comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 7 seconds ago
I’m in two minds about these arrests. Well, no - if people are actually being arrested for peaceful protest, then that’s disgraceful and a step in the wrong direction.
However, I do kind of understand the police’s need to move them on. You wouldn’t stand by the side of an Orangeman’s parade singing Catholic songs, nor would you stand in the Kop in a United shirt and chanting ‘United’. If you did either, you’d expect a (probably violent) confrontation with the people vastly outnumbering you, or to be moved away by police or stewards. There’s nothing intrinsically offensive, of course, about saying ‘Who elected him?’ or ‘Not my king’, but in the context in which it’s being said, it absolutely is like to inflame and to lead to trouble.
But like I say, it’s pretty depressing to say the least if they’re actually arrested and charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on Clockwork, moving away is the answer.
Free speech always has limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm quite surprised that there is a support for picketing funerals on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might not be a Tory but this is a typical Tory style argument. The funeral hasn't even happened yet and I don't see anyone supporting picketing at the funeral. Could you provide some examples?
As someone said, there are limits to all freedoms and I'd like to think anyone protesting at the actual funeral would be removed. Disturbing the peace at a funeral is an offence. Peaceful protesters following the law should not be touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep
At least some normality now on BBC One with live coverage of people stood around their mother's coffin in silence.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 7 seconds ago
I’m in two minds about these arrests. Well, no - if people are actually being arrested for peaceful protest, then that’s disgraceful and a step in the wrong direction.
However, I do kind of understand the police’s need to move them on. You wouldn’t stand by the side of an Orangeman’s parade singing Catholic songs, nor would you stand in the Kop in a United shirt and chanting ‘United’. If you did either, you’d expect a (probably violent) confrontation with the people vastly outnumbering you, or to be moved away by police or stewards. There’s nothing intrinsically offensive, of course, about saying ‘Who elected him?’ or ‘Not my king’, but in the context in which it’s being said, it absolutely is like to inflame and to lead to trouble.
But like I say, it’s pretty depressing to say the least if they’re actually arrested and charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on Clockwork, moving away is the answer.
Free speech always has limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, free speech absolutely has limits. Those are codified in the law. The law sets out very facking clearly what is, and isn’t, acceptable.
The acts and words of the gentleman referred to above are in accordance with the law, and he was perfectly entitled to make them under article ten of the Human Rights Act.
We cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - and I cannot facking stress this enough, I really can’t - have Britain becoming a country where the police are able to decide freely what constitutes free speech, and what doesn’t.
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 7 seconds ago
I’m in two minds about these arrests. Well, no - if people are actually being arrested for peaceful protest, then that’s disgraceful and a step in the wrong direction.
However, I do kind of understand the police’s need to move them on. You wouldn’t stand by the side of an Orangeman’s parade singing Catholic songs, nor would you stand in the Kop in a United shirt and chanting ‘United’. If you did either, you’d expect a (probably violent) confrontation with the people vastly outnumbering you, or to be moved away by police or stewards. There’s nothing intrinsically offensive, of course, about saying ‘Who elected him?’ or ‘Not my king’, but in the context in which it’s being said, it absolutely is like to inflame and to lead to trouble.
But like I say, it’s pretty depressing to say the least if they’re actually arrested and charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on Clockwork, moving away is the answer.
Free speech always has limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, free speech absolutely has limits. Those are codified in the law. The law sets out very facking clearly what is, and isn’t, acceptable.
The acts and words of the gentleman referred to above are in accordance with the law, and he was perfectly entitled to make them under article ten of the Human Rights Act.
We cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - and I cannot facking stress this enough, I really can’t - have Britain becoming a country where the police are able to decide freely what constitutes free speech, and what doesn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed
Clockwork, if it was about keeping the peace they wouldn’t have to threaten, or actually, arrest them. Or is that policeman that stupid that what he actually meant to say was ‘I wouldn’t do that if I were you, you’ll get beaten up’.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
However, I do kind of understand the police’s need to move them on. You wouldn’t stand by the side of an Orangeman’s parade singing Catholic songs, nor would you stand in the Kop in a United shirt and chanting ‘United’. If you did either, you’d expect a (probably violent) confrontation with the people vastly outnumbering you, or to be moved away by police or stewards. There’s nothing intrinsically offensive, of course, about saying ‘Who elected him?’ or ‘Not my king’, but in the context in which it’s being said, it absolutely is like to inflame and to lead to trouble.
=====
Yeah, because of intolerance to contrary opinion. People are or should be allowed to support the monarchy without hindrance and by the same token they should be allowed to criticize without hindrance. No double standards.
Comparing politics with football or religious issues is a false point. Completely different backgrounds and impact. There is no negative from removing the United can from the kop and life doesn't depend on football. But limiting or hindering freedom of speech and expression can have far reaching consequences obviously.
