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

[RayC]

1 hour ago, VocalNeal said:

????

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

Or by way of a democratic election.

[stevenl]

15 minutes ago, n00dle said:

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. 

The trust pays 6 percent every 10 years so the claim he didn't pay any inheritance tax is no true?

I would love a loan like that,6 percent every 10 years.

[n00dle]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The trust pays 6 percent every 10 years so the claim he didn't pay any inheritance tax is no true?

I would love a loan like that,6 percent every 10 years.

the claim that he paid no tax is untrue. 

Personally i have spent my entire life avoiding taxes wherever i can. I am also beloden to no government for healthcare or benfits.

 

If the law allows for a trust it seems unrealitic to blame an indivudual for taking advantage of that. 

your issue should be with the lelgislators.

[johnnybangkok]

2 hours 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....

Oh heavens forbid.... a ring through her nose! What is the world coming to!

Perhaps you should focus more on what she was saying rather than the idea she doesn't conform to your outdated ideas of fashion.

 

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, n00dle said:

the claim that he paid no tax is untrue. 
<Snip>

But that was not the claim made.

[n00dle]

41 minutes ago, stevenl said:

But that was not the claim made.

ok, you win the internet for today.

 

congratulations. 

[JonnyF]

All official now. What a great occasion. Implemented perfectly. Wonderfully British. Who'd want to swap that for a President like Macron? Especially when William is the next in line.

 

Did I miss the thread about it here on the World News Forum on Aseannow? 

 

 

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

All official now. What a great occasion. Implemented perfectly. Wonderfully British. Who'd want to swap that for a President like Macron? Especially when William is the next in line.

 

Did I miss the thread about it here on the World News Forum on Aseannow? 

 

 

Not a valid comparison. But a sunak- macron swap would be favourably to the UK.

[hotandsticky]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Not a valid comparison. But a sunak- macron swap would be favourably to the UK.

Did you mean to post that in the Jokes section?

[youreavinalaff]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

On the one hand we have a ruling elite who are so corrupt that they can't afford to lose their grip on power,

SNP?

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, hotandsticky said:

Did you mean to post that in the Jokes section?

Ask JonnyF, he made the joke.

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 hours 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 was pointing out that the 15 Nations include the U.K

So , bearing that in mind , you are claiming that the U.K is looking towards Washington for support instead of looking towards the U.K for support 

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 hours 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. 

 

We didn't fight the World wars to give hooligans the right to disrupt ceremonies and coronations .

   Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can be disruptive and abusive and offensive  wherever you like .

   We still have the rule of law in the U.K and the law requires you to behave yourselves when in public

[RuamRudy]

41 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

We didn't fight the World wars to give hooligans the right to disrupt ceremonies and coronations .

   Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can be disruptive and abusive and offensive  wherever you like .

   We still have the rule of law in the U.K and the law requires you to behave yourselves when in public

Nobody disrupted anything. There was no abuse and any offence taken is solely based upon the prejudiced scenarios you have created in your head in an effort to suit the narrative that you want to see.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Nobody disrupted anything. There was no abuse and any offence taken is solely based upon the prejudiced scenarios you have created in your head in an effort to suit the narrative that you want to see.

They were arrested before they could carry out a disruption 

[Mac Mickmanus]

20 hours ago, RayC said:

The protester in St. James Park was arrested on a public order offence because he had a megaphone and the noise might upset the horses!! Upset police horses who are often deployed at football matches, large demonstrations, etc!!!

There were some people arrested with rape alarms and Police believed that they intended to use the rape alarms to disrupt the procession and the rape alarms  would scare the horse .

   They weren't arrested for having megaphones , they were attested for having rape alarms

 

https://news.sky.com/story/police-arrested-volunteers-handing-out-rape-alarms-over-coronation-disruption-concerns-12875150

 

 

Police have been criticised after reports that volunteers helping to keep women safe were arrested in the early hours of coronation day.

The Metropolitan Police said that at around 2am on Saturday, three people were arrested in the Soho area of central London on suspicion of conspiracy to commit public nuisance.

 

Among the items seized were a number of rape alarms, with the Met saying it had "received intelligence that indicated groups and individuals seeking to disrupt today's coronation proceedings were planning to use rape alarms to disrupt the procession".

 

 

[kwilco]

7 hours ago, transam said:

But you have an agenda ......Pot/kettle................

QED!

What does that even mean?? - How does it alter the veracity of any argument? 

Please explain what you think and agenda is and what you think mine is and how it affects the discussion in any way. my "agenda is

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There were some people arrested with rape alarms and Police believed that they intended to use the rape alarms to disrupt the procession and the rape alarms  would scare the horse .

   They weren't arrested for having megaphones , they were attested for having rape alarms

 

https://news.sky.com/story/police-arrested-volunteers-handing-out-rape-alarms-over-coronation-disruption-concerns-12875150

 

 

Police have been criticised after reports that volunteers helping to keep women safe were arrested in the early hours of coronation day.

