Latest news with #BenWoods
Times
22-05-2025
- Business
- Times
£130m plans to restore Crystal Palace to its former glory — revealed
Plans for the £130million redevelopment of the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace have been unveiled, with the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, aiming to bring Diamond League athletics and other big events to the historic venue from 2028. As The Times highlighted in 2023, a facility that was opened in 1964 had fallen into a depressing state of disrepair for more than a decade, with the main swimming and diving pools closed and the athletics stadium in dire need of refurbishment. Khan appointed Ben Woods as project manager later that year, with the architect now enlisting the services of a contractor to modernise the centre with a stunning 'once-in-a-generation' restoration plan. The Times can exclusively reveal the images and a video of how
Glasgow Times
26-04-2025
- Sport
- Glasgow Times
Walsall's promotion hopes hit by narrow defeat to Accrington
Ben Woods scored the only goal of the game with a stunning 33rd-minute volley from the edge of the penalty area to secure League Two safety for the visitors. Taylor Allen and Albert Adomah hit the post for Walsall, who are winless in 13, during the first 15 minutes and George Hall also planted a header wide. Accrington defender Devon Matthews sent a fierce volley wide of the target and Tommy Simkin produced an excellent finger tip save to keep out Liam Coyle from distance after the break. Walsall wing-back Connor Barrett was shown a straight red card for a high challenge on Coyle just moments after coming on as a substitute. Doncaster beat Bradford 2-1 and Port Vale won 2-0 at AFC Wimbledon to secure promotion to League One in the early kick-offs. Bradford remain in the final automatic promotion spot, leading Walsall by a single point.
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The treatment of Charlie Mullins proves that there's no free speech if you're Right-wing
Should people be penalised for supposedly harming an institution's reputation? How, exactly, is that harm to be measured? Does it only count if it brings an institution into disrepute in the eyes of right-thinking people? Two people this week have run afoul of this standard. One is Charlie Mullins, the founder of Pimlico Plumbers, who got away with a warning. The other, Ben Woods, who ran the wine counter at the Henley branch of Waitrose, was not so lucky. He was fired yesterday after working there for 25 years. The difficulty with applying this rule is that, because it's so subjective – what counts as 'harm'? – the investigators' political bias inevitably intrudes, with the threshold of what constitutes 'gross misconduct' rising or falling according to whether the social media posts in question – and it nearly always is social media posts – express robust Right-wing or robust Left-wing views. If you doubt this, ask yourself whether Charlie Mullins would have received a letter from the honours forfeiture committee informing him it was minded to rescind his OBE if he had criticised Boris Johnson rather than Sadiq Khan. Would Ben Woods have lost his job if, instead of posting supposedly offensive memes about Muslims, he had done so about Christians? At the Free Speech Union, the organisation I founded five years ago, we've fought over 3,500 cases – people who've found themselves in trouble for exercising their right to lawful free speech. Not all of them have been placed under investigation – or fired – for dissenting from radical progressive orthodoxy. We've defended a handful of people for their outspoken defence of the Palestinian cause since October 7. But it's not an exaggeration to say that 95 per cent of them have got into trouble for saying something coded as 'Right-wing', including feminists who believe in the biological reality of sex, who make up about 40 per cent of our case load. In the metropolitan echo chambers where these investigations into reputational harm take place – with KCs often being pressed into service – the same double standards apply as they do in our criminal justice system. Post something criticising the Rwanda policy or Big Oil or Nigel Farage, and you'll suffer no penalty, however many people complain. Criticise illegal immigration or net zero or Jess Phillips, and you're for the high jump, even if just one person complains. Indeed, one complaint from a woke activist is often all it takes. 'See,' the equity, diversity and inclusion officer will say. 'What this person said has lowered our reputation in the eyes of this complainant. We have no choice but to launch a six-month investigation.' In one recent FSU case, a man lost his job at Severn Trent water company after describing Hamas as 'violent and disgusting'. Had he said the same about the IDF, I believe he may still have his job. This punishment of people with unfashionable opinions is particularly egregious when it comes to the honours system, since honours flow from the monarch who is supposed to stand above partisan politics. The investigation of Charlie Mullins sends a message to all the other MBEs, CBEs, OBEs, Sirs, Dames and Peers out there – express an unequivocally Right-wing view on social media and your honour may be taken away. In the birthplace of parliamentary democracy, a nation that prides itself on inventing free speech, this is not how it should be. If anyone has brought the honours system into disrepute it is not Charlie Mullins. It is the forfeiture committee. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The treatment of Charlie Mullins proves that there's no free speech if you're Right-wing
Should people be penalised for supposedly harming an institution's reputation? How, exactly, is that harm to be measured? Does it only count if it brings an institution into disrepute in the eyes of right-thinking people? Two people this week have run afoul of this standard. One is Charlie Mullins, the founder of Pimlico Plumbers, who got away with a warning. The other, Ben Woods, who ran the wine counter at the Henley branch of Waitrose, was not so lucky. He was fired yesterday after working there for 25 years. The difficulty with applying this rule is that, because it's so subjective – what counts as 'harm'? – the investigators' political bias inevitably intrudes, with the threshold of what constitutes 'gross misconduct' rising or falling according to whether the social media posts in question – and it nearly always is social media posts – express robust Right-wing or robust Left-wing views. If you doubt this, ask yourself whether Charlie Mullins would have received a letter from the honours forfeiture committee informing him it was minded to rescind his OBE if he had criticised Boris Johnson rather than Sadiq Khan. Would Ben Woods have lost his job if, instead of posting