You can't approach this issue the same way you approach policing of a football match. It's just not the same thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not comparing football or religion to politics. I'm comparing people potentially being beaten to a pulp to people potentially being beaten to a pulp - because regardless of what you or I think of the differences, that's probably what would happen in any of the situations I described.
To be clear, if there were a separate and large yet peaceful anti-monarchy protest and people were arrested, that would seem an unequivocal attack on freedom of speech. This, however unsavoury, may be more about keeping the peace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case they should crack down on all messages, whether in support or not because messages in support of the monarchy at the wrong place and the wrong time can also lead to a disturbance.
If I hate the monarchy is it OK for me to attack monarchist protesters? If I love the monarchy is it OK for me to attack abolitionists?
I get your point and you are right to some extent but still there's a double standard in there. Freedom of speech is being able to express your views without negative consequences. They can keep the peace by arresting people who react violently not by stopping peaceful and lawful protests. If someone wants to take the risk then that's their prerogative.
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 7 seconds ago
I’m in two minds about these arrests. Well, no - if people are actually being arrested for peaceful protest, then that’s disgraceful and a step in the wrong direction.
However, I do kind of understand the police’s need to move them on. You wouldn’t stand by the side of an Orangeman’s parade singing Catholic songs, nor would you stand in the Kop in a United shirt and chanting ‘United’. If you did either, you’d expect a (probably violent) confrontation with the people vastly outnumbering you, or to be moved away by police or stewards. There’s nothing intrinsically offensive, of course, about saying ‘Who elected him?’ or ‘Not my king’, but in the context in which it’s being said, it absolutely is like to inflame and to lead to trouble.
But like I say, it’s pretty depressing to say the least if they’re actually arrested and charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on Clockwork, moving away is the answer.
Free speech always has limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, free speech absolutely has limits. Those are codified in the law. The law sets out very facking clearly what is, and isn’t, acceptable.
The acts and words of the gentleman referred to above are in accordance with the law, and he was perfectly entitled to make them under article ten of the Human Rights Act.
We cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - and I cannot facking stress this enough, I really can’t - have Britain becoming a country where the police are able to decide freely what constitutes free speech, and what doesn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with what you're saying but there is still the issue of what happens if the police do nothing. That young guy shouting at Andrew was unceremoniously dumped to the floor and then pushed by two much larger blokes. With no police, he could have had a real kicking. I'm not saying the police were helping him - certainly not if they arrested him - but it might still be more a case of keeping the peace than shutting down freedom of speech.
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Clockwork, if it was about keeping the peace they wouldn’t have to threaten, or actually, arrest them. Or is that policeman that stupid that what he actually meant to say was ‘I wouldn’t do that if I were you, you’ll get beaten up’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who knows. But my mother would have said 'it's not big and it's not clever'.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 7 seconds ago
I’m in two minds about these arrests. Well, no - if people are actually being arrested for peaceful protest, then that’s disgraceful and a step in the wrong direction.
However, I do kind of understand the police’s need to move them on. You wouldn’t stand by the side of an Orangeman’s parade singing Catholic songs, nor would you stand in the Kop in a United shirt and chanting ‘United’. If you did either, you’d expect a (probably violent) confrontation with the people vastly outnumbering you, or to be moved away by police or stewards. There’s nothing intrinsically offensive, of course, about saying ‘Who elected him?’ or ‘Not my king’, but in the context in which it’s being said, it absolutely is like to inflame and to lead to trouble.
But like I say, it’s pretty depressing to say the least if they’re actually arrested and charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on Clockwork, moving away is the answer.
Free speech always has limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, free speech absolutely has limits. Those are codified in the law. The law sets out very facking clearly what is, and isn’t, acceptable.
The acts and words of the gentleman referred to above are in accordance with the law, and he was perfectly entitled to make them under article ten of the Human Rights Act.
We cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - and I cannot facking stress this enough, I really can’t - have Britain becoming a country where the police are able to decide freely what constitutes free speech, and what doesn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with what you're saying but there is still the issue of what happens if the police do nothing. That young guy shouting at Andrew was unceremoniously dumped to the floor and then pushed by two much larger blokes. With no police, he could have had a real kicking. I'm not saying the police were helping him - certainly not if they arrested him - but it might still be more a case of keeping the peace than shutting down freedom of speech.
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
Clockwork, if it was about keeping the peace they wouldn’t have to threaten, or actually, arrest them. Or is that policeman that stupid that what he actually meant to say was ‘I wouldn’t do that if I were you, you’ll get beaten up’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funnily enough, the video I saw cut out right after the policeman said he was going to give some advice, so he might have been doing just that. I agree it's not been handed well and, like I said above, if these people are arrested and charged it's plain wrong.
