyone who bears such perspectives. This little hateful rant does more to prove my case than a thousand of my own posts ever could.

Only one point to clarify:

If a sign says "no headwear", logically this means "no turbans". If I was a Sikh then I would not even go in a store which had such a sign. The store staff/supporters want to make out that they said something on their sign which they didn't really mean. They want to make out that the amended version of the policy is what existed all along (though a Sikh who had never before entered the store, would have no way to know this). Of course they have a vested interest here - admitting that the original version of the policy was racist would open them to legal action, strengthen the boycott and involve losing face to activists - so whether it's true or not, they have to say this. Now, it's vaguely POSSIBLE that, unlike the remaining 99% of signs, this particular one didn't mean what it said. It is extremely unlikely - but possible. Nevertheless, it is utterly predictable and explicable that people would take what it said at face value - not at all an instance of lying, simply a basic deduction from available evidence.

I'm sure it's clear to all concerned what fools these conformists have made of themselves, how full of hatred and bigotry they are, and how little they are able to deal with criticism. Awash with outrage and fear, they lash out at anything they don't understand. All the more reason to keep up the struggle against them.

Oh do fuck off, like your any better!!! The foul language started with your anorak activist, its only tables turned.

I want to see some puns and word plays, there is plenty of scope for it here. e.g. you make three points to win an argument, That's a hatrick.

"I just want to cap this point with saying..."

"your getting ahead of yourself"

That sort of thing

"youv'e got a lot of bottle"

he he

"boycott your mum" is right you know, everybody does think that you're a twat. It's true I've asked them, They all agreed every one of them. And everybody is quite a lot of people.

Wanker, wankshaft, communist bastard, all were agreed to be thoroughly appropriate. Seriously, everyone HATES you, probably even your mum!

How fucking paranoid do you have to be to think that we're out to get you! I mean seriously. You are actually a total nut-job aren't you. Does everyone else see the huge circus of absurdity which is has just rolled into town?
I must say i missed that secret final episode of the x-files where it turned out that the whole massive government conspiracy, that spanned the entire series, was all being run from a small off-licence in Lenton.
How much do you still owe on your student load you dickscratch "activist"? Cus every penny was wasted, I fucking assure you!!!
Or are you just out on day-release and partaking in a little experimental politics before you take a short nap in a bed of your own faeces, swallowing your teeth and poking tenderly at the prolapsed rectum that inspired you to write this neverending stream of shit.

GUESS WHO'S BACK!!!!!! I am here to point out a few major contradictions made by our little activist friend.
1. He Says "Now, it's vaguely POSSIBLE that, unlike the remaining 99% of signs, this particular one didn't mean what it said. It is extremely unlikely"

So you admit you are wrong, or could be wrong, and seeing as thought you started this whole thing with your graffiti and vandalism you are saying that the whole campaign could have been based on an assumption rather than a fact. This my friend is not very clever and is why you will never succeed at anything. Perhaps you should have come into the shop and checked out the atmosphere before trying to insight hate and bad feeling.

2. U then say: "I'm sure it's clear to all concerned what fools these conformists have made of themselves, how full of hatred and bigotry they are, and how little they are able to deal with criticism. Awash with outrage and fear, they lash out at anything they don't understand. All the more reason to keep up the struggle against them."

IS it not a bit silly to call us all conformists and then say the main reason that you will carry on your campaign is cuz we have not given in and conformed to your views. This is the logic of fascist dictators. You are a bully and rather than believing in freedom of speech and choice of life you want to force everyone to conform to your ways of thinking and lifestyles. This is absolutely ridiculous and a complete contradiction.

3. Then : "Character smears, hatred, defamation, swearing, moral inconsistency and a will to violence which reveals their real intent (they at the same time DENY the assault and PRAISE it - this amounting to an admission of guilt). This is the real face of social conformism - a vicious hostility to people unlike themselves; a belief that only their narrow little world of conformity and false certainties is real or valuable; a hatred of any perspective but their own and of anyone who bears such perspectives."

Surely you started the character smear by making up accusations of racism and assualt against the staff of the shop. What is it the makes it ok for you to throw around false stories about people and to be able to say what you like but anyone that disagrees with you cannot do the same? Do you really believe in the values that you preach or is it only when it suites you and gives your pathetic little life a purpose. If you can't take aggravation and people making statements about your character (which I can find numerous witnesses to) then i suggest you stop shit stirring.

