The moment that King Charles III was crowned

[RayC]

11 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I fully support the Police .

The protestors are annoying and disruptive and cause a nuisance .

   Attention  seekers 

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?

[RayC]

38 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

There are no rules or laws in UK banning free speech.

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. 

 

38 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

This is part of the problem. There is free speech, there are protests and there are disturbances.

Why is that a problem? If the disturbance is serious enough then the police can act 

 

38 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

Do you really think the idiot that got on top of the snooker table and peppered it with orange powder was practicing free speech? Or the "stop oil" idiots gluing themselves to roads causing traffic mayhem?

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.

 

38 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

If the protesters on Saturday really were not planning any disturbance, why did they choose that particular day to protest?

For the obvious reason that it would get greater coverage.

 

38 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

If their following is as big as they say, surely they could have protested on any day. They would then be making themselves the main focal point.

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.

Edited May 9, 2023 by RayC
Addition to 2nd paragraph

[youreavinalaff]

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

80,000 members is a sizeable number for a pressure group.

80000 followers. Only 5000 paying members.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[n00dle]

On 5/6/2023 at 9:01 PM, RuamRudy said:

I am not a huge fan of the monarchy but it was nice to see Harry looking happy at his dad's big day.

 

one wonders what was missing that changed his outlook, if only breifly.

[RayC]

10 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

80000 followers. Only 5000 paying members.

 

 

Probably a few more after Saturday's great publicity. Might even join myself!

 

UKIP's peak membership was only 36k, so hope springs, etc 

[n00dle]

On 5/7/2023 at 2:48 AM, pegman said:

It would have problably been best if this whole Firm thing had ended once Charles I head had left his shoulders. Very few people of the Commonwealth could care less about the Crown anymore. All the cancel culture nonsense has taken its toll. The rogue English may go for that type of thing at the urging of their trash media but the rest of us subjects are done with it. If a vote of we Commonwealth commoners were done I think Anne would have been crowned today. After her order of preference would likely be Edward, George then Harry. Seeing a couple of adulterers take the thrones today was pathetic. 

thats a whole lot o vitiriol and specifics for someone "done with it."

you even managed to fit virtue signalling and moral indignation in there.  Imagine, adultrey!

well done old chap!

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Probably a few more after Saturday's great publicity. Might even join myself!

 

UKIP's peak membership was only 36k, so hope springs, etc 

UKIPs policies and reasons for such were clear.

 

Republic's reasoning is flawed.

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

Probably a few more after Saturday's great publicity. Might even join myself!

 

UKIP's peak membership was only 36k, so hope springs, etc 

If you join and they send you a T-shirt with their opinion of the monarchy written on the T-shirt, I suggest that you don't wear that T-shirt in Thailand 

[transam]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

Probably a few more after Saturday's great publicity. Might even join myself!

 

UKIP's peak membership was only 36k, so hope springs, etc 

I thought you might...................????

[Mac Mickmanus]

38 minutes ago, RayC said:

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?

Self attention seekers .

Its all about him and his right to protest and the unfair actions of the police against him .

   He doesn't mention his cause , the reason why he wants to protest .

  Self attention seeking , rather than seeking attention for his cause  

[bignok]

13 minutes ago, pagallim said:

Yes we know

[Rimmer]

Baiting troll post and replies removed

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

UKIPs policies and reasons for such were clear.

 

Republic's reasoning is flawed.

This is lifted from the website of Republic - what is the flaw you see in their reasoning? 

 

Why do we want a republic?

It's simple: Hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle.

And because we can’t hold the King and his family to account at the ballot box, there’s nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money.

Meanwhile, the monarchy gives vast arbitrary power to the government, shutting voters out from major decisions affecting the national interest.  The King can only ever act in the interests of the government of the day and does not represent ordinary voters.

The monarchy is a broken institution. A head of state that’s chosen by us could really represent our hopes and aspirations – and help us keep politicians in check.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

UKIPs policies and reasons for such were clear.

 

Republic's reasoning is flawed.

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).

[transam]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

This is lifted from the website of Republic - what is the flaw you see in their reasoning? 

 

Why do we want a republic?

It's simple: Hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle.