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
====
No, you wouldn't expect that, but it's still your inalienable right to do so if you so wish, and many people do. If you stop people from doing that then you blur the lines. People take these risks for what they believe in. Some refuse to eat and some even set themselves on fire etc.
Agree with what you're saying but there is still the issue of what happens if the police do nothing. That young guy shouting at Andrew was unceremoniously dumped to the floor and then pushed by two much larger blokes. With no police, he could have had a real kicking. I'm not saying the police were helping him - certainly not if they arrested him - but it might still be more a case of keeping the peace than shutting down freedom of speech.
====
I hope the people pushing him were arrested first as they are the only persons breaking the law in that scenario.
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 18 seconds ago
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
====
No, you wouldn't expect that, but it's still your inalienable right to do so if you so wish, and many people do. If you stop people from doing that then you blur the lines. People take these risks for what they believe in. Some refuse to eat and some even set themselves on fire etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is that this could be an issue with freedom of speech etc, or that it might be a clumsily handled way of preventing far uglier scenes. That's all.
Well the instances we are talking about here are the young lad being threatened with arrest if he were to write on his blank piece of paper, and another being arrested and de-arrested for asking who elected him.
Both those instances are a facking piiiiisstake and examples of priiiiiick policeman taking freedom of speech laws into their own hands. There’s not really any defending that.
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 28 seconds ago
Agree with what you're saying but there is still the issue of what happens if the police do nothing. That young guy shouting at Andrew was unceremoniously dumped to the floor and then pushed by two much larger blokes. With no police, he could have had a real kicking. I'm not saying the police were helping him - certainly not if they arrested him - but it might still be more a case of keeping the peace than shutting down freedom of speech.
====
I hope the people pushing him were arrested first as they are the only persons breaking the law in that scenario.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that - the first guy certainly.
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
====
No, you wouldn't expect that, but it's still your inalienable right to do so if you so wish, and many people do. If you stop people from doing that then you blur the lines. People take these risks for what they believe in. Some refuse to eat and some even set themselves on fire etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For all my life the police have a duty to keep the peace.
So no lines blurred Boris is right. It is not an inalienable right to cry fire in a crowded theatre, or in the example Boris gave.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 18 seconds ago
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
====
No, you wouldn't expect that, but it's still your inalienable right to do so if you so wish, and many people do. If you stop people from doing that then you blur the lines. People take these risks for what they believe in. Some refuse to eat and some even set themselves on fire etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is that this could be an issue with freedom of speech etc, or that it might be a clumsily handled way of preventing far uglier scenes. That's all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they consistently arrest people who attack peaceful protesters then ugly scenes will not happen.
Why are these people so confidently breaking the law by attacking other individuals? Because they know the government is on their side and they are allowed to break the law under certain circumstances. What kind of degenerate thinks it's OK to attack another person because they think the monarchy should go? Thats extremely messed up and uncivilized. Equality before the law is vital.
If I attacked the United fan in the kop I would be arrested too, even though his shirt and changing were provocative. They wouldn't just let me go because the United fan was wrong to do what he did. The responsibility to act maturely just be placed on my shoulders and I alone are responsible for my actions. Nobody makes me do anything by their actions.
Also, let's not pretend this is an isolated issue. The trend is that they use reasons like maintaining the peace to crack down on protests they don't agree with but allow protests they agree with. A good peaceful protest to them is one that agrees with their views and vice versa.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
====
No, you wouldn't expect that, but it's still your inalienable right to do so if you so wish, and many people do. If you stop people from doing that then you blur the lines. People take these risks for what they believe in. Some refuse to eat and some even set themselves on fire etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For all my life the police have a duty to keep the peace.
So no lines blurred Boris is right. It is not an inalienable right to cry fire in a crowded theatre, or in the example Boris gave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly but it's not the peaceful protesters that aren't keeping the peace. It's the violent reetards so they should be the ones arrested.
Did the protesters attack anyone? No, they were attacked instead and we are blaming them and arresting them for the violent actions of others.
The fact that this society still sees opposition to monarchy as justification for violence is insane.
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 18 seconds ago
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
====
No, you wouldn't expect that, but it's still your inalienable right to do so if you so wish, and many people do. If you stop people from doing that then you blur the lines. People take these risks for what they believe in. Some refuse to eat and some even set themselves on fire etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is that this could be an issue with freedom of speech etc, or that it might be a clumsily handled way of preventing far uglier scenes. That's all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they consistently arrest people who attack peaceful protesters then ugly scenes will not happen.
Why are these people so confidently breaking the law by attacking other individuals? Because they know the government is on their side and they are allowed to break the law under certain circumstances. What kind of degenerate thinks it's OK to attack another person because they think the monarchy should go? Thats extremely messed up and uncivilized. Equality before the law is vital.
