Woman in Union Flag dress turned away from Wetherspoons over 'tensions' concerns
A woman donning a Union Flag dress was refused entry to a Wetherspoons pub amid a anti-illegal immigration protest in Nottinghamshire.
Tanya Ostolski, 54, walked through the throng of protesters saying she had been denied service at her local pub, The Picture House in Sutton-in-Ashfield. A spokesperson for Wetherspoon confirmed that the pub 's manager had requested patrons not to enter with flags or placards, stating it was "important not to increase tensions". The move sparked outrage among some of the protesters, who confronted the bouncers when they were denied access to their local on Friday night, July 25.
After approximately two hours of protesting around the town centre from about 4.30pm, the crowds reconvened where they started, just 50 metres away from the pub. By around 7pm, most people had left the area near the venue. Tanya says she was initially turned away because she had a St George's cross flag, but even after stowing it in her bag, she was still not allowed in, reports Nottinghamshire Live.
She said: "I go in there all the time and they refused entry. They didn't let me in with my flag (separate from the dress), the flag is the English flag, so why shouldn't I be allowed to have an English flag? It's our flag, it's our nation's flag. I wasn't being aggressive or anything I didn't get lairy or anything. I put the flag back in my bag, and they said I can't come in because of my dress.
"They kept refusing me. I'm probably going to get barred now. They just said Tanya, you're not coming in. I feel absolutely disgusted, why should I be refused entry for wearing a dress or a flag?".
Spoons ' "no-flags" policy is widely recognised. The chain faced criticism during the 2018 World Cup when its numerous outlets were told not to display England flags bearing the St George's Cross, or any other nation's colours, throughout the tournament. Rather than flags, the pubs were adorned with bunting representing all 32 participating countries.
But during the men's Euro 2024 championship, the well-known pub chain overturned its rule against displaying England flags at its chains for this summer's European tournament. Last June, Wetherspoon confirmed that individual pubs could choose to show flags if they wished to mark the sporting occasion.
Addressing today's incident in Sutton-in-Ashfield, Wetherspoons spokesperson Eddie Gershon said: "Pub managers have a duty under the licensing laws, and as a matter of common sense, to judge every situation on its particular circumstances. In this case, the pub manager felt that it was important not to increase tensions. Therefore, on this occasion the manager asked customers not to enter with flags or any placards."
The incident occurred during an anti-immigration demonstration in Sutton-in-Ashfield. Furious protesters assembled in the town following social media posts by MP Lee Anderson.
Following the posts on Mr Anderson's X and Facebook pages, protesters were prompted to assemble in the town centre. A counter-protest was also organised. The mood in the town was extremely tense as people chanted "stop the boats".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Letters: What Trump has got right
Trumped up charges Sir: I am a huge admirer of Max Hastings, whose contribution to our knowledge and understanding of global conflict is unparalleled. However, his passionate condemnation of Donald Trump is typical of the one-eyed liberal Weltanschauung that will continue to drive people both here and further afield into the arms of populist administrations ('The indignity of Trump', 2 August). Yes, Trump is horribly flawed, personally, politically and economically. However, he was democratically elected by voters who felt ignored and let down by the ruling liberal elite. For balance, we might remember that he is delivering upon his manifesto promises, unlike our government: illegal immigrants are being removed wholesale; the global economy is being rebalanced to fairer levels; stock markets are at or near record highs, the left-wing mainstream media is being reined in; huge government waste is being slashed; virtue-signalling chat-show hosts are being cancelled; and Canada is being targeted largely because it has failed to halt the flow of deadly fentanyl across the border. I have been in the States a lot recently and, far from it having become 'an uglier place', it still seems full of polite, respectful, energetic and optimistic go-getters. If only our limp, directionless government listened and delivered to such a degree, we might regain some of our national pride and positivity. David Edwards Norton-sub-Hamdon, Somerset