4. Finally "This little hateful rant does more to prove my case than a thousand of my own posts ever could."

I conclude - you don't have a case. You have admitted that your whole motivation was based on assumptions about how the sign is construed. You have no witnesses, no experiences to back up your argument, and therefore no case. In short you are full of shit.

Now I am a reasonable man and I suggest negotiations. If you stop your lying and shit-stirring, your boycott of the shop, and generally causing trouble I will call to a halt my boycott of your mum (which, for those who are interested, has enjoyed much success with over 5 million participants).

In all seriousness though, I think that it is great that you have strong opinions and try to express them. However I think that in this case you are wrong and have based your opinions on fiction rather than fact. Keeping these opinions to yourself would be fine, but to start a smear campaign against a shop and its staff based on lies is both unfair and unjust.That is me at my most reasonable and if you decide to take up a worthwhile pursuit then i wish you all the luck in the world with it and may participate myself. I hope that you can see some sense in this.

Check it out:

This whole thing has been blown totally out of proportion. \\i worked at the store a while back and the whole no hats policy was there because of how many times people in hats would come in and jump the counter. This happened to myself on more than one occasion and one time while i was pregnant.

Maybe this policy does offend people but believe me it only ever offended people who were up to no good during my time there.

Surely society is better off if the police are out there doinng something other than investigating thefts from a small off licence. And from experience I can tell you that i like to be able to see the people I am dealing with.

I tried to get this policy put in place in another store for a different company as i thought it was a good idea. they refused and it resulted in a guy coming in with the classic hoody/baseball cap combo and sticking a gun in a member of staffs face but nothing could be done because even though we knew who it was the camera didnt show his face.

So unless you have worked in this environment and suffered the abuse and threats and violence then dont make comments about things that you just dont understand.

An ex employee

while it does seem that activist may be over reacting to the threat that this hat ban poses, and i certainly don't think it's racist - just another thoughtless 'security' measure, i'm pretty sceptical about all of these 'employees' and 'ex-employees' of threshers that are coming out of the woodwork to rally behind their cause. are there really that many threshers employees reading indymedia? seems unlikely, especially given their politics! seems like threshers must be ringing round in order to get everyone who's ever worked for them to give support. they must be worried.

the latest ex-employee says that no hats is a security measure, to stop people being jumped at the counter. one problem is that i don't really believe that if someone's going to commit a robbery they'll be persuaded not too by someone politely asking them to remove their hat at the door. they'd probably just keep it on and rob them anyway. unless any of the many threshers employees can explain why this rule makes the shop any safer this argument should be thrown out. if it's being in the shop while a robbery is going on that you worry about, maybe an offlicence isn't the place of work for you. i know it's not easy getting a decent job but there are certain shops that are more likely to be robbed than others. i think the idea that the no hats policy has anything to do with actual security is a bit of a myth.

what i reckon the no hats thing is really about is a sense of security (not real security). it's that sense of security that a cctv provides (even though there's no evidence to suggest that it decreases crime) and that sense of security that getting someone you fear to take their hat off provides. it's all generated by this middle-class angst about working-class youths in hoodies and caps that are out to get us all. we feel better when they are de-capped at the door (why not de-louse them as well?) and better still when they are banged up 'where they belong'. but the fact is that even the most 'successful' of these kids will never get as much as companies like threshers' who are making money out of their employees labour. its the companies and the governments that are the biggest thieves but no one ever puts them under surveillance.

just a few comments to the ex-employee:
"Maybe this policy does offend people but believe me it only ever offended people who were up to no good during my time there." - how do you know? (about either statement)

"Surely society is better off if the police are out there doinng something other than investigating thefts from a small off licence." - depends what you mean. if you mean arresting protestors i don't think you'll get much support here.

"a guy coming in with the classic hoody/baseball cap combo" - so he wears a hoody and a baseball cap so he must be a thief. i wear that combination of clothes and i've never robbed threshers! out of interest, the biggest group of shoplifters are women in their 30s. just so you know...

"So unless you have worked in this environment and suffered the abuse and threats and violence then dont make comments about things that you just dont understand." - and unless you've lived in the environment of being a young working-class male who just wants to avoid getting hassled don't make comments about things you don't understand.