If I attacked the United fan in the kop I would be arrested too, even though his shirt and changing were provocative. They wouldn't just let me go because the United fan was wrong to do what he did. The responsibility to act maturely just be placed on my shoulders and I alone are responsible for my actions. Nobody makes me do anything by their actions.
Also, let's not pretend this is an isolated issue. The trend is that they use reasons like maintaining the peace to crack down on protests they don't agree with but allow protests they agree with. A good peaceful protest to them is one that agrees with their views and vice versa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MM not sure I agree with this. In the current situation if many anti monarchists lined the rout with signs insulting the Queen and Royal family it wouldn't sit right with me peaceful or not. I can imagine my reaction if one person said something I didn't like about my mother at her funeral.
The fact that this society still sees opposition to monarchy as justification for violence is insane.
--------
The first point I made on this is that it's a disgrace that people are arrested for this. But I said that it's pretty obvious people wouldn't be able to heckle the procession, for instance, and I think that would be the case pretty much anywhere.
'Justification for violence' doesn't enter into it.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
The fact that this society still sees opposition to monarchy as justification for violence is insane.
--------
The first point I made on this is that it's a disgrace that people are arrested for this. But I said that it's pretty obvious people wouldn't be able to heckle the procession, for instance, and I think that would be the case pretty much anywhere.
'Justification for violence' doesn't enter into it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, there should be no protests at the actual funeral and procession, and the law prohibits that, but anywhere else should be game IMO.
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
The fact that this society still sees opposition to monarchy as justification for violence is insane.
--------
The first point I made on this is that it's a disgrace that people are arrested for this. But I said that it's pretty obvious people wouldn't be able to heckle the procession, for instance, and I think that would be the case pretty much anywhere.
'Justification for violence' doesn't enter into it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, there should be no protests at the actual funeral and procession, and the law prohibits that, but anywhere else should be game IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I was saying here: 'if there were a separate and large yet peaceful anti-monarchy protest and people were arrested, that would seem an unequivocal attack on freedom of speech.'
And I wouldn't necessarily even go so far as to say that there 'shouldn't' be protests at the funeral, procession etc - I'm just saying that they're only likely to end one of two ways.
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 7 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 3 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 10 minutes ago
The UK is failing with a monarchy so they're obviously not helping. If that's the case what's the point in keeping the planets biggest spongers when so many hard working people struggle just to make ends meet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How’s the monarchy to blame for whats going on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the point, with or without them the UK is circling the drain. So I ask again why keep the world's biggest spongers when so many people in the country are struggling to make ends meet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you realise how much the UK benefits financially from the Royal Family?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This myth again.
Do you realise the UK would benefit financially even more without them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a myth that Their contribution is 1.8bn a year , 550mill in tourism and 150 mill in trade
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the other 1.1bn come from?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You clearly didn’t think your question through!
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 7 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 3 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 10 minutes ago
The UK is failing with a monarchy so they're obviously not helping. If that's the case what's the point in keeping the planets biggest spongers when so many hard working people struggle just to make ends meet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How’s the monarchy to blame for whats going on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the point, with or without them the UK is circling the drain. So I ask again why keep the world's biggest spongers when so many people in the country are struggling to make ends meet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you realise how much the UK benefits financially from the Royal Family?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This myth again.
Do you realise the UK would benefit financially even more without them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a myth that Their contribution is 1.8bn a year , 550mill in tourism and 150 mill in trade
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the other 1.1bn come from?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You clearly didn’t think your question through!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must not have thought it through either, so enlighten please.
But as I said in the OP all three Nordic countries and Holland, all have monarchies, all are richer and happier than us. Perhaps we should try and emulate them.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 7 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 3 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 10 minutes ago
The UK is failing with a monarchy so they're obviously not helping. If that's the case what's the point in keeping the planets biggest spongers when so many hard working people struggle just to make ends meet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How’s the monarchy to blame for whats going on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the point, with or without them the UK is circling the drain. So I ask again why keep the world's biggest spongers when so many people in the country are struggling to make ends meet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you realise how much the UK benefits financially from the Royal Family?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This myth again.
Do you realise the UK would benefit financially even more without them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a myth that Their contribution is 1.8bn a year , 550mill in tourism and 150 mill in trade
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the other 1.1bn come from?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You clearly didn’t think your question through!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must not have thought it through either, so enlighten please.
But as I said in the OP all three Nordic countries and Holland, all have monarchies, all are richer and happier than us. Perhaps we should try and emulate them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's many more countries without monarchies that are richer and/or happier than us. Perhaps we should try and emulate them.
Sign in if you want to comment
The constitution
Page 19 of 21
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boy From The South (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 7 seconds ago
I’m in two minds about these arrests. Well, no - if people are actually being arrested for peaceful protest, then that’s disgraceful and a step in the wrong direction.