Business experience Sir: It was interesting to read about Varun Chandra, the most important business adviser to Sir Keir Starmer ('Starmer's business whisperer', 2 August). He clearly has huge charm and a sound networking skill set, but disappointingly it appears he too has never actually run a business. If he had, surely he would have advised the PM before the last Budget that SMEs, the heartbeat of the economy, are particularly susceptible to economic shockwaves. The sudden and unexpected significant increase in business taxes last October in a fragile economy can perhaps be viewed as the Starmer government's biggest mistake so far, underpinning many of the economic woes that we all face. The latest Institute of Directors business survey indicates that business confidence is on the floor and, with the Employment Rights Bill yet to have an impact and with another Budget fast approaching, surely the PM and the Chancellor must ensure they have sound advice from someone who has actually run a business, before policy is announced? Networking ability has its place, but the government and the UK cannot afford any more economic missteps. Andrew Haynes London SW6 Bestselling smut Sir: As an English teacher, I have followed the decline in undergraduate English literature enrolment in recent years with dismay. It is unsurprising, though, when my pupils' idea of literature consists of bestselling smut ('Losing the plot', 2 August). I imagine university modules covering the satirical genius of Eliot or Austen seem unappealing to prospective students who are hooked on grotesquely eroticised Narnia. In the classroom, out of desperation, I am often tempted to endorse the fifth 'right' in Daniel Pennac's creed: 'to read anything'. However, Lara Brown is right to label romantasy as 'literature taken to its lowest form'. I ought to condemn rather than condone recommendations of Cloisters of Carnality or Lust in His Lair. Sam Finniear Guildford, Surrey Christian England Sir: Mary Wakefield's brilliant article last week was sincere and heartwarming, and I hope that Danny Kruger's address in the Commons is seen by Conservatives countrywide ('The prophet Daniel', 2 August). Christianity has defined the spiritual life, identity and culture of England. It retains all that is good, worthwhile and honourable. Alan M. Varley Crowborough, East Sussex God's wonderful railways Sir: The priestly blessing of a signal box described by Matthew Parris ('A glimpse of the essence of Englishness', 2 August) illustrates the long affinity between the Church of England and the nation's railways. This is exemplified in the career of Eric Treacy, Bishop of Wakefield from 1968 to 1976 and for more than 40 years one of Britain's leading photographers of steam locomotives. He is famous particularly for his stirring studies of Sir William Stanier's streamlined Pacifics as they emerged in the 1930s. He died of a heart attack in May 1978 on Appleby station while awaiting the arrival of Evening Star, the last steam engine built for British Railways. A plaque pays tribute to a 'railway photographer, pastor to railwaymen, lover of life and railways'. Christopher Gray Oxford Birder he wrote Sir: Birding and bird-watching are different activities (Real Life, 26 July). Bird-watching is passive and is about enjoying birds wherever they may show up. Birding is active and involves going out to look for them, particularly the less-often-seen ones. The next step on this path is 'twitching', where a tick for one's life-list might involve frantic effort and expense. Bird-watchers might enjoy the sights and sounds of birds in their gardens or local park; birders make specific trips to special sites carrying expensive optics. Far from being a lefty invention, 'birding' is the preferred term of the more dedicated, optically endowed and knowledgeable individuals, to distinguish themselves both from the everyday punters and the demented twitchers. Martin Skinner Tunbridge Wells, Kent Write to us letters@
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Mossad's secret allies in Operation Wrath of God