supposedly offensive memes about Muslims, he had done so about Christians? At the Free Speech Union, the organisation I founded five years ago, we've fought over 3,500 cases – people who've found themselves in trouble for exercising their right to lawful free speech. Not all of them have been placed under investigation – or fired – for dissenting from radical progressive orthodoxy. We've defended a handful of people for their outspoken defence of the Palestinian cause since October 7. But it's not an exaggeration to say that 95 per cent of them have got into trouble for saying something coded as 'Right-wing', including feminists who believe in the biological reality of sex, who make up about 40 per cent of our case load. In the metropolitan echo chambers where these investigations into reputational harm take place – with KCs often being pressed into service – the same double standards apply as they do in our criminal justice system. Post something criticising the Rwanda policy or Big Oil or Nigel Farage, and you'll suffer no penalty, however many people complain. Criticise illegal immigration or net zero or Jess Phillips, and you're for the high jump, even if just one person complains. Indeed, one complaint from a woke activist is often all it takes. 'See,' the equity, diversity and inclusion officer will say. 'What this person said has lowered our reputation in the eyes of this complainant. We have no choice but to launch a six-month investigation.' In one recent FSU case, a man lost his job at Severn Trent water company after describing Hamas as 'violent and disgusting'. Had he said the same about the IDF, I believe he may still have his job. This punishment of people with unfashionable opinions is particularly egregious when it comes to the honours system, since honours flow from the monarch who is supposed to stand above partisan politics. The investigation of Charlie Mullins sends a message to all the other MBEs, CBEs, OBEs, Sirs, Dames and Peers out there – express an unequivocally Right-wing view on social media and your honour may be taken away. In the birthplace of parliamentary democracy, a nation that prides itself on inventing free speech, this is not how it should be. If anyone has brought the honours system into disrepute it is not Charlie Mullins. It is the forfeiture committee.
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Waitrose wine expert claims he was suspended for sharing Telegraph cartoon
A Waitrose supermarket worker claims to have been suspended for sharing Right-wing political views on X, including a Telegraph cartoon. Ben Woods, from Henley-on-Thames in Buckinghamshire, said he is facing disciplinary proceedings over around 30 posts on the social media site. He said these included a repost of a Matt cartoon, and another post where he asked 'If a referendum was held tomorrow, would you vote to close the borders?' Mr Woods claimed he is being subjected to an internal investigation and disciplinary process and has been 'sold out' by his employer. He claimed that Waitrose had searched his posts on X, formerly known as Twitter, for 'any they feel are suspicious, which in reality means anything that doesn't [fit] the woke orthodoxy'. The worker, who is employed on the Henley store's wine counter and describes himself online as 'anti left and anti woke', said in a blog post: 'I believe to try to appease the left wing mob, Waitrose have investigated my X timeline in order to find any they feel are suspicious... 'They have even accused me of having the smell of alcohol on my breath, without thinking that I work on the wine tasting counter. They say they never knowingly undersell, but I believe they have sold me out. 'Waitrose want to discipline me for around 30 tweets, which I believe are simply an expression of my conservative, patriotic values. For example, one of my tweets is a Telegraph cartoon, in which a teacher at parent's evening says that 'your son is falling behind in Sex Education. He could only name 47 of the 100 different genders'.' Mr Woods made the claims on a fundraising page, where he is seeking thousands of pounds for legal fees. He said the supermarket took action after one of his posts – where he suggested that the King should dissolve Parliament and order a new general election – was promoted by Elon Musk. His other posts include a message of support for the far-Right activist Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who was jailed in October after admitting to 10 breaches of a High Court injunction that barred him from repeating libellous allegations against a Syrian refugee. Mr Woods did not immediately respond to requests for further comment. The Free Speech Union claimed there was a wider crackdown by employers on staff expressing opinions. It said: 'The Free Speech Union has been supporting Ben to date throughout this process. He is one of 260 ordinary people we're assisting right now who are being punished for their opinions. 'We've seen a spate of supermarket workers being investigated and penalised for their entirely lawful beliefs in the last few months alone. Supermarkets have no business snooping on the lawful political views of their employees.' Waitrose declined to comment on the specifics of the case. A spokesman said: 'We would never discuss individuals so I'm afraid no further comments will be made.' The supermarket is understood to have detailed people policies which are in place to safeguard the welfare of all its workers. In the UK, employment laws protect workers from being unfairly dismissed for expressing political opinion. John Lewis, the owner of Waitrose, laid out its social media policy in previous tribunal documents. It said any worker who identifies themselves as one of its employees must not post anything which can be considered 'bullying, harassing, or discriminatory towards any individual or group of individuals'. It is not the first time that the partnership has been struck by controversy over its political positions. Last year, it faced a backlash for publishing a staff magazine which advises parents on how to find breast binders for trans children. The controversy is the latest in a series of cases where individuals have claimed they are facing action in their workplace for expressing views. Earlier this year, The Telegraph revealed that a housing officer was sacked for being a Reform UK candidate and reposting a Matt cartoon from The Telegraph. According to legal filings, bosses cited the links to Reform and the reposting of a Telegraph cartoon as grounds for his unsuitability for the £37,000 a year job. In the case, which remains ongoing, Hightown Housing Association denied that Mr Poursaeedi was sacked for his political views but has admitted his position with Reform was not compatible with 'a customer-facing role'. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