However, I do kind of understand the police’s need to move them on. You wouldn’t stand by the side of an Orangeman’s parade singing Catholic songs, nor would you stand in the Kop in a United shirt and chanting ‘United’. If you did either, you’d expect a (probably violent) confrontation with the people vastly outnumbering you, or to be moved away by police or stewards. There’s nothing intrinsically offensive, of course, about saying ‘Who elected him?’ or ‘Not my king’, but in the context in which it’s being said, it absolutely is like to inflame and to lead to trouble.
But like I say, it’s pretty depressing to say the least if they’re actually arrested and charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on Clockwork, moving away is the answer.
Free speech always has limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm quite surprised that there is a support for picketing funerals on here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might not be a Tory but this is a typical Tory style argument. The funeral hasn't even happened yet and I don't see anyone supporting picketing at the funeral. Could you provide some examples?
As someone said, there are limits to all freedoms and I'd like to think anyone protesting at the actual funeral would be removed. Disturbing the peace at a funeral is an offence. Peaceful protesters following the law should not be touched.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep
posted on 12/9/22
At least some normality now on BBC One with live coverage of people stood around their mother's coffin in silence.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 7 seconds ago
I’m in two minds about these arrests. Well, no - if people are actually being arrested for peaceful protest, then that’s disgraceful and a step in the wrong direction.
However, I do kind of understand the police’s need to move them on. You wouldn’t stand by the side of an Orangeman’s parade singing Catholic songs, nor would you stand in the Kop in a United shirt and chanting ‘United’. If you did either, you’d expect a (probably violent) confrontation with the people vastly outnumbering you, or to be moved away by police or stewards. There’s nothing intrinsically offensive, of course, about saying ‘Who elected him?’ or ‘Not my king’, but in the context in which it’s being said, it absolutely is like to inflame and to lead to trouble.
But like I say, it’s pretty depressing to say the least if they’re actually arrested and charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on Clockwork, moving away is the answer.
Free speech always has limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, free speech absolutely has limits. Those are codified in the law. The law sets out very facking clearly what is, and isn’t, acceptable.
The acts and words of the gentleman referred to above are in accordance with the law, and he was perfectly entitled to make them under article ten of the Human Rights Act.
We cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - and I cannot facking stress this enough, I really can’t - have Britain becoming a country where the police are able to decide freely what constitutes free speech, and what doesn’t.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 7 seconds ago
I’m in two minds about these arrests. Well, no - if people are actually being arrested for peaceful protest, then that’s disgraceful and a step in the wrong direction.
However, I do kind of understand the police’s need to move them on. You wouldn’t stand by the side of an Orangeman’s parade singing Catholic songs, nor would you stand in the Kop in a United shirt and chanting ‘United’. If you did either, you’d expect a (probably violent) confrontation with the people vastly outnumbering you, or to be moved away by police or stewards. There’s nothing intrinsically offensive, of course, about saying ‘Who elected him?’ or ‘Not my king’, but in the context in which it’s being said, it absolutely is like to inflame and to lead to trouble.
But like I say, it’s pretty depressing to say the least if they’re actually arrested and charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on Clockwork, moving away is the answer.
Free speech always has limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, free speech absolutely has limits. Those are codified in the law. The law sets out very facking clearly what is, and isn’t, acceptable.
The acts and words of the gentleman referred to above are in accordance with the law, and he was perfectly entitled to make them under article ten of the Human Rights Act.
We cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - and I cannot facking stress this enough, I really can’t - have Britain becoming a country where the police are able to decide freely what constitutes free speech, and what doesn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed
posted on 12/9/22
Clockwork, if it was about keeping the peace they wouldn’t have to threaten, or actually, arrest them. Or is that policeman that stupid that what he actually meant to say was ‘I wouldn’t do that if I were you, you’ll get beaten up’.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
However, I do kind of understand the police’s need to move them on. You wouldn’t stand by the side of an Orangeman’s parade singing Catholic songs, nor would you stand in the Kop in a United shirt and chanting ‘United’. If you did either, you’d expect a (probably violent) confrontation with the people vastly outnumbering you, or to be moved away by police or stewards. There’s nothing intrinsically offensive, of course, about saying ‘Who elected him?’ or ‘Not my king’, but in the context in which it’s being said, it absolutely is like to inflame and to lead to trouble.
=====
Yeah, because of intolerance to contrary opinion. People are or should be allowed to support the monarchy without hindrance and by the same token they should be allowed to criticize without hindrance. No double standards.
Comparing politics with football or religious issues is a false point. Completely different backgrounds and impact. There is no negative from removing the United can from the kop and life doesn't depend on football. But limiting or hindering freedom of speech and expression can have far reaching consequences obviously.
You can't approach this issue the same way you approach policing of a football match. It's just not the same thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not comparing football or religion to politics. I'm comparing people potentially being beaten to a pulp to people potentially being beaten to a pulp - because regardless of what you or I think of the differences, that's probably what would happen in any of the situations I described.