The Metropolitan Police said that at around 2am on Saturday, three people were arrested in the Soho area of central London on suspicion of conspiracy to commit public nuisance.

 

Among the items seized were a number of rape alarms, with the Met saying it had "received intelligence that indicated groups and individuals seeking to disrupt today's coronation proceedings were planning to use rape alarms to disrupt the procession".

 

 

From your link.

But the three people arrested were reportedly volunteers with the Night Stars programme, which is run by Westminster City Council.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

From your link.

But the three people arrested were reportedly volunteers with the Night Stars programme, which is run by Westminster City Council.

Yes, the disruptive protestors cause the Police to act in such a way , because the protestors  use rape alarms to disrupt events , people with rape alarms get arrested 

[RuamRudy]

19 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, the disruptive protestors cause the Police to act in such a way , because the protestors  use rape alarms to disrupt events , people with rape alarms get arrested 

No protester used a rape alarm to disrupt anything yesterday. The Met, however, decided to stifle freedom of speech by creating fictitious claims to remove anyone who wasn't toeing the sycophant line.

 

With the increased number of met officers in town yesterday,I can understand why women were carrying rape alarms.

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

No protester used a rape alarm to disrupt anything yesterday.

Because the Police took measures to stop them from disrupting the ceremony 

[kwilco]

  

 

Overall there has been a sea-change in attitude to the Monarchy since 1953. There were only a few minor protests. Now what you see is the tip of the iceberg. Whereas in 1953 the entire country was pretty much pro-monarchy, now there are many who although not actively out on the streets seriously believe in a republic.

On top of that there is a great swathe or people who think that the role of the monarchy needs serious reviewing and cutting back.

There are also people who just don't give a dam anymore either way and see it as an inconvenient piece of frippery.

 

Monarchists are increasingly on the back foot and like most people without a real argument in their favour they resort to cliché and nationalism to justify their stance

 

Tropes like “tradition” are invoked

“A thousand years of history” – (ignores the reality)

“It’s what England does best (they ignore Scotland Wales, Ireland etc.)

“They braved the rain”

“Proud to be British”

“Part of the history”

“Westminster Abbey”

 

None of this has anything to do with being a modern democracy.

 

I would say that whether through politics or just indifference the monarchy needs to seriously review their position.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

There were some people arrested with rape alarms and Police believed that they intended to use the rape alarms to disrupt the procession and the rape alarms  would scare the horse .

   They weren't arrested for having megaphones , they were attested for having rape alarms

 

https://news.sky.com/story/police-arrested-volunteers-handing-out-rape-alarms-over-coronation-disruption-concerns-12875150

 

 

Police have been criticised after reports that volunteers helping to keep women safe were arrested in the early hours of coronation day.

The Metropolitan Police said that at around 2am on Saturday, three people were arrested in the Soho area of central London on suspicion of conspiracy to commit public nuisance.

 

Among the items seized were a number of rape alarms, with the Met saying it had "received intelligence that indicated groups and individuals seeking to disrupt today's coronation proceedings were planning to use rape alarms to disrupt the procession".

 

 

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).

[kwilco]

4 hours ago, n00dle said:

the claim that he paid no tax is untrue. 

Personally i have spent my entire life avoiding taxes wherever i can. I am also beloden to no government for healthcare or benfits.

 

If the law allows for a trust it seems unrealitic to blame an indivudual for taking advantage of that. 

your issue should be with the lelgislators.

"As a state occasion, King Charles's coronation is paid for with public funds. This is different to a royal wedding, which is a personal family moment with some public elements to it, so the cost is split between private funds and public money." - https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a43773972/king-charles-coronation-cost/

 

[transam]

4 hours ago, RayC said:

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.

Nooo, it was Saturday, the dole offices are shut.................????

 

We live in a United Kingdom, there will always be dissenters to that fact...

We had them in 1939...........

[transam]

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Oh heavens forbid.... a ring through her nose! What is the world coming to!

Perhaps you should focus more on what she was saying rather than the idea she doesn't conform to your outdated ideas of fashion.

 

Any bird that wants to look like a bull, has to be questionable in the grey cell matter........

[onthedarkside]

Off topic troll post reported/removed as well as other Troll posts and replies.

[torturedsole]

I doubt the RF will be rushing back to The Caribbean anytime soon and they won't miss it. 

[transam]

4 hours ago, RayC said:

Or by way of a democratic election.

Tell me what King is voted in, you can leave out Burger King..............????

 

It does read like some here crave for communism, or want a Putin to look up to, well that head of state was voted in.........

[RayC]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

Tell me what King is voted in, you can leave out Burger King..............????

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.

 

3 minutes ago, transam said:

It does read like some here crave for communism, or want a Putin to look up to, well that head of state was voted in.........

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.