RayC

Agreed a rise in interest rates from the previous very low levels are not necessarily a bad thing but the scale of speed of the rises has been the problem. Average mortgage interest rates in November 21 were 3.59%. They are now 7.41% with another increase likely this week. It seems inappropriate to criticise people as lacking common sense for not planning a rise of over 100% in their mortgage rates over a period of 18 months.

Unfortunately judging by some of the comments on this site some people disagree with you (and me).

New King? I think that you are missing the point! If those grievances had substance there would be a mechanism to remove the incumbent, unlike the current situation.

I won't but many others braver than me would. With any luck Thailand might get a more progressive government shortly. Although that will, of course, depend whether the anti-democratic monarchists permit them to take office.

How do you know what he mentioned when interviewed by the BBC? The story is about his wrongful arrest. No doubt the BBC edited the full conversation. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people, who have followed this story, know what cause Mr. Smith is promoting.

That really is a matter of opinion. Republic's reasoning looks broadly rational to me. https://www.republic.org.uk/an_elected_head_of_state While UKIP's policies and rationale might have been clear, I'll state the blindingly obvious and say that their premise that we would be better off out of the EU has yet to be proven. (That is being extremely generous. There is almost no evidence to suggest that premise will be proven correct).

Probably a few more after Saturday's great publicity. Might even join myself! UKIP's peak membership was only 36k, so hope springs, etc

There aren't and I didn't suggest that there were. What I said was that the law on protesting have been tightened. Public protest is one way of expressing oneself freely and these new laws curb that ability. Why is that a problem? If the disturbance is serious enough then the police can act They were protesting and they were breaking existing laws. The former committed criminal damage and the latter were obstructing the highway. The existing laws allowed the police to arrest them which is what happened. For the obvious reason that it would get greater coverage. 80,000 members is a sizeable number for a pressure group. If the same number of protesters turned up in Trafalgar Square today as were present on Saturday, do you really think that there would be the same news coverage? Imo it might get a mention in the footnotes of the local London news bulletins.

Of course the protesters were attention seekers. It would be a waste of time protesting if no one understood what you were protesting about! What Police action(s) do you support? The wrongful application of the law?

Thanks for proving my point. Despite your attempt to trivialise matters there are serious issues here. As this incident highlights, the new laws give the police greater power to curb the ability of individuals to protest. I don't imagine you see a problem with that but those who value free speech do.

As usual you make no attempt to address the issue; just the usual retort that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your narrow-minded, insular, know-your-place version of the UK is anti-British. Sad.

BBC News - Coronation: Met expresses 'regret' over arresting six anti-monarchy protesters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65527007

Yes it would. It would also coincidentally prove that your "uncertainty" that the UK monarch was 'above the law' was unfounded. As I say, no doubt, purely coincidental.

No need to go to the trouble of searching for it yourself. Confirmation can be found in the link which I posted earlier????

That is certainly not proven. Would tourists cease to go to (former) UK palaces if the Monarchy was abolished? The number of tourists visiting the châteaus of France suggests otherwise. A brand is an intangible asset and is only worth what a buyer is willing to pay for it. The 'Woolworths' brand name was probably worth millions in its' heyday. There is nothing in this link that suggests that the institution of the Monarchy itself is responsible for this income. No doubt it would require some detailed planning but why should it be very expensive? A number of Carribbean states seem to have managed the transition to a republic successfully and without breaking the bank.

I'm a quick learner.

Nothing to indicate that he plans to do so, so rest easy. Btw: Do you now agree that the UK Monarch is above the law?

If Charles were to be clocked driving at 120mph he could not be prosecuted. Unless the law is changed, he could carry on driving at 120mph each and every day until he tires of the pursuit. I'd say that pretty much puts him above the law and means that he isn't accountable.

The UK monarch is not meant to be political so what are these duties that us non-Royals are genetically unable to perform? The ceremonial opening of schools/ fetes/ etc? Call me arrogant but I am confident in my ability to put on a suit, say a few words of greeting, act civilly towards strangers and cut a ribbon. Where do I apply for the job of King?

"That's the whole point. Monarchs aren't elected. By and large, they are above the law and are pretty much unaccountable." Where in this paragraph do I say that Charles has broken any laws? To reinforce my point that should he do so he could not be prosecuted: https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/queen/is-it-true-that-the-queen-is-above-the-law-142670/?cn-reloaded=1

That's the whole point. Monarchs aren't elected. By and large, they are above the law and are pretty much unaccountable. Usually we can't get rid of them unless there is an armed uprising. I'm British so I (largely) limit my comments on this forum to articles about the UK but if I were Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian, etc I doubt that my views on the Monarchy would be any different. I don't understand how you can reach that conclusion. I want an elected HoS but I don't crave a Putin. It's extremely debatable whether Putin was elected by means of a fair and free election but, playing Devil's Advocate and assuming that he was, the natural conclusion of your line of argument is that to avoid the possibility of a Putin type figure being elected into a position of power in the UK, we should do away with elections. That can only mean that we live under a dictatorship. Maybe s/he would be benevolent but I wouldn't bet my house on it.

So you support the arrest of individuals who are trying to keep women safe late at night? Hopefully, no women were assaulted in Westminster on Friday night/ early Saturday morning but, never mind eh? It's their own fault; shouldn't be out after dark. The main thing is that you got to enjoy the Coronation in blissful peace and tranquility. (In case anyone is in any doubt, my 2nd paragraph contains sarcasm although, obviously, I hope that no women were assaulted).

Or by way of a democratic election.

I must admit that there were more protesters than I thought. Seems like the republican movement is stronger than I thought. It's always a sign that someone has no rational argument to support their case when they resort to the pathetic 'anti- Brit' slur. Just because my vision of the UK doesn't contain doffing my cap and paying homage to 'my betters' - because of their birthright - it doesn't mean that I am anti-British.

What's the point of a protest if there is no one there to hear your message?