To be clear, if there were a separate and large yet peaceful anti-monarchy protest and people were arrested, that would seem an unequivocal attack on freedom of speech. This, however unsavoury, may be more about keeping the peace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case they should crack down on all messages, whether in support or not because messages in support of the monarchy at the wrong place and the wrong time can also lead to a disturbance.
If I hate the monarchy is it OK for me to attack monarchist protesters? If I love the monarchy is it OK for me to attack abolitionists?
I get your point and you are right to some extent but still there's a double standard in there. Freedom of speech is being able to express your views without negative consequences. They can keep the peace by arresting people who react violently not by stopping peaceful and lawful protests. If someone wants to take the risk then that's their prerogative.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 7 seconds ago
I’m in two minds about these arrests. Well, no - if people are actually being arrested for peaceful protest, then that’s disgraceful and a step in the wrong direction.
However, I do kind of understand the police’s need to move them on. You wouldn’t stand by the side of an Orangeman’s parade singing Catholic songs, nor would you stand in the Kop in a United shirt and chanting ‘United’. If you did either, you’d expect a (probably violent) confrontation with the people vastly outnumbering you, or to be moved away by police or stewards. There’s nothing intrinsically offensive, of course, about saying ‘Who elected him?’ or ‘Not my king’, but in the context in which it’s being said, it absolutely is like to inflame and to lead to trouble.
But like I say, it’s pretty depressing to say the least if they’re actually arrested and charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on Clockwork, moving away is the answer.
Free speech always has limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, free speech absolutely has limits. Those are codified in the law. The law sets out very facking clearly what is, and isn’t, acceptable.
The acts and words of the gentleman referred to above are in accordance with the law, and he was perfectly entitled to make them under article ten of the Human Rights Act.
We cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - and I cannot facking stress this enough, I really can’t - have Britain becoming a country where the police are able to decide freely what constitutes free speech, and what doesn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with what you're saying but there is still the issue of what happens if the police do nothing. That young guy shouting at Andrew was unceremoniously dumped to the floor and then pushed by two much larger blokes. With no police, he could have had a real kicking. I'm not saying the police were helping him - certainly not if they arrested him - but it might still be more a case of keeping the peace than shutting down freedom of speech.
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Clockwork, if it was about keeping the peace they wouldn’t have to threaten, or actually, arrest them. Or is that policeman that stupid that what he actually meant to say was ‘I wouldn’t do that if I were you, you’ll get beaten up’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who knows. But my mother would have said 'it's not big and it's not clever'.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 16 seconds ago
comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 7 seconds ago
I’m in two minds about these arrests. Well, no - if people are actually being arrested for peaceful protest, then that’s disgraceful and a step in the wrong direction.
However, I do kind of understand the police’s need to move them on. You wouldn’t stand by the side of an Orangeman’s parade singing Catholic songs, nor would you stand in the Kop in a United shirt and chanting ‘United’. If you did either, you’d expect a (probably violent) confrontation with the people vastly outnumbering you, or to be moved away by police or stewards. There’s nothing intrinsically offensive, of course, about saying ‘Who elected him?’ or ‘Not my king’, but in the context in which it’s being said, it absolutely is like to inflame and to lead to trouble.
But like I say, it’s pretty depressing to say the least if they’re actually arrested and charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on Clockwork, moving away is the answer.
Free speech always has limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, free speech absolutely has limits. Those are codified in the law. The law sets out very facking clearly what is, and isn’t, acceptable.
The acts and words of the gentleman referred to above are in accordance with the law, and he was perfectly entitled to make them under article ten of the Human Rights Act.
We cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - cannot - and I cannot facking stress this enough, I really can’t - have Britain becoming a country where the police are able to decide freely what constitutes free speech, and what doesn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with what you're saying but there is still the issue of what happens if the police do nothing. That young guy shouting at Andrew was unceremoniously dumped to the floor and then pushed by two much larger blokes. With no police, he could have had a real kicking. I'm not saying the police were helping him - certainly not if they arrested him - but it might still be more a case of keeping the peace than shutting down freedom of speech.
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
Clockwork, if it was about keeping the peace they wouldn’t have to threaten, or actually, arrest them. Or is that policeman that stupid that what he actually meant to say was ‘I wouldn’t do that if I were you, you’ll get beaten up’.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funnily enough, the video I saw cut out right after the policeman said he was going to give some advice, so he might have been doing just that. I agree it's not been handed well and, like I said above, if these people are arrested and charged it's plain wrong.
posted on 12/9/22
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
====
No, you wouldn't expect that, but it's still your inalienable right to do so if you so wish, and many people do. If you stop people from doing that then you blur the lines. People take these risks for what they believe in. Some refuse to eat and some even set themselves on fire etc.
posted on 12/9/22
Agree with what you're saying but there is still the issue of what happens if the police do nothing. That young guy shouting at Andrew was unceremoniously dumped to the floor and then pushed by two much larger blokes. With no police, he could have had a real kicking. I'm not saying the police were helping him - certainly not if they arrested him - but it might still be more a case of keeping the peace than shutting down freedom of speech.
