Charles is King of 15 countries - but for how much longer?

[transam]

12 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

They disrupted nothing.

So why did the police have to attend......?

 

Anti-Brits strike again.....

[onthedarkside]

Troll post with image removed

[transam]

11 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Devices? What specific devices were found? Conspiracy to cause a nuisance? How is that defined?

How embarrassing for a protester? How embarrassing for anyone who holds a UK passport.

I don't think so..................????

[transam]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

But we are talking about the right to freedom of speech being removed by a right wing government and being enacted upon by a disgraced and untrusted police force.

And a left wing government would have done things differently, you really are having a laugh........????

 

Oh, did you like the Scots marching, splendid show wasn't it, I bet you went all proud and gooooooy.....????

 

Here's a nice view for you....

 

[transam]

10 hours ago, RayC said:

A handful of protesters among thousands of people who have an opposing view. Yep, a real threat to the rule of law. In any event, (1) they were removed (perhaps for their own safety) (2) it doesn't explain why protesters were arrested at the location where it was agreed that they could congregate. Unless, of course, you believe that possession of a few straps should be a criminal offence.

 

Did you miss the bit in the link you posted where it stated;:

 

"(Graham Smith) told BBC Radio Leeds that Republic "certainly have no intention of actually disrupting" the proceedings.

 

"We will be very visible, we will be loud, we will be hard to miss, but the procession and the plans for the coronation will go ahead uninterrupted by us.""?

Handful of protesters....................????

 

Now come on, you ant-Brits, come on.............????

 

 

[Rimmer]

Some troll posts and replies removed

[RuamRudy]

16 minutes ago, transam said:

Handful of protesters....................????

 

Now come on, you ant-Brits, come on.............????

 

 

Your eagerness to give away the hard won rights and freedoms that your forefathers fought for, and in many cases, died for, is truly depressing.

 

If you define those of us who want to uphold the right to freedom of speech as anti British then so be it, but that is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. 

 

[transam]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Your eagerness to give away the hard won rights and freedoms that your forefathers fought for, and in many cases, died for, is truly depressing.

 

If you define those of us who want to uphold the right to freedom of speech as anti British then so be it, but that is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. 

 

I uphold the rights of the people of The United Kingdom, for those who fought for King and country, not folk like you, who want to break up the Kingdom and let rabble reign over the country.

Take a back seat chap, The Kingdom is safe, the SNP is dead....

 

 

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

I uphold the rights of the people of The United Kingdom, for those who fought for King and country, not folk like you, who want to break up the Kingdom and let rabble reign over the country.

Take a back seat chap, The Kingdom is safe, the SNP is dead....

 

 

Please try to stick to the topic. This is nothing about the SNP or Scottish independence. This is about your championing the removal of the right to free speech. 

Many good people fought and died so that we could have that right but you want to give it away.

[Neeranam]

He is a lizard person, David Icke was right.

[Neeranam]

 

 

I visited Ballater last month, where my brother has business(with the Queen and other royals) and the locals there love them. 

 

[KannikaP]

On 5/4/2023 at 9:26 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

Run that through me again "

    The U.K have been looking to Washington for support for decades now instead of looking to the U.K for support ?

   Did you think that through before posting it ?

Did you think before mis-quoting the post

 

In reality, all 15 nations have looked mainly to Washington, rather than London, for support for decades now.

[Neeranam]

3 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

Did you think before mis-quoting the post

 

In reality, all 15 nations have looked mainly to Washington, rather than London, for support for decades now.

I hope it stays that way, the US have more money printers.

[johnnybangkok]

On 5/4/2023 at 4:13 PM, kwilco said:

  

Basically compared to the coronation in 1953, nobody is that bothered.

 

Those "fans" of pomp and ceremony are looked upon as slightly unhinged. or sad.

 

The main difference between the two coronations is that back in 1953 it was seen as part of a new beginning - a young girl as Queen the end of rationing and the Festival of Britain the new NHS - we were coming out of the effects of WW2 and people were looking forward to a new united Europe.

 

Now it's an old git with weird eccentric ideas who talks to trees, a relic of an old outdated family who isn't expected to be King for more than 10 years at the most - this is a "rump" monarchy. Inflation and recession are taking hold, the standards of living is dropping and the future as an isolated Britain with a doddery old king looks anything but rosy. Any freedoms and future of democracy are looking bleak as the government hastily introduces draconian laws to stop free protestors, corruption is rife and the welfare state is under attack  - no wonder coronation celebrations are hugely undersubscribed – the public has things to worry about other than Charles – a figure we have known for 6 decades and quite frankly aren't excited about in the slightest.

 

A good post (if somewhat doomsday) and although I agree with much of it, I think I (and many like me) don't have as much of an issue with the Royals themselves (I liked the Queen and I don't mind Charles) but more with what they represent.

50% of land in the UK is owned by 1% of the population with much of it having not changed for centuries 'Guy Shrubsole, author of the book in which the figures are revealed, Who Owns England?, argues that the findings show a picture that has not changed for centuries. “Most people remain unaware of quite how much land is owned by so few,” he writes, adding: “A few thousand dukes, baronets and country squires own far more land than all of middle England put together. Land ownership in England is astonishingly unequal, heavily concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.”   https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author

This then goes to the heart of an issue where birthright plays much more into wealth than ability or talent and perpetrates the continuing idea of a country of serfs. This starts at the very top (Kings & Queens) but then goes to Dukes, Marquess, Earls, Viscounts and Barons. The Duke of Westminster 'owns' half of London and much more purely from land handed down over the centuries. Earl Cadogan controls more than 90 acres of London property that has belonged to his family since 1717. 