"- and unless you've lived in the environment of being a young working-class male who just wants to avoid getting hassled don't make comments about things you don't understand"

Really? coz when I was younger, I found that bumming around with my features concealed and looking "dodgy" aroused much more attention and hassle from the filth. I really don't believe it is for that reason that young, mainly males dress this way. When I was that age I liked to look tough, I used to hand around with my mates, ocassionally getting up to mischieve and projecting a Facade of a rebel. To be fair, I never really harmed anyone else, we just used to like getting high. But I lived in the countryside then, things feel a bit different here in the city. I was violently mugged by guys wearing hoodies and hats, but before we get carried away, I don't think that would not have happened had there been a hoodies and hats ban in place, I just think they would have done it differently, they would have come up behind me and whacked me over the head. The whole thing for me then comes down to this: The rebellious streak in Young adults being expressed, which isn't always a bad thing, the amount of violence in our culture which is a bad thing and needs to be addressed and the lack of a sense of community and kinship that arises out of living in a devisive system that favours one set of people over another, breaks us down, and instills us with fear and hatred.

I see my not feeding the trolls for awhile has done nothing to stop the vile spewing of filth, lies and authoritarian propaganda from their ill-informed, reactionary mouths.

Actually I don't think this is a "string of Thresher's employees", I think it is one individual using a string of identities. It could be a random rightist troll - nothing to do with Thresher at all - or it could be someone with a personal grudge (say the individual who committed the assault and subsequently "left" Thresher in unspecified circumstances), or it could be a corporate representative annoyed at the profile this thread has on Google and the resultant risk to profits. Whichever is the case, this person is clearly not open to being reasoned with and just keeps producing the same rants and insults across many posts and identities.

I am suspicious of the motives behind the constant posting - it is possible that they are hoping somebody incriminates her/himself or someone else, that they are baiting in the hope of provoking a legally actionable response. (Incidentally, I could also sue these "law-abiding" idiots for slander if I so wished, since they have accused me personally of actions against them when they have no evidence I am the same person who did these actions). They are constantly digging for personal details, "do you have a job", "do you have a girlfriend", "have you ever worked in a shop", "why not come in the shop" where we can film and photo you, "are you a student" etc etc... classic profiling activity. And constantly posting as if particular individual posters are the people who took direct action against the shop - hoping no doubt that someone will slip up and say something like "I did this because..". And putting out character-smears in the hopes of getting a rebuttal - like, that someone will say, "well actually, I was assaulted in such-and-such circumstances..." (then they can get police to check the incident to trace someone) or "I know the person who got assaulted and he..." [isn't a student, works with blind orphans, converted to Sikhism, has good relations with such-and-such local store, insert random detail here] and hey presto they have a bit more to build a profile on. Everyone pleasebe VERY careful - they're trying to entrap us here. In fact, a part of me says we should stop arguing with them completely - the only thing that works on these bigots is fear of action in any case; they obviously are unable to understand let alone respond to critics.

As to what passes for their "arguments".

First of all:
They have done NOTHING to address the criticisms of their dogmatic positions. Their responses concentrate only on the fact that they've been exposed as ad hominem arguers and as foul-mouthed. As if the only thing objectionable about their nonsense is the perpetual swearing and character-smears! Nothing wrong with their utter incapacity to see any issue from ANY perspective but their own narrow social-conformist standpoint! Nothing wrong with their utter failure to address the concrete objections (regarding deviance amplification and displacement for instance, or regarding the fallacy of their idea of a "right to feel safe")!

According to one of these idiots, nobody is allowed an opinion unless they've worked there... in other words, ONLY they as the poor beleaguered social-conformists are permitted an opinion, anyone else just "doesn't understand". Except of course, we understand very clearly - we understand that their viewpoint is one among many, that they don't have the monopoly on truth they'd like to claim. That this discourse - where social insiders have a monopoly on truth - is IDENTICAL to that operative in every totalitarian regime is clear for all to see.

This rebukes both the idiotic claim that they are "failing to conform" to someone else's "bullying" - in fact they are the ones bullying people by imposing dress codes and physically attacking critics - and their slandering other people as totalitarians. They seem to think they should be immune to social sanctions - even something as moderate as subvertising their posters - while everyone else is supposed to put up with being de-hatted, filmed, photographed, snooped on, brutalised and snitched to the police. Or, they object that someone other than their oh-so-precious statist buddies is actually taking action over something.

Secondly:
These people cannot amass a brain between them, let alone one each.

