It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman WeirWoah! Where are these jew dolls that alleged racists apparently give to their children to affectionately play with or see in the same paradigm as their other toys? I've never said they exist! That they don't is part of the point I'm making.


Sorry. Confused.I thought you raised the whole Nazi/Jewish element. If you weren't comparing like for like then what were you doing?


I've never said that 'jew toys = bad / black toys = good' or even suggested it! ...Nazis used propaganda to create hate figures. Manufacturers manage to sell gollys because people actually like them. Unless, of course, you are under some bizarre delusion that people buy these toys in order to mistreat them, burn them or hold mock lynchings.


Seeing as you brought the Nazi/Jewish element into the equation then let's address it.

I see no difference between the two. You seem to think that it is ok to defend the Jews from the abuse by the Nazis but you stop at defending black people from the golliwog (not golly or gollitoy).


Again, where's this coming from? So a doll, bought then given to someone else reinforces the idea that black people were also bought and owned?


You imply that toys are harmless. I am saying that they can be useful tools of manipulation and programming.


I'd better throw out my collection of blues, jazz and ska records then - just in case someone thinks I'm reenforcing the idea of 'black people as commodity'. I know, I'll boycott products with black people on them or in them! Hmm, haven't I seen this before? Didn't this happen in America because of a racist ideology?


I am not sure how you got from toys that reinforce stereotypes to a record collection.


Do you think that "programming a child's mind with ideas and thinking patterns" only works in a negative way and only reinforces slavery?


Insofar as a golliwog, I do not see the positive attributes. So yes would be my first response.


If you're referring to the points you're trying to make about Jewish people compared to blacks; see above regarding your point about Jewish dolls - of which I don't think I've actually seen.


Hey. You brought Nazi/Jew to the table not me.

I dont see why the golliwog should be let off the hook while the Nazis are (rightly) reprimanded.


Someone, after a string of other allegations that weren't upheld and the accused not actually charged, claimed to be offended. All we know is that the person claimed to be offended (and, unless you're a mind-reader/remote-viewer combo, you can't say for certain either - you simply don't know) and when the police looked into the matter, the woman with the doll wasn't charged with anything.


The other party WAS, not claimed to be, offended.

As I stated in my first post, we know very little about the history or the actual event to make any definite decision.


What Jewish items? I'm not describing any Jewish items! You were the one that seemed to pluck 'Jewish dolls' out of the air! The only mention I made was of Nazi Jewish stereotypes, which usually took the form of illustrations. I'm not aware of the Nazis making Jew dolls for children, and, given their sickening racist ideology, I'm not sure that they'd have want to.


Well that is good to hear.

Seriously, after reading your post, (rather poorly it turns out), I honestly thought that there were jewish dolls out there! I do apologise for that rather poor mix up.


[edit on 21/9/2008 by skibtz]




posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Im sorry but if i want to own a gollywog i will if i want to use the N-word i will
and no chip wielding or goody goody person will stop me, just because people cant get over what happened in the past doesn't mean we should carry on trying not offend them, it seems any innocent thing can be turned into a racial slur

yes the UK traded in slaves treating humans as a commodity and yes the USA used them same people to do work for nothing more than leaky roof over there head with very little food, and treated as less than human BUT it happened in the past, when i look at a black person i see a person with a different skin tone than mine that's it that is the only difference same as when i look at any other person from any other race.

My point is people should just get on with there lives and ignore any ignorant scum bag that uses race as a way to upset them, after all that said and done its just words, its totally different if there's actual bodily arm inflicted then that scum bag deserves punishing.

You see this doll was in the window just sat there so whats the problem its not as if the woman was outside waving it over her head screaming racial slurs.

another point is, when the argument about guns is brought up and how they kill, the argument back is the gun doesn't kill the person its the idiot behind holding it.. owning a gollywog means nothing and people shouldn t get all upset over it, but if its then picked up and used in conjunction with racism well then its another mater.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir I assumed, wrongly as it turns out, that the word 'gollywog' might have been under a censor blanket so I didn't even bother typing the word out.


Erm. Yeah. Ok.


You really are misunderstanding the point I made. The confusion I referred to lies in the common misunderstanding that the gollies in the book are direct analogues of black people, that they are direct representations of black people. When, in fact, there were actually black children in some of Enid Blyton's books. Blyton's gollies were, first and foremost, dolls.


