On Friday afternoon, a group of us found ourselves standing on a public street in London surrounded by police officers and facing the immediate threat of arrest. Our crime? Attempting to buy a drink at a university-run bar while holding the wrong political opinions.
We had just wrapped up a highly successful, peaceful public assembly nearby when we walked into the UCL Students’ Union Institute Bar to unwind. Within minutes of sitting down, activist Gregory Thomas Moffitt (known online as Young Bob) was abruptly denied service and told to leave the premises. There was no disruption, no rowdiness and no violation of house rules. Instead, a Leftist student staff member had recognised him from his Right-leaning political debates on campuses and immediately flagged him.
The bar manager explicitly ordered our removal, stating that Moffitt’s conservative views on transgender issues made the staff “uncomfortable”. When Moffitt stood his ground, demanding to know what specific comments he had made to warrant an ejection and invoking his legal protections under the ECHR, the venue skipped dialogue entirely and called the police.
Earlier that week, the public watched the horrifying police bodycam footage from Southampton showing officers handcuffing a dying, bleeding 18 year-old on the pavement because his attacker weaponised a false narrative of a racist assault. In Southampton, the state’s enforcement apparatus was entirely paralysed by identity politics. Yet in London, similar accusations of discrimination, on this occasion relating to transgenderism, from student union managers to the Metropolitan Police are deployed with flawless speed and efficiency to threaten peaceful citizens over a disagreement of political views.
The police duly attended and kicked Young Bob out of the bar for his wrongthink.
This absurd confrontation was the direct postscript to an emergency public assembly we had just held at Gordon Square. I organised the gathering to challenge the institutional silence surrounding the tragic murder of student Henry Nowak.
The energy in the park was palpable. We brought together a crowd of students and non-students, creating the kind of genuine, unrestricted public square that has all but vanished from modern campus life. The debate itself was entirely civil: Young Bob and Eloise Schultz took the floor alongside attendees to debate weapon usage, self-defence laws and the collapse of the social contract.
A central focus of the afternoon was the total failure of the UK’s approach to crime and justice. When the floor opened, a consensus emerged among those present on the need for absolute deterrence. I spoke directly to the crowd about how the combination of the Henry Nowak case and the systemic horrors of the grooming gangs rape scandals had fundamentally shifted the dial, making me firmly in favour of bringing back the death penalty.
I’m not alone. A recent poll found that nearly half of students would support bringing back the death penalty. When a system refuses to protect the innocent, it loses the moral authority to coddle the guilty. The crowd’s response was resoundingly in favour.
We also tackled the absurdity of current self-defence laws. While violent criminals use loopholes to carry lethal weapons with total impunity, law-abiding citizens are left entirely defenceless. I made the case that we must legalise basic self-defence tools — starting with pepper spray — so that individuals have a fighting chance when the state fails to protect them.
The core theme of the afternoon, however, was the destructive ideology that caused this catastrophe in the first place: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI).
We discussed the staggering hypocrisy of university administrations and student bodies. When American incidents occur, campus bureaucrats rush to issue official statements, drape buildings in solidarity and enforce compliance with woke pieties. Yet, when a British student is killed on our own soil, there is absolute, deafening silence from the very institutions meant to foster debate and community safety.
DEI is not a harmless buzzword. It is an ideological framework that actively corrupts law enforcement. We discussed the damning revelations regarding the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) official guidance, which explicitly states that a commitment to racial equity “does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind'”.
When police forces openly state in their training manuals that they must treat people differently based on ethnicity to engineer specific social outcomes, the rule of law dies.
The officers in Southampton didn’t handcuff a dying boy because of a lack of training. They did it because they have been actively trained by a multi-million-pound DEI industry to fear accusations of racism more than they value operational duty and human empathy.
DEI didn’t just corrupt the system — it actively created the situation that left Henry Nowak handcuffed on the pavement.
And as we found out just an hour later at the Institute Bar, the system will use every bureaucratic and legal lever at its disposal to enforce that silence.
Samiksha Bhattacharjee is the Head of Ladies of Liberty Alliance UK, a Young Voices UK contributor and the President of the University College London Libertarian Society. You can find more of her work at Samiksha’s State of the Debate.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Why does no one know who the person making the complaint is? Who is the barman concerned? Their names, where they are from, what they do for a living if anything when not tending bar or complaining about other people and suchlike?
This is happening all the time. No one ever reports the complainers. They always get away with it with no consequences.
Students in favour of the death penalty? Then they will find a home in the Restore Britain party.
I have followed “Young Bob” for a while now. He is fearless in his encounters on campuses and takes a lot of abuse. This is one of the calmer encounters he has had to endure.
I’m looking at the behaviour of the bar staff rather than the police. It is an example of how authoritarianism becomes intrusive not from visits from police at 6am or baton charges but from being dismissed by employers, ignored by book publishers. shunned by colleagues and censored on social media, and evicted from the pub, all for simply being believed to hold the “wrong” opinions the 2000s it was academics who were sceptical of “Global Warming” who were exiled; in the early 2020s it was medics who were sceptical of the Covid Narrative that were targeted; in the late 2020s the target is those opposed to immigra6 or to the LGTBQ or the latest Trans Agenda.