Take for instance:
"I tried to get this policy put in place in another store for a different company as i thought it was a good idea. they refused and it resulted in a guy coming in with the classic hoody/baseball cap combo and sticking a gun in a member of staffs face but nothing could be done because even though we knew who it was the camera didnt show his face."
Apparently a gun-wielding assailant would have taken one look at the sign, stopped and handily taken off his hood and cap. And then stopped to think, "hang on, I'd better not hold them up at gunpoint, I might be caught on camera". Yes, this really is the fantasy world these conformist bigots live in.

By the way: that whole "held up at gunpoint" thing is probably another story, but if it's true, and it happened to someone who was advocating no-hat repression, then it serves them right - they are causing the division of society into self-satisfied conformist insiders and alienated outsiders, so it's only fair that they bear the cost of this social war which they've started. So don't act like being "victimised" somehow gives you the moral high ground. The real villains here are the advocates of authoritarian measures, the people who are failing to respect basic liberties such as lifestyle freedom. The illusion that this war was started by the excluded is part of the mythology of social dominance. In fact, the real cause of the social war is social exclusion - of which these advocates of authoritarian measures are agents.

And then:
"Surely society is better off if the police are out there doinng something other than investigating thefts from a small off licence."
In which case, surely society is better off if people's faces DON'T get caught on camera, because logically, a greater detection rate will lead to more work for the police. Thus, logic simply goes out the window; we have an argument made to support a conclusion it doesn't lead to.

And:
"Maybe this policy does offend people but believe me it only ever offended people who were up to no good during my time there."
Thus completely eliding the key fact of deviance amplification (if someone is treated as a criminal, they are likely to act in ways which conform to this depiction). Thus also eliding the fact that, with the policy publicly declared, people who object would simply stop using the store, going to any of a dozen other local stores which sell similar products. Hence, the only people who would enter the store in spite of objecting to the policy would be those who wanted to take their distaste for it further than a simple boycott. Thus, the incapacity of adducing such conclusions adequately from personal experience is obvious to anyone who thinks about it - which apparently excludes our antagonists here.

Then we have:
"you are saying that the whole campaign could have been based on an assumption rather than a fact."
I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that "no headwear" means "no headwear at all", and that this includes turbans which are a form of headwear, is a justified assumption to make. If Thresher goons feel unfairly treated because of a reasonable interpretation of a clear public statement, well, it's their own fault they were misunderstood - IF they were misunderstood (remember that even if the policy is NO LONGER used in a racist way, if it WAS BEFORE, Thresher HAVE to deny it or else face dire consequences - THEY HAVE TO SAY it was never intended to mean this and was never used in this way, or they're in a thousand kinds of shit). Actually, even if the policy was never intended as racist, the sign may have been (and may still be) illegal on racism grounds because a Sikh who sees the sign could reasonably take it as meaning they weren't allowed to use the store.

Thirdly:
These people claim not to be merchants of hate and bigotry yet post entire posts with NO substantive content and they apparently seek the beating-up and deportation of anyone who doesn't conform to their repressive, totalitarian political agenda (this based on "Boycott Your Mum"'s first post).

The political line these goons adopt, to the extent that there is one, amounts solely to the following:
1) shop workers are holders of a privileged Archimedean point and any perspective other than theirs is automatically wrong;
2) social conformists (people who work, spend, live "legally"; the term of course is mine - in their own terms, these people are "workers", "law-abiding citizens", "decent people" or "ordinary people") are right whatever they do, social deviants (people who dress unusually, who break any law however unjust, or who are students or benefit claimants) are wrong whatever they do;
3) people who disagree with the way social conformists impose their values should be physically assaulted with impunity by conformists;
4) people who disagree with this dominance should be kicked out of the country;
5) social conformists have a "right to live without fear" which amounts to a right to prohibit any dress style, action, or belief they happen to have a preference against;
6) social conformists have a right to declare entire fields of political action (boycotts, subvertising) to be "unacceptable" whenever these are inconvenient for them; in contrast, their own actions are always "acceptable".

I'm sure nobody here (aside from the Thresher goons) really thinks this is a defensible political position. It is very clearly a self-serving discourse which exists for one reason only: to make a conformist, bigoted in-group even more self-satisfied in their exclusionary, repressive application of crackdowns and totalitarian measures than they already are. It is a barely-concealed excuse for social domination by people obsessed with imposing their own lifestyle and dress preferences on everyone else in order to ensure a social homogeneity, because they feel threatened by difference and freedom.

