История
26 окт. 2026 г.
Right-wing says Wetherspoons treated remembrance poppies as political
Reports from Gosport sparked criticism after veterans and other customers said they were denied entry while wearing poppies. Wetherspoons said it has no such ban and that temporary security measures followed local demonstrations.
A confrontation outside a Wetherspoons in Gosport has turned into a dispute over whether a standard security response unfairly singled out people wearing remembrance poppies.
Video described by right-wing campaigners showed a doorman at The Star telling a customer: “You can't come in with a poppy I'm afraid. It's political.” The customer was reportedly told he could enter only if the poppy was removed and kept out of sight. Reform UK councillor Joe Standen called the episode “shameful,” saying veterans and those who served should not be made to feel their sacrifice must be hidden.1
The criticism was amplified online. Tommy Robinson asked why the Gosport pub was “denying entry to those wearing poppies in respect to our war heroes,” reflecting the view among critics that the restriction amounted to disrespect for remembrance.
2
A separate report said staff described the measure as a “blanket ban” on items that could be perceived as political. George Madgwick, a Reform UK councillor, said the group involved had been campaigning but displayed no visible party branding. That account placed the incident on a day when about 400 people took part in an anti-migrant protest nearby, alongside a counter-protest; Hampshire Police said the events passed without arrests.3
Wetherspoons rejected the suggestion that it bars poppies. The company said it has long supported the Royal British Legion’s Poppy Appeal and sells poppies in its pubs, including The Star. It said “there is no ban on poppies,” but that standard security measures were in place because of demonstrations in the town and some people, including poppy wearers, were not admitted. The pub later closed to all customers on police advice, the company said.1
The competing accounts therefore differ on motive: critics portray the decision as a political misclassification of a remembrance symbol, while the chain presents it as a temporary, broader response to a volatile local situation.