It's not me you have to convince mate.


Are you trying to make out that I'm racist or something and are so desperate to do so that you're either mistakenly or wilfully misreading my posts? I really hope that's not the case.


Not trying to do anything except expose the golliwog as a racist symbol.

You are defending them so please do not feign distress when you are challenged.


Now, God forbid, there was a spate of racist attacks in your home town and the racists called them themselves the 'Smurf Krew' and left calling cards like some of the football 'firms' have done (or still do) with Smurfs on them, what would that mean? That Smurfs have inherently racist properties?


And here lies your problem.

Smurfs are not based upon an actual race. Golliwogs are.

Tell me this: do you think that the Swaztika should be banned and if not would you wear a tshirt with it on or stick a Swaztika in your window?



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by u4ria
Im sorry but if i want to own a gollywog i will if i want to use the N-word i will and no chip wielding or goody goody person will stop me


And that is it right there.

You can do what you want. You can say what you want.

You can also expect the law to stop you should the need arise.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
And that is it right there.

You can do what you want. You can say what you want.

You can also expect the law to stop you should the need arise.


and if i do use a racial slur and get arrested and punished i 100% agree with the out come, but im not racist and would never use a racial slur, if i was to use the N-word it would be for a valid reason with no racist intent.

when i was a child the gollywog was still being used on jam pots and i never made the connection between the gollywog and black person because i was brought up by my parents who where not racist and taught me right from wrong, i only made the connection when i was older and knew being racist was not to be tolerated and was disgusting and ignorant and not acceptable.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by u4ria]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by u4ria
 




And rightly so.

In some circles the use of the n-word is accepted and, indeed, encouraged. Personally I hate the word.

Respecting, and being sensitive to, other peoples feelings and needs is a basic human right IMO.

[edit on 21/9/2008 by skibtz]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


There is nothing wrong with black dolls, nobody is saying that.
there is a problem with golliwogs, a big RACIST problem.


This first doll is fine as are any like it... it's when you start with big lips, big eyes...

Or hook noses or bomb turbans or whatever....then it becomes racist.

DO YOU SEE NOW??













See the similarities between the jim crow stuff and the golly??
Big lips, big white eyes....??

Racist crap!!



[edit on 9/21/2008 by blupblup]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
Sorry. Confused.I thought you raised the whole Nazi/Jewish element. If you weren't comparing like for like then what were you doing?


I've gone over this several times now; racial stereotypes, intent and how they are perceived. The Nazis produced negative propaganda to make people hate Jews. Gollys are generally loved by the people that own them. People who own or buy them, love gollies. They don't see them as bad, evil &c, and if there's a direct connection to be made between gollies and black people then surely these positive aspects also extend to black people : that people who own gollies don't see black people as bad, evil &c in the way that racists would .


Seeing as you brought the Nazi/Jewish element into the equation then let's address it. I see no difference between the two. You seem to think that it is ok to defend the Jews from the abuse by the Nazis but you stop at defending black people from the golliwog (not golly or gollitoy).


No offence, but you no very little about me. You don't actually know whether I've not defended black people elsewhere (you appear to be talking absolutes here) - or any other racial demographic. All I've tried to do is illustrate that stereotypes can be used for both hateful and non-hateful means, I've certainly not defended one group and not another.

I live very close to Robertson's; this merchandise to me, and many other people, are generally known as gollies. Yes, it's short for gollywog , I'm not trying to deny that as I've already explained. What point are you trying to make with this?


You imply that toys are harmless. I am saying that they can be useful tools of manipulation and programming.


I don't actually think that toys are harmless. I have an issue with a lot of toys. I don't like toys that encourage kids to be materialistic or to think war and violence are good things. I'm not particularly keen on gender stereotype or the 'sexualisation' of dolls. Yet, as strange as it may seem in light of your earlier comments, I accept that my own views aren't necessarily that of other peoples and acquiesce.


I am not sure how you got from toys that reinforce stereotypes to a record collection.


You were the one that framed the point with 'black people as commodity' when you claimed that a (black) doll when bought and sold re-enforces connotations of slavery. Record collections are representations of commodity. You'll notice that, at best, a doll is only a representation too. Unless, of course, you think under the fabric there is actually a black child.