====
I hope the people pushing him were arrested first as they are the only persons breaking the law in that scenario.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 18 seconds ago
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
====
No, you wouldn't expect that, but it's still your inalienable right to do so if you so wish, and many people do. If you stop people from doing that then you blur the lines. People take these risks for what they believe in. Some refuse to eat and some even set themselves on fire etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is that this could be an issue with freedom of speech etc, or that it might be a clumsily handled way of preventing far uglier scenes. That's all.
posted on 12/9/22
Well the instances we are talking about here are the young lad being threatened with arrest if he were to write on his blank piece of paper, and another being arrested and de-arrested for asking who elected him.
Both those instances are a facking piiiiisstake and examples of priiiiiick policeman taking freedom of speech laws into their own hands. There’s not really any defending that.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 28 seconds ago
Agree with what you're saying but there is still the issue of what happens if the police do nothing. That young guy shouting at Andrew was unceremoniously dumped to the floor and then pushed by two much larger blokes. With no police, he could have had a real kicking. I'm not saying the police were helping him - certainly not if they arrested him - but it might still be more a case of keeping the peace than shutting down freedom of speech.
====
I hope the people pushing him were arrested first as they are the only persons breaking the law in that scenario.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that - the first guy certainly.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
====
No, you wouldn't expect that, but it's still your inalienable right to do so if you so wish, and many people do. If you stop people from doing that then you blur the lines. People take these risks for what they believe in. Some refuse to eat and some even set themselves on fire etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For all my life the police have a duty to keep the peace.
So no lines blurred Boris is right. It is not an inalienable right to cry fire in a crowded theatre, or in the example Boris gave.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 18 seconds ago
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
====
No, you wouldn't expect that, but it's still your inalienable right to do so if you so wish, and many people do. If you stop people from doing that then you blur the lines. People take these risks for what they believe in. Some refuse to eat and some even set themselves on fire etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is that this could be an issue with freedom of speech etc, or that it might be a clumsily handled way of preventing far uglier scenes. That's all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they consistently arrest people who attack peaceful protesters then ugly scenes will not happen.
Why are these people so confidently breaking the law by attacking other individuals? Because they know the government is on their side and they are allowed to break the law under certain circumstances. What kind of degenerate thinks it's OK to attack another person because they think the monarchy should go? Thats extremely messed up and uncivilized. Equality before the law is vital.
If I attacked the United fan in the kop I would be arrested too, even though his shirt and changing were provocative. They wouldn't just let me go because the United fan was wrong to do what he did. The responsibility to act maturely just be placed on my shoulders and I alone are responsible for my actions. Nobody makes me do anything by their actions.
Also, let's not pretend this is an isolated issue. The trend is that they use reasons like maintaining the peace to crack down on protests they don't agree with but allow protests they agree with. A good peaceful protest to them is one that agrees with their views and vice versa.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
====
No, you wouldn't expect that, but it's still your inalienable right to do so if you so wish, and many people do. If you stop people from doing that then you blur the lines. People take these risks for what they believe in. Some refuse to eat and some even set themselves on fire etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For all my life the police have a duty to keep the peace.
So no lines blurred Boris is right. It is not an inalienable right to cry fire in a crowded theatre, or in the example Boris gave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly but it's not the peaceful protesters that aren't keeping the peace. It's the violent reetards so they should be the ones arrested.
Did the protesters attack anyone? No, they were attacked instead and we are blaming them and arresting them for the violent actions of others.
The fact that this society still sees opposition to monarchy as justification for violence is insane.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 14 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 34 seconds ago
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 18 seconds ago
Put another way, in no country on the planet would I expect to stand in a crowd watching the procession of a national figure's coffin, holding signs contrary to the beliefs of the rest of the crowd (however mildly expressed), and not meet some type of resistance.
====
No, you wouldn't expect that, but it's still your inalienable right to do so if you so wish, and many people do. If you stop people from doing that then you blur the lines. People take these risks for what they believe in. Some refuse to eat and some even set themselves on fire etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point is that this could be an issue with freedom of speech etc, or that it might be a clumsily handled way of preventing far uglier scenes. That's all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they consistently arrest people who attack peaceful protesters then ugly scenes will not happen.
Why are these people so confidently breaking the law by attacking other individuals? Because they know the government is on their side and they are allowed to break the law under certain circumstances. What kind of degenerate thinks it's OK to attack another person because they think the monarchy should go? Thats extremely messed up and uncivilized. Equality before the law is vital.
