Police arrest UK woman for "offensive" child's toy in window

I remember there being a right kerfuffle over some of Enid Blyton's work featuring "gollywogs",she was a childrens writing too i might add.
Have a look for yourself.

The three Gollywogs -1944- Enid Blyton
"Once the three bold gollywogs, Golly, Woggie, and Nigger, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn’t quite ready, so Woggie and Nigger said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woggie and Nigger, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favorite song, which, as you may guess, was Ten Little Nigger Boys"-

There is a lot of painful memories locked into symbols / gestures and words . We can`t escape history .
Though arresting the woman was certainly over the top.

Hi There,

blupblupbut:

...but people were harmed...

Please provide evidence that anyone was harmed by this. I view both the complaint and the action expected to occur as being racially-motivated, I do not view the woman whom was arrested as being remotely racist, if anything she herself was racially stigmatized by the complaint. What has this to say about the complainant?

No charges were brought to bear on the woman because there was no evidence of 'intent' to be racist to be found. With all charges dropped, the DNA and fingerprints and record should be destroyed forthwith, and if I were that woman, I would persue this through my local MP. How can one be considered a racist when such items are freely on sale? If the woman was/is racist, are we to believe that she is so by displaying a doll whose caricature has become allegedly offensive to some people? Why are certain sections of society so sensitive to create a diametric hypocrisy in society? I'd like to know something about the complainer, and the relationship with the complained. I think the issue goes deeper than what has been stated.

Well this is ridiculous - if you can legally purchase these dolls in the UK (and as far as I know you still can) then there is absolutely NO legal basis to arrest this woman.

This article from 2006 shows that this sort of thing has been raised before -

Shop Ownder vows to keep selling Golliwogs

A shop owner has pledged to continue selling toy golliwogs after three of them were seized by police investigating a complaint, it emerged today.

The dolls were removed from a window display at A&E Pettifer's store in the market town of Bromyard, Herefordshire, after a passer-by said they were offensive.

Following an investigation, West Mercia Police said it would not be pressing charges against the owner Donald Reynolds and confirmed the dolls would be returned to him.

For this woman to be arrested and have DNA taken? That's just absurd no matter how anyone spins it.

I thought it was a WOODY WOODPECKER...but seriously, looking at those dolls posted, it was a great era (from the movies i've seen) with Al Jolsen all painted up, that was what sold in those days. Just Americana.

The voodoo doll, well, still that shouldnt upset anyone.

Now the comic posted could be and is racist- still, there is no justifying calling the cops. Just crazy.

I know the EU and UK have some strange laws regarding nazi and hate speech, but this seems a bit much.

If I follow the arguement in this situation, as long as it was "offensive" to someone (or the faceless majority?) it is OK that the mother was arrested? If this is the general consensus then I think the UK has gone mad.

The direction this type of thought leads to is totalitarian police state regimes.

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

The same could be said for anything with that logic?

"maybe she wasn't really offended"...

"Maybe i didn't really steal the aftershave, i just really needed it and didnt wanna pay?"

"maybe racism is misunderstood"

Yes, the offended neighbour is just a nuisance and is clearly making the whole thing up....how dare somebody be offended by offensive racist crap like golliwogs.... what is happening to this great nation of ours....?

we should display our gollies and old-time memorabilia and tin-tin jungle story books...for they are not offensive.... merely misunderstood classics of a time when people knew no better..

But WE DO know better now huh....?

Edit to add:
I'm done because this is actually pointless.... you don't think it's racist....i do, we're never going to agree and i cannot debate a subject like this and do it without saying something i may regret.... well i can, but not right now.

Thanks, Blup

[edit on 20-9-2008 by blupblup]

You probably won't read this, but I'm posting more for the record. I'm actually making two separate points. The first, was about the gollytoy itself. The second, which, for some reason you seem to think is actually related to the first - and it's not - is the idea that you're assuming the woman with the doll is 'a nuisance neighbour', when in fact you don't really know whether this is the case at all. It's just an assumption on your part. You're trying to tie in a string of accusations - and so far not actually been able to say what these prior incidents were.