More than half a century ago Palestinian terrorists stormed the 1972 Munich Olympics, murdering two of the Israeli team and taking another nine hostage. The West German authorities, ill-equipped to deal with such incidents, agreed to fly the terrorists and their hostages to Egypt. Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, offered to mount a rescue operation. The Germans launched their own, resulting in the deaths of a police officer, four of the seven terrorists and all the hostages. One consequence was the Israeli government's Operation Wrath of God, a programme to assassinate any leaders or planners associated with the massacre. Ten missions were organised in Europe, each signed off by the Israeli prime minister Golda Meir on condition that no innocent bystanders were killed. There have been several books about the operation and a 2005 film by Steven Spielberg. Aviva Guttmann's account does not merely rehearse the stories, though each operation is outlined. Rather, she shows how the security services of European nations cooperated in identifying, monitoring and investigating international terrorists in general and how this aided Mossad in its pursuit of vengeance. Cooperation was via the Club de Berne, an intelligence exchange between eight countries founded in 1969 in response to the growth of international terrorism. Soon expanded to include other countries, among them Israel, it handled communications via encrypted telegrams (which Guttmann calls cables) using the code word Kilowatt. Guttmann found these communications in publicly available Swiss archives. She analyses each assassination, showing how the exchange of Kilowatt information helped Mossad identify and locate their targets, how the various security services learned about terrorist tactics, such as the recruitment or duping of young European women, and how hitherto unknown plots to murder or hijack were prevented. The first assassination was only a month after Munich. Wael Zwaiter, a young Palestinian translator in Rome, returned to his flat to find two men on the stairway leading to his apartment. They shot him 11 times, a bullet for each Munich victim. Journalistic opinion at the time and since concluded that Mossad got the wrong man – a bit-part player at best. But the Kilowatt telegrams show that he had an important logistical role. One operation that Mossad very definitely got wrong was in the small Norwegian town of Lillehammer in 1973 when they shot an innocent Moroccan waiter alongside his seven-months pregnant wife. Not only that, but the assassins were caught. Contributing factors to this debacle were an inexperienced, hurriedly assembled team and insufficient research – the poor man was confused with a real terrorist solely on photographic resemblance. Mossad teams generally comprised about 15 people – two to do the killing, two to guard them, two to organise cover and facilities, six to eight to research the target's routines and movements and two to communicate both within the team and back to Israel. Guttmann's principal concern – oft-repeated – is that European security services 'played a vital role in the organisation and execution of Operation Wrath of God'. The extent to which they did so knowingly is not always clear, although they could not have failed to know after Lillehammer. There is no doubt, though, that the information they exchanged with Israel (including their own investigations into Mossad killings) facilitated assassinations within their own borders. 'One would simply not expect Europeans to help kill Palestinians… Governments… failed in their duty to keep safe all citizens,' Guttmann notes. Her disapproval is evident throughout, though not explicitly stated or argued. This is a pity because the opposite case – whether it can be justifiable to murder those seeking to murder you – is nowadays too prevalent to be dismissed without argument. We witness its effects daily on our screens. She concedes, however, that all participants benefitted from the exchange and that Israel was itself a significant contributor. But in claiming that the various agencies 'did not need to respect the same normative considerations as official foreign policy lines' she implies that they acted independently or against their own governments' policies. On this side of the Channel at least, actions by the intelligence agencies, including exchanges with liaison services, require government approval. MI5 does not simply do what it likes. It is not the case that relying on 'foreign intelligence shows… weakness and dependency', as Guttmann says of Mossad. Nor are attributing information to 'friendly services within the region', or claiming a source has 'direct access', forms of boasting; they and other formulae are necessary and conventional guides to assessing reports. She is on firmer ground in questioning the effectiveness of targeted killings, as assassinations are now often called. In the short term they can be highly disruptive and satisfy an understandable thirst for revenge; but in the longer term leaders may be succeeded by those with renewed determination and security. Half a century on, the causes that prompted Wrath of God are with us still.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Haircuts are a human right!