If I attacked the United fan in the kop I would be arrested too, even though his shirt and changing were provocative. They wouldn't just let me go because the United fan was wrong to do what he did. The responsibility to act maturely just be placed on my shoulders and I alone are responsible for my actions. Nobody makes me do anything by their actions.
Also, let's not pretend this is an isolated issue. The trend is that they use reasons like maintaining the peace to crack down on protests they don't agree with but allow protests they agree with. A good peaceful protest to them is one that agrees with their views and vice versa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MM not sure I agree with this. In the current situation if many anti monarchists lined the rout with signs insulting the Queen and Royal family it wouldn't sit right with me peaceful or not. I can imagine my reaction if one person said something I didn't like about my mother at her funeral.
posted on 12/9/22
The fact that this society still sees opposition to monarchy as justification for violence is insane.
--------
The first point I made on this is that it's a disgrace that people are arrested for this. But I said that it's pretty obvious people wouldn't be able to heckle the procession, for instance, and I think that would be the case pretty much anywhere.
'Justification for violence' doesn't enter into it.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
The fact that this society still sees opposition to monarchy as justification for violence is insane.
--------
The first point I made on this is that it's a disgrace that people are arrested for this. But I said that it's pretty obvious people wouldn't be able to heckle the procession, for instance, and I think that would be the case pretty much anywhere.
'Justification for violence' doesn't enter into it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, there should be no protests at the actual funeral and procession, and the law prohibits that, but anywhere else should be game IMO.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by Boris John's Son (U1282)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
The fact that this society still sees opposition to monarchy as justification for violence is insane.
--------
The first point I made on this is that it's a disgrace that people are arrested for this. But I said that it's pretty obvious people wouldn't be able to heckle the procession, for instance, and I think that would be the case pretty much anywhere.
'Justification for violence' doesn't enter into it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, there should be no protests at the actual funeral and procession, and the law prohibits that, but anywhere else should be game IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I was saying here: 'if there were a separate and large yet peaceful anti-monarchy protest and people were arrested, that would seem an unequivocal attack on freedom of speech.'
And I wouldn't necessarily even go so far as to say that there 'shouldn't' be protests at the funeral, procession etc - I'm just saying that they're only likely to end one of two ways.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 7 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 3 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 10 minutes ago
The UK is failing with a monarchy so they're obviously not helping. If that's the case what's the point in keeping the planets biggest spongers when so many hard working people struggle just to make ends meet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How’s the monarchy to blame for whats going on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the point, with or without them the UK is circling the drain. So I ask again why keep the world's biggest spongers when so many people in the country are struggling to make ends meet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you realise how much the UK benefits financially from the Royal Family?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This myth again.
Do you realise the UK would benefit financially even more without them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a myth that Their contribution is 1.8bn a year , 550mill in tourism and 150 mill in trade
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the other 1.1bn come from?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You clearly didn’t think your question through!
posted on 12/9/22
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 7 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 3 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 10 minutes ago
The UK is failing with a monarchy so they're obviously not helping. If that's the case what's the point in keeping the planets biggest spongers when so many hard working people struggle just to make ends meet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How’s the monarchy to blame for whats going on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the point, with or without them the UK is circling the drain. So I ask again why keep the world's biggest spongers when so many people in the country are struggling to make ends meet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you realise how much the UK benefits financially from the Royal Family?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This myth again.
Do you realise the UK would benefit financially even more without them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a myth that Their contribution is 1.8bn a year , 550mill in tourism and 150 mill in trade
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the other 1.1bn come from?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You clearly didn’t think your question through!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must not have thought it through either, so enlighten please.
But as I said in the OP all three Nordic countries and Holland, all have monarchies, all are richer and happier than us. Perhaps we should try and emulate them.
posted on 12/9/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 7 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 3 hours, 50 minutes ago
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by RED666👺 The Influencer (U6562)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 10 minutes ago
The UK is failing with a monarchy so they're obviously not helping. If that's the case what's the point in keeping the planets biggest spongers when so many hard working people struggle just to make ends meet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How’s the monarchy to blame for whats going on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the point, with or without them the UK is circling the drain. So I ask again why keep the world's biggest spongers when so many people in the country are struggling to make ends meet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you realise how much the UK benefits financially from the Royal Family?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This myth again.
Do you realise the UK would benefit financially even more without them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a myth that Their contribution is 1.8bn a year , 550mill in tourism and 150 mill in trade
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does the other 1.1bn come from?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You clearly didn’t think your question through!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must not have thought it through either, so enlighten please.
But as I said in the OP all three Nordic countries and Holland, all have monarchies, all are richer and happier than us. Perhaps we should try and emulate them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's many more countries without monarchies that are richer and/or happier than us. Perhaps we should try and emulate them.
Page 19 of 21
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21