And because we can’t hold the King and his family to account at the ballot box, there’s nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money.

Meanwhile, the monarchy gives vast arbitrary power to the government, shutting voters out from major decisions affecting the national interest.  The King can only ever act in the interests of the government of the day and does not represent ordinary voters.

The monarchy is a broken institution. A head of state that’s chosen by us could really represent our hopes and aspirations – and help us keep politicians in check.

 

Did you write that....?           ????

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Self attention seekers .

Its all about him and his right to protest and the unfair actions of the police against him .

   He doesn't mention his cause , the reason why he wants to protest .

  Self attention seeking , rather than seeking attention for his cause  

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.

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, transam said:

 

Did you write that....?           ????

No, as I wrote in the post, I copied it from the website of Republic - click on the underlined heading and it will take you directly to the page.

[Mac Mickmanus]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

A head of state that’s chosen by us could really represent our hopes and aspirations – and help us keep politicians in check.

Lets be realistic, they would still moan and complain and protest  if a new King was elected by the people

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If you join and they send you a T-shirt with their opinion of the monarchy written on the T-shirt, I suggest that you don't wear that T-shirt in Thailand 

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.

[transam]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

No, as I wrote in the post, I copied it from the website of Republic - click on the underlined heading and it will take you directly to the page.

A group of nutters that want to get rid of the Kingdom..............

 

Same type of nutters that want to "stop oil" and fluck-up everyone's day.

 

Bunch of nobody's, yes, nobody's..........

A disgrace to Great Britain.......????

[RayC]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Lets be realistic, they would still moan and complain and protest  if a new King was elected by the people

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.

[3NUMBAS]

the ritual is very outdated now so brits are not too bothered now

 

religious mumbo jumbo is  not relevant today

 

 

[RuamRudy]

11 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Lets be realistic, they would still moan and complain and protest  if a new King was elected by the people

Quite possibly, but the point is that there would be a mechanism to remove this elected head of state.

[transam]

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

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.

You just want to rid the country of its history, you want to go down the Russian route, look at what they have now, look at what the French now have, laughable.........????

Even if the monarchy were got rid of, YOU would still complain about what took over, for some here, that is all they do, the anti-brigade.....

 

PS. But yet to hear RR run down his dodgy SNP.................

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Quite possibly, but the point is that there would be a mechanism to remove this elected head of state.

If Kings could be voted for , would you stand in the election to be the new King ?

[billd766]

3 hours ago, transam said:

Woke has hit the Met..............????

 

But, hey, the protesters never got to upset the event, a bit like Princess Anne's headgear............

 

Well done the Met, and very sorry for you anti-anything Brits, head down, walk of shame, till next time...........

The "Republic" group of no hopers.

 

Personally they offend me, all 88,xxx of them trying to spoil the enjoyment of millions of other people.

 

 

3 hours ago, transam said:

Me, narrow-minded, now come on, I support the "Kingdom", you don't, your lot got stuffed, the loyal Brits move on....Hip-Hip, hoorah..... 

I agree with you entirely.

 

3 hours ago, RayC said:

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.

I suppose that a very small minority of people trying to spoil the enjoyment of millions of other people, you consider free speech.

 

IMHO it is not free speech nor is it democracy. There are thousands of places in the UK where they could have protested but they chose that one.

 

Of course the BBC took their side, but that is par for the course for the BBC nowadays.

 

3 hours ago, transam said:

My pleasure, Rule Britannia...........

 

[billd766]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

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.

Actually if you check the "Republic" website there are 88,xxx of them, yet how many of them turned up to protest. One or two handfuls.

 

Compare that to the millions of men women and children who came from all over the UK, plus all the foreign tourists who also came to enjoy themselves.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, bignok said:

Yes we know

But Charles accepted Harry as his own and supported him until Harry decided that he knew better.

[RayC]

43 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

the ritual is very outdated now so brits are not too bothered now

 

religious mumbo jumbo is  not relevant today

 

 

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

[RuamRudy]

57 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If Kings could be voted for , would you stand in the election to be the new King ?

Well, if we had a proper democracy in the UK and I chose to stand as president, you would have the opportunity to vote for me, or an alternative. 

However currently you have no say whatsoever on your head of state.