If you want to talk about UK inequality, start with the King and work your way down.

 

 

[petermik]

51 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

 

If you define those of us who want to uphold the right to freedom of speech as anti British then so be it, but that is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. 

 

I saw one of the leaders of a protest group read a statement out....a young lady with a ring through her nose.....just about sums them up methinks....

[RuamRudy]

37 minutes ago, petermik said:

I saw one of the leaders of a protest group read a statement out....a young lady with a ring through her nose.....just about sums them up methinks....

How does that sum up anyone? Your conventions are not the only conventions nor are they the 'right' conventions. 

[Neeranam]

40 minutes ago, petermik said:

I saw one of the leaders of a protest group read a statement out....a young lady with a ring through her nose.....just about sums them up methinks....

Old people always think young people are outrageous. I bet you listened to My Generation when you were in your 20s! 

[RuamRudy]

59 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

A good post (if somewhat doomsday) and although I agree with much of it, I think I (and many like me) don't have as much of an issue with the Royals themselves (I liked the Queen and I don't mind Charles) but more with what they represent.

50% of land in the UK is owned by 1% of the population with much of it having not changed for centuries 'Guy Shrubsole, author of the book in which the figures are revealed, Who Owns England?, argues that the findings show a picture that has not changed for centuries. “Most people remain unaware of quite how much land is owned by so few,” he writes, adding: “A few thousand dukes, baronets and country squires own far more land than all of middle England put together. Land ownership in England is astonishingly unequal, heavily concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.”   https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author

This then goes to the heart of an issue where birthright plays much more into wealth than ability or talent and perpetrates the continuing idea of a country of serfs. This starts at the very top (Kings & Queens) but then goes to Dukes, Marquess, Earls, Viscounts and Barons. The Duke of Westminster 'owns' half of London and much more purely from land handed down over the centuries. Earl Cadogan controls more than 90 acres of London property that has belonged to his family since 1717. 

If you want to talk about UK inequality, start with the King and work your way down.

 

 

Unfortunately democracy and equality won't come to the UK any time soon. On the one hand we have a ruling elite who are so corrupt that they can't afford to lose their grip on power, and on the other hand we have a significant number of people who are quite happy to live on their knees, and happy for their descendants to follow suit.

 

One of Britain's richest men inherits billions and avoids paying inheritance taxes

 

[VocalNeal]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Unfortunately democracy and equality won't come to the UK any time soon.

Are you suggesting that the UK is not a democracy? Compared to whom.???? 

 

Would you prefer the head of state to be Screaming Lord Sutch or Boaty McBoatface. 

Charles did not get there by, what the Archbishop of Canterbury, called wish or will, tyranny or politics.

Some countries have heads of state who seem to do nothing but cause division and whose relatives use their position for personal gain, allegedly

 When you go for or went for a job do/did you wish it to be a democratic process or based on your ability or experience? 

[Neeranam]

He's probably only got a few years in the job. He's old already.

He's almost 80, which is too old to be in charge of a country, let alone 14.

[RuamRudy]

Jealous? Well of course it's not you, but you willingness to laugh it off and ignore it is bewildering. 

[RuamRudy]

48 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Are you suggesting that the UK is not a democracy?

We have an unelected head of state whom we cannot remove, and a government with an 80 seat majority despite only securing 40% of the votes at the last general election. So yes, I am suggesting that the UK is not democratic.

 

50 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Compared to whom.????

Democracy is not a relative concept. 

[n00dle]

Canada is moe worried about trans rights and limiting speech than it is about the commonwealth.

[n00dle]

12 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

He's probably only got a few years in the job. He's old already.

He's almost 80, which is too old to be in charge of a country, let alone 14.

What is he actually in charge of beyond a few ceremonies and symbolic duties, pray tell?

If a country wants to shrug off the "yoke" of the commonwelth i see it making absolutely no difference whatsoever

[xylophone]

11 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Calling his Mother MUMMY !!!!!!!!!!

Shocking ????

Well he was about 67 years old when he said it, and it raised quite a few giggles amongst the audience. I've never heard a man of that age call his mother, "mummy".

 

Anyway as I said it's all over and done now and Camilla can help the poor boy get dressed as he obviously needs some help with this!.

 

[Pink Mist]

A trolling Meme has been removed.

[n00dle]

On 5/4/2023 at 11:45 AM, petermik said:

And long may he reign.....God save King Charles ????

given his age, thats bloody unlikey

[n00dle]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

 

One of Britain's richest men inherits billions and avoids paying inheritance taxes

 

but that is not true is it. the trust pays a 6 operent tax every 10 years.  while it is not the full 40 percent, over the course of a lifetime it is certainly more than nothing. 

[RayC]

3 hours ago, transam said:

Handful of protesters....................????

 

Now come on, you ant-Brits, come on.............????

 

 

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.

[Neeranam]

20 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Well he was about 67 years old when he said it, and it raised quite a few giggles amongst the audience. I've never heard a man of that age call his mother, "mummy".

It's a class thing; he probably laughs at things you plebs say.