Insofar as a golliwog, I do not see the positive attributes. So yes would be my first response.


Do you not accept that they are thought affectionately of, in completely non-racist ways though? If so, surely that's positive?


Hey. You brought Nazi/Jew to the table not me.


Yes, but not in the way you were thinking as you've already explained.


The other party WAS, not claimed to be, offended. As I stated in my first post, we know very little about the history or the actual event to make any definite decision.


Yet you seem certain that the person who claimed to be was offended. They might have been but after a string of complaints about the doll owner that lead to no charges , to be honest, I'm a bit suspicious. I only brought the point up that we don't actually know to counterpoint the proffered idea the doll owner was a nuisance neighbour. It seems to me that by making serial complaints that lead nowhere , the other person is more likely to be one.


Well that is good to hear. Seriously. I honestly thought that there were jewish dolls out there! I do apologise for that rather poor assumption.


No problem. And seriously , I'm not the racist that at times I've been worried that you're trying to paint



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I think this story has been mis-reported, or at the least had certain facts omitted, for media impact.

First, DNA. If you're arrested in the UK, you will have your DNA and fingerprints, as well as your photo taken. If you are charged, they will be kept on record, if you are not then they will be destroyed. If you don't believe the Police will destroy it, you can make them under the Data Protection Act.

Second, the women was asked to attend the Police station allegedly after a "series of complaints", so the Police were obliged to investigate those complaints, whether truthful or not (how do they know if they are truthful without investigation?).

The women was "arrested" so that the Police could caution her, advise her of her rights and allow her to give her side of the story on record. She would then have been de-arrested once all was said and done.

She was under no obligation to attend the Police Station and probably knew full well what would happen when she got there. She could have point blank refused and the Police would then have to either attend to arrest her or drop the investigation.

Personally, I would have told them to kiss my white hairy arse and if they wanted me, to come and get me. It is your right. But I suspect that, like most people in this country, she doesn't have a clue about her rights but will happily harp on about having them "breached" even though she allowed them to be.

A warrant would have to have been issued for her arrest, which given the nature of the allegations known probably wouldn't have been granted, so the case would have been dropped, hence the Police getting the lady to "volunteer" herself gets around this little inconvenience. Had she actually used her noggin and played them by the system, this whole incident wouldn't have happened.

The Golly itself isn't illegal and never will be. It was discussed by the Government a while back but they decided against it. But if someone makes a complaint the Police are obliged to investigate it.

If it is found the allegation is false, the accuser faces the Police's wrath, or if there is insufficient evidence the case will be dropped, but there MUST always be an investigation.

Bottom line, the women arrested was stupid for playing along.

The police spoke to her initially at the time of complaint in the evening and did nothing. The fact they rang her up to "bring her in" shows they knew they wouldn't get a warrant but decided to go fishing and lo and behold, she took the bait, allowing them to question her under caution without the bothersome process of having judicial oversight.

Her accuser obviously has little in the way of evidence either and is obivously one of these people who would be offended at their own reflection.

As for the Yanks coming on here and casting opinions about the UK, Police State and all that nonsense, shut up. None of you know what you are talking about, clearly, and seem to basing alot of misconceptions about the Uk off half-baked media reports, hear-say and anecdotal evidence.

It's not our rights that have been eroded, they CANNOT be eroded by Parliament. English Common Law is above Statutary Law and always supercedes it. No Act of parliament can erode your rights under English Common Law.

It's the peoples own intelligence and awareness that has been eroded, making them believe that they must comply, when quite often you can stick it to the man if you know what your rights actually are.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 

i looked at the pictures and i see the glollywog has big curly hair and big white eyes and i see the same with the image below BUT is it not true that when you see a person with very deep black pigment you notice the eyes and lips stand out more ?

That's not racism its because the deep pigmentation makes them stand out more. i could be really picky and say the first doll is racist because of the thick golden chain around the dolls neck holding the dress up is making an empathise on how black people like to wear lots of big pieces of jewelry(bling) so by your way of thinking matching the gollywog and Jim crow stuff is exactly the same

[edit on 21-9-2008 by u4ria]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by u4ria
 



Yes clearly you get it


As you said, you can say what you like and don't think it's racist, so i'm not really that bothered thanks.