During the immigration deluge in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it seems one Afghan and one Indian national who threw themselves on the mercy of much-besieged Ireland got lost in the shuffle. Fobbed off with €25 vouchers, they were obliged to sometimes sleep rough for two months, without access to food and hygiene and exposed to hardship and fear. They've sued the Irish state. Knowing Irish NGOs, I bet they got help. The government has argued that the pressures on Ireland's hospitality at the time were severe enough to qualify as a force majeure. Their reception centres were full to bursting and there was no room at the inn (and haven't we heard that before). The Irish High Court sought a ruling from the European Court of Justice. Last Friday, the ECJ determined that being overwhelmed and full up did not reprieve the state from its obligations under the EU Reception Conditions Directive to provide all asylum seekers with, among other things, housing, food, clothing and education for minors. Therefore, having been cheated of such provisions, the petitioners are likely due compensation. Why, those 71 days of Down and Out in Dublin could really pay off. So no matter how limitless an inundation of indigent foreigners and how finite their own resources, European states literally owe nationals from all over the world a living. Because housing is a 'human right'. (Certainly it's a human right according to the New York Democratic mayoral nominee, Zohran Mamdani, who hopes to extend the city's hitherto ruinously universal 'right to shelter'.) Food is a 'human right'. Healthcare is a 'human right' (often extending to sex-change operations). The umbrella of 'human rights' does nothing but expand and now protects not merely citizens but anyone from anywhere who rocks up on your patch. Imagine, then, that you were born in a rural area of an African country whose political rhetoric isn't so loftily supranational. If you don't scratch a few mouthfuls from your parched smallholding, you don't eat. Your 'accommodation' wouldn't naturally command such a grand label: a grass-roofed hut with a mud floor. Inside you cook on an open fire, the smoke from which is ravaging your lungs. Second-rate healthcare may be available only after a long, expensive journey. Education for your children requires school fees you may not be able to afford. Anyone in such circumstances who hears tell of a place where all these basic needs are 'human rights' even for foreigners and doesn't hightail it to such a Valhalla would have to be stupid, lazy or crazy. Brits shouldn't feel smug about no longer being required to follow the likes of the EU Reception Conditions Directive (yet; give our friend Sir Keir a bit more time), because in the UK asylum seekers are due not just free room and board, but often luxury hotel digs – with four-poster beds, video games and all-you-can-eat buffets – as well as group outings to the circus and safari parks. For British asylum seekers, even Netflix and Disney+ are 'human rights'. Funnily enough, Whitehall doesn't consider such subscriptions human rights for its own citizenry, some of whom, astonishingly, have to pay for them. This human rights business is a bigger issue than its influence on immigration. Is it really the case that the world, or at least your government, owes you a living from the off? At this point, too, maybe we should be asking what's not a human right. In fact, many folks seriously argue that access to the smartphones and the internet is now a human right. Well, we all grow hair. So shouldn't haircuts be a human right? Electricity, clean running water and indoor plumbing? If so, why should anyone pay utility bills? In both British and American cities, the effective decriminalisation of shoplifting – which progressives justify as the poor's response to 'inequality' – means just about any off-the-shelf good is a human right. Razor blades. Turtlenecks. Mayonnaise. A human right is anything you happen to need. Bloated welfare rolls suggest that opting for benefits in Britain has become a lifestyle choice. Taking advantage of a host of programmes, Americans, too, can amass more in state support than the average wage. But isn't that nice? Haven't we created a better world, in which everything is free and work is elective? That way you only take a job if it's fun. Alas, gifting sweeping human rights to some people takes other people's human rights away. Requiring the state to provide all-comers with housing, food, clothing, healthcare and, yeah, maybe even haircuts implicitly demands that the state requisition these resources from the few suckers who still work for a living. The suckers are punished twice: they provide their own basic needs – even their own safari park tickets! – and then they provide the basic needs of everyone else. Eventually the smarter dray horses will stop hauling the cart and jump in the hay wagon, too. The western welfare state disables the survival instinct – or at least reroutes it from foraging in the forest to foraging on governmental websites. State dependents apply all the cunning, ingenuity and resourcefulness they might otherwise have employed to keep body and soul together in a more Darwinian social landscape to filling out forms, researching on TikTok what phrases to use in Zoom interviews with bureaucrats and maximising motability schemes. This is where I'm supposed to add: 'Of course, advanced societies shouldn't let people starve!' But maybe this ostensibly unquestionable precept has sown the seeds of our destruction. A handful of genuinely hungry people could be usefully cautionary. Western refusal to house, feed and clothe every newcomer might encourage more would-be immigrants to make a go of things where they are. And without handouts, you can bet most of those anxious and depressed young people currently swelling the disability rolls would figure out how to obtain a sandwich before they fainted from malnutrition.