If you ignore the actual gollytoy incident and look at it objectively the story takes on a different light. After a series of incidents - which we don't actually know too much other than she wasn't charged and therefore innocent - the woman was accused and arrest on suspicion of a crime. However, when the incident was investigated, again, the police had nothing to actual charge her with an she was released.

Now, to me, if the woman with a doll was actually guilty, and there's plenty of things she could be 'done' with through being an allegedly racist nuisance neighbour, she would have been done. Yet she hasn't.

So, after the first accusation was made and she was found not guilty of anything, another accusation was made, then another and so on. All I've been trying to show, with the evidence shown so far, is that that it can equally likely that ssomeone else is the nuisance neighbour here and wants to see the woman in trouble. That's separate from the 'are gollies racist?' angle.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by Merriman Weir]

That's it! Americans, if you've purchased those little indian figurines I see being sold at nearly every gas station beside the freeway in South Dakota, I'm calling the police! I've had it with your racism!


For the life of me, I really hope us Americans can get a grip on the PC Police before it gets as bad as Britain's. If people keep trying to erase history because some self-loathing insecure idiot is offended, we are all going to lose ourselves. Individuality will be dead.

.....Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to reading my Walt Disney 1932 MICKEY MOUSE ANNUAL right after I put my kids to bed (They just LOVE that lullaby "Ten Little Indians"!)

1932 MICKEY MOUSE ANNUAL

The problem with this case is that we do not know enough about the history. Until we do we can not say for sure whether there was or was not any racial intent.

Another point to make is that just because the item is freely available to purchase does not make it immune from abuse. You can freely buy a gun in Amercia but it is not legal to shoot passers-by. Likewise, if you purchased this item to offend passers-by then you could be committing a public order offense.

There are laws in the UK that cover public offense. I can freely purchase a tee from an online store with a vulgar word on it. It is legal to do so. However, as soon as I walk down the street and someone makes a complaint to the police, I will be asked to remove it/turn it inside out. If I do not comply then I can expect to be arrested on a public order offense.

What is interesting in this case is that any passer-by/local resident/neighbour may have asked the person to remove the item because it caused offence. If this was the case then the owner clearly did not comply. This being the case, we need to ask ourselves whether or not this was because the owner actually intended to cause offense.

Finally, the owner was not dragged from her bed at 4am by armed police. She was not tasered. She was not set upon by police dogs. She was not beaten by police and she was not tortured during interview. (at least I hope not!)

She was called to the police station and did so of her own accord. When a person is arrested in this way they are not normally handcuffed. They are placed in a holding cell or interview room.

Insofar as the item being offensive, well that all comes down to the opinion of the person being offended. I do find the history of the item somewhat old-fashioned and dated and I can fully understand why someone would be offended by it.

Any person is fully entitled to feel offended and can expect the full protection fo the law when making a complaint. A courtesy which may also have been afforded to the offender in this case as the case was taken no further. This is probably the result of the offended receiving an apology and the offender confirming that they understand how the item can cause offense and will be more sensitve to others in the future.

A very british storm in a very british teacup.

[edit on 21/9/2008 by skibtz]

Society is nothing without the "Freedom to be Offended".

I am offended by many things, from the way our Government lies to the population for self gain, to the way our economy is run by dullards who believe that they can actually control it, to the corruption of our youth by falling standards of social behaviour to the selling out of European heritage and culture for the benefit of Governmental politics rather than the people.

I live with it. Why? Because society is just about free enough for me to stand up and complain if I want to. For how much longer is another question.

Better that the police took action after a complaint was made than on their own volition or as the product of a Governmental directive. Whether the correct procedures regarding DNA retention were adhered to is of course another topic.

However, DNA is just one thing in the list of data elements that our Government sees fit to be retained by the Police - make no mistake - the Police do this at the behest of the Government for if it were any other way it would not happen.

reply to post by SugarCube


The whole debate over the capturing of DNA et al is moot really.

The fact is that, in the UK at least, your blood sample is taken within the first 12 weeks of being born.

Arguing the case for civil liberties when police perform DNA testing at arrest is nothing less than waste of time and probably a good argument to be kept going if you are TPTB.