The threat is not from the police offer; it is from one’s colleague. Or barman.
I was brought up in a small country pub. I’m trying to imagine how my dad, the Licensee, could have persuaded a team of Police officers to come out and confront a customer who was refused service without causing a disturbance. More importantly, my dad’s trying to explain to the Police that the pub had refused his entry because the customer didn’t believe a man could change into a woman and vice-versa. Seems a strange reason to turn away business – go woke, go broke.
What was wrong with a whistle, a truncheon and a large helmet with a brain underneath it.
No no. They take the brain out and put a nickometer in.
OK. Jim Davidson is not one of the funniest comedians.
Plucky 17 year old.
If there were more like him, woke totalitarians would pipe down.
Someone at some point will have to explain why one group of people gets to express their views as vociferously as they want any thime they want and another group don’t. Not only don’t but can be attacked by the first group at any time with impunity. And use the police as their paramilitary thugs.
In a situation like this, the duty of police is not to eject from premises but to prevent a breach of the peace.
A bar can refuse to serve whomever they choose to not serve, that is their right. However, equality laws may have something to say about it if they are refusing to serve because of certain protected characteristics.
The beef here isn’t with the police, it’s with the bar staff. The vid looks to me like the copper acted properly.
As an aside, I’m not impressed with the complainer calling himself “…an autistic 17-year old.” Utter bollocks. We all know what proper autism looks like – it looks and sounds like Rain Man. Autism these days is just a label given to people who don’t/won’t behave properly. They don’t need benefits, or a motability car, or medication. They need a bloody slap when they misbehave. They will quickly learn.
And now, sport…
Back in the day, these people would be outsiders – sitting just outside of who/what were socially acceptable. This was the instinct of the herd. That instinct was, as it turns out, spot on because if you let these people inside they will mould society into their own confused image – one of fake virtuosity, fake offence, and fake intention. I hate to say it, but pointing and laughing has a place.
Autism these days is often just a label given to people who don’t/won’t behave properly.
There are some properly autistic people (I don’t think Packham would qualify – but that’s just my opinion). There’s a young lad (about 10 yo) in the neighbourhood who (again, in my opinion) will never learn enough to live even semi-independently. He can unlock a smartphone and scroll through the pictures but he is completely non-verbal and, it seems, unable to follow even simple instructions. I don’t know if he has a diagnosis other than autism but he is genuinely disabled by whatever his problem is.
I agree. Claiming to be autistic, or ADHD, is simply playing their game. Young Bob is a perfectly capable young man, he doesn’t need a label.
There are a lot of autistic people in this country you will never see. They are the majority. They are non-verbal, with their minds locked into a brain which cannot communicate with the rest of us with words.
But they can communicate as developments in the USA have proven. Their minds are active and they are bright and thinking.
60% are non-verbal and are not in conventional education in the UK.
Seems to me like he was playing the game. He throws “autistic” in there and something Manchurian Candidate-like clicks in those little police brains that makes them take a step back and recalibrate their escalation-de-esacaltion threshold.
In any case, you go into any school these days, and 20% or more of the students have some officially certified mental affliction. And because it comes with all sorts of benefits, it’s come to be a badge of honour. Parents are well aware of the scam and they’re all trying to get their kids diagnosed with something.
That’ll go well when the grown-up kids are looking for jobs.
The majority of children with a mental health “problem”, especially if it’s anxiety, ADHD, autism etc. need to be prescribed a placebo they’re told will “cure” them in 2 months and taking it for years will stop their “problem” re-occuring.
It might cost the NHS £10-20million a year handing out tens of millions of corn starch tablets but it’ll save £billions in reduced SEND provision and ensuring young people don’t go straight from school onto long term sickness benefits.
Won’t happen. The mental health industry is a massive racket. They’d never allow it to be dismantled. Too many people benefiting from it, starting with those supposedly aflicted by it.
Anyone who has experience with people who have actual mental afflictions will know it is a living hell. Those who truly know, the last thing they want is to rush to have theirbchildren diagnosed with it.
I think there is reason to complain about the police.
They seemed quick to respond when asked to do a pub security job against those who challenge government policies and woke attitudes. When actual violence or obstruction is apparent they police refuse to act if the oppressors are left. A simple example is Nigel Farage. He has to spend a lot of money on private security because he has been repeatedly attacked, threatened and abused, yet the police refuse to provide security.
When Jews are attacked or obstructed or shouted at the police help the left.
When a peaceful demonstration was under way at The Bell Motel the police escorted leftist rent-a-mob to cause conflict.
Clearly we have a beef with the police. Oh, who was that at my door . . . .
They won’t turn up when a shoplifter is at work nor when the shoplifter is attacking shop staff.
The guy should take the university to court or whoever runs the bar or sue the barman personally – ironically under the Equality Act because of protected characteristics – philosophical beliefs which include political beliefs.
“A bar can refuse to serve whomever they choose to not serve, that is their right.”
Not entirely true. Try refusing service to someone on the basis they are Sikh or homosexual or disabled (whatever that means these days) 😉