One way or another, the struggle will go on. And one day, with luck, freedom will triumph and the forces of bigotry and conformism will be crushed. Onwards to victory!

One thought I had was that this is an elaborate troll set up on both sides by some sought of trolling community (they do exist) to draw people in to a nonsensical argument, whilst talking the piss and posting it on their blog for all to laugh at.

If not then the other thought I had was that whoever started this campaign is far too confrontational, and is going to go through life alienating peole from radical thinking. e.g. you can scratch the employees of Threshers from your list.

Had I felt strongly about this I would have injected a bit of humour into the campaign, talked to the staff at Threshers about it, attemted to get them onside, talked to local comunity groups - especially Sikhs and youth groups gone back to staff at Threshers with the concerns of the comunity to attempt to get them onside again (provided the community were against the policy). Maintaining a postive relationship with the workers at Threshers.

If I have sussed an elaborate trolling, do I get a prize?

How exactly is one supposed to take a "non-confrontational" attitude to people who go around beating up their critics?

It's very clear that the Thresher goons support this oppressive policy to the hilt, and also that they are very vindictive - approaching them publicly would simply succeed in giving them names and addresses of people to persecute.

The kind of approach "Goodness" advocates, requires mediation by a lot of organisations and "communities" before anything can actually be done about oppression - in short, it ensures that nothing will ever get done, because the reformist "community leaders" will sidestep the need for action and put brakes on the movement, the oppressors will move goalposts to divide-and-rule (as they already have done) and energy is absorbed in endless rounds of fruitless attempts to mobilise passive people. All going against the sheer urgency and outrage of a situation where basic rights have been trampled on by people with no respect for others' freedom.

And well, the purpose of existence is NOT to appeal to the sensitivities of bigots or the liberal media, contrary to what some people seem to think. If the struggle for freedom is held hostage to whether this or that community group can be won over, whether this or that group of entrenched ideologues can be persuaded - the net result is to put it in the hands of the politicians and the media, which is to ensure that the struggle for freedom is lost.

The other side are confronting us with their cameras, bans and assaults; they have already cut off any chance of dialogue.

I have just moved up here to study and came accross this site and would love to know what you are on about!!!

I went past the shop in question and saw nothing about a "no hats policy" or anythng racist.

Please tell me what I am missing!!!

"I went past the shop in question and saw nothing about a "no hats policy" or anythng racist.

Please tell me what I am missing!!!"

Sounds to me like I guessed right. an elaborate troll!!!

Trolling: The art of making someone spend too much time on their computer

Indeed, the no-headwear notice has been removed from the front door. This may well mean that the policy has been repealed - a massive victory considering how small-scale the campaign has been! This should be taken as a real sign of strength for us, of what we can achieve when we keep up resistance!

The original story was posted before the summer break. I understand the store is under new management, that the manager involved in the critic-bashing incident has left, and the poster has now been removed - literally within the last week - on the heels of these changes. That's why the situation discussed here is no longer apparent.

like any of thats down to you, you complete tosser. Think that if you like, feed your ego, but i'm sure its the latest retard to run the shop who thought "oh, my first nig decision" and had an ego trip when removing it. I doubt far less that it was in any way connected to all of your mutterings, they wouldn't even know this was going on, let alone act on it because of you. Glad you managed to go to threshers and see it with your own eyes though! wonder if they removed your scrawl from the shop front as well, funny, you didnt mention that did you?!
There never was an issue, apart from in your little mind that is, but pat yourself on the back, or get your mate to sign one of your t-shirts " we won the war against the thresher biggots" i'm sure everyone will shake your hand as you walk down the road! what a clever little man you are, your mother must be so proud of you! does this mean we can all move on and you'll start waffling about some other meaningless issue now? i do hope so!, after all, its about time!
so long, farewell, you really are a tit
with your campaign, they really took a hit
shop walls covered in black pen
best wear your hat or they'll start again..
but now its time to say goodbye, goodluck
and as for this, who really gives a fuck?!!
have a nice life, use it well
your campaign was really swell!

chow for now, my little hooded nasty!

Can I be the first person to offer a straight up fight to the activists? I mean really? Please?

Im boycotting Activists boycott campaign by purposefully buying something from Threshers.

Ill be in tomorrow for some strongbow and a dairymilk.