I'm saving my responses for those who wish to indulge in a debate, not a ridiculous "well you say this, i say that" slanging match.



Try these links and see if you "get it"

www.ferris.edu...

www.ferris.edu...



www.ferris.edu...



[edit on 9/21/2008 by blupblup]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman WeirDo you not accept that they are thought affectionately of, in completely non-racist ways though? If so, surely that's positive?


That's a good point.

There will always be an innocent attraction but should we not be educating children as to the history of such things?


Yet you seem certain that the person who claimed to be was offended.


The person who made the complaint obviously knew about the controversy of the gollywog.

Whether or not the resulting feelings of offense were genuine we will probably never know.

But that still does not detract from the fact that the gollywog is deemed a racist symbol by most people in the UK.



No problem. And seriously , I'm not the racist that at times I've been worried that you're trying to paint


Cool and apologies again. Racism is a sensitive subject with a conversation that gets a little twisted and misunderstood at times. Im glad I now understand where you are coming from.


[edit on 21/9/2008 by skibtz]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by u4riai looked at the pictures and i see the glollywog has big curly hair and big white eyes and i see the same with the image below BUT is it not true that when you see a person with very deep black pigment you notice the eyes and lips stand out more ?


wtf?

Are you joking?



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 



I would avoid if i were you, It will be difficult to keep this civil if we engage this person.....



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by u4ria
 



I'm saving my responses for those who wish to indulge in a debate, not a ridiculous "well you say this, i say that" slanging match.
[edit on 9/21/2008 by blupblup]


im sorry but i don't do slanging matches either

and as for


I would avoid if i were you, It will be difficult to keep this civil if we engage this person.....


why would it not be civil don't make out as if im here to cause trouble because im not, im just putting my thoughts forward.

and skibtz what are you getting at ?



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Interesting side note: Creedence Clearwater Revival before they made it big were called the Golliwogs..



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by u4ria
 




Did you read or view the links i gave you?

Do you understand that what you're saying is racist?

If not, then there is no point.... if you are not intentionally being ignorant or racist, then you are either naive or deeply out of touch with reality.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by u4ria
...skibtz what are you getting at ?


Let's see:


is it not true that when you see a person with very deep black pigment you notice the eyes and lips stand out more?


Eyes and lips that 'stand out more' are not physical traits that are exclusive to people with 'deep black pigment'!

Do you see what I am getting at yet?

[edit on 21/9/2008 by skibtz]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
you misunderstand me im not on about the physical shape and size of eye's and lips, what i mean is black people who's pigmentation is very deep black there's eye's and lips stand out a lot more because of the contrast in color. and how the guy behind the design may not have been racist but picked up on this.

as for the traits not being exclusive to one race yes i know this, i have a friend who has tight curly hair that some black people have and its a standing joke between him and another of my friends who is black and the joke is about how there brothers but he was born albino.

as for being naive or out of touch with reality, because i say something that some one else as deemed being racist ?

this is what happens when you talk about racism, its like a hall of mirror's things can reflect back at you distorted and twisted!



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
In my opinion, the Gollywog dolls are a piece of history that should change as the world around us is changing as well. I know perfectly well that these dolls are a caricature of black people. Yet I have never met a "black" person who is really black. The skin colors, facial structures, hair styles, eye colors, they all come in all possible flavors that are programmed to our genes. Yet the blood in our veins is always red, bright red.

One politically correct way to handle this issue would have been for the company manufacturing the Gollywog dolls to start manufacturing other dolls that have certain aspects of of other "races" as well. Why couldn't there be similar dolls that have whitish pink, brown, red, yellow skin (yes, I know native Americans are not red and Asians are not yellow), and with different hair styles, body shapes and eye colors as well. That would give some perspective to the fact that not all people are alike, but all living in the same world. And we're all caricatures of ourselves, whether we want it or not.

The solution is not to make laws that make people criminals just by possessing something that was perfectly acceptable just a few years back, especially if the interpretation and enforcement of these laws depends much of the person doing the dirty work, i.e. the police officers and those sitting in courtrooms.

The solution is somewhere much deeper. You all know where it is.




top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join