That way all of the focus is on removing a standard police action and ignoring the real issue of exposing and destroying illegal databases that have been built using the blood samples taken from new-born babies.

They already have us folks!

[edit on 21/9/2008 by skibtz]

reply to post by skibtz


They may have "you", they don't have "me"... DNA research was just a dream (if that) when I was born and I last saw a doctor some 20 years ago and even then it was just to get a referral to a physio. My blood has remained firmly in the big bag of skin that I inhabit; excepting occasional garden accidents and the odd shaving cut.

This is one of the stupidest things in the history of the world.

I really have only one question and that is

Do they know how much racism they Cause when they make you conform to racial laws and objectives?

Or is that really the reason they are doing it to make us hate each other?

I just can't tell...

If behind this there is ultimate stupidity

or really smart evil geniuses that want chaos

Originally posted by bloodcircle
Well this is ridiculous - if you can legally purchase these dolls in the UK (and as far as I know you still can) then there is absolutely NO legal basis to arrest this woman.

My local post office has a large display of collectable 'Golly' figurines on open display.

We're obviously more enlightened in this part of the country

Originally posted by skibtz
What is interesting in this case is that any passer-by/local resident/neighbour may have asked the person to remove the item because it caused offence. If this was the case then the owner clearly did not comply.

The article did not say that. The article clearly says the toy was in the window for a short time one day after her daughter placed it there. The woman saw the toy and removed it, and later that night the police came.

Now if you are going to assume she did something MORE than what the story (or the police) stated, then while we are busy assuming things (or making things up, whichever term you prefer) we could assume that the neighbor filed the complaint because the neighbor hates indigenious, white Brits, and seeks to harrass them via police complaints.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by Sonya610]

reply to post by SugarCube




You are probably right. I am not sure when the process of taking bloods from new-borns/infants was introduced.

What is important is that screening is currently compulsory and has been for over 40 years (I think it was the late-mid '60's but will try and find out for sure) and is only avoidable in certain cicumstances (religious beliefs etc.).

The not-as-young folk are pretty much off of any potential DNA database radar as are those of a particular religious persuasion and those not born and registered as the law requires.

I suppose one reason why the cops are taking DNA samples could be to fill in the gaps!

Originally posted by skibtz
What is important is that screening is currently compulsory and has been for over 40 years (I think it was the late-mid '60's but will try and find out for sure) and is only avoidable in certain cicumstances (religious beliefs etc.).

I think the dna database thing is a bit creepy, however realistically it probably mostly affects stupid criminals.

Contrary to popular belief, dna is usually not present at crime scenes, at least not detectable by current methods. I think it is primarily psychological, people THINK it is easily detectable and they are worried about it. Even rape victims often do not carry any dna evidence from their attackers.

For some unknown reason the British government seems to be waging a cultural war on the indeginous people of Britian and it seems to be primarily psychological in nature. The Brits need to wake up. Collecting DNA is only a small part of it.



[edit on 21-9-2008 by Sonya610]

I thought those dolls were banned in the 80's then when I went to the British coast this summer they were all over, as prizes in those grabbing machine things.

My friend had to remove an England flag from her window during the last world cup as the police said it 'could' stir up racial tension.

I do find it sad that our country has come to this.

reply to post by Sonya610


You may want to go back and see my use of the word "may" in your quote of mine.

And while you are there you may want to check my opening which clearly states my position due to the lack of information.

Originally posted by Omniscient1
My friend had to remove an England flag from her window during the last world cup as the police said it 'could' stir up racial tension.

Instead of finding it sad there needs to be a grass roots effort to ascert the rights and heritage of the British people.

Instead of being shamed by the "powers that be" start plastering your cars with British flag stickers, be British and be proud. Don't let them make you ashamed of your culture or your people (that is EXACTLY what they are trying to do, and their efforts are working).

reply to post by Sonya610


You are right. Having seem some of the police videos posting on here the UK police, while not as dangerous with their guns and tasers as their US counterparts (yet!), they are totally lethal with their lack of intelligence and thorough lack of understanding when it comes to the law.

Any DNA database could be used for a number of reasons and I think that crime resolution is probably not one of them. As you say, criminals are caught through a variety of techniques and evidence.