Monarchist or Republican?

[canarydan23 4,115]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I think it's pretty disingenuous to suggest you have any interest in the rights of people you don't agree with. If you did, you might have a bit more respect for the idea that those who want to enjoy royal events should be allowed to without protesters interfering.

Are you genuinely typing this, or just on a wind up?

You're fighting the fight for people to enjoy royal events without protesters? And think it's right that protesters are arrested for turning up at an area previously agreed with the police with a few placards and some yellow clothing?

Christ. I'm the millennial here, I'm meant to be the entitled one. But the idea that "I SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENJOY THE CORONATION WITHOUT ANY INCONVENIENCE WHATSOEVER" trumps a key tenet of a democratic society is sensationally self-centred.

And again, I'm the lefty too. I'm not meant to be the one that uses the trope, "If you like that sort of thing, go to North Korea". At least in East Germany people got free cars, you get **** all in a right-wing autocracy. Except maybe the trains run on time.

I mean, it would be quite a thing for me to tell you to **** off to another country if you hate republican protesters protesting at a coronation, considering you abandoned a parliamentary monarchy for a country that really knows how to protest.

[dylanisabaddog 5,050]

21 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Are you genuinely typing this, or just on a wind up?

You're fighting the fight for people to enjoy royal events without protesters? And think it's right that protesters are arrested for turning up at an area previously agreed with the police with a few placards and some yellow clothing?

Christ. I'm the millennial here, I'm meant to be the entitled one. But the idea that "I SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENJOY THE CORONATION WITHOUT ANY INCONVENIENCE WHATSOEVER" trumps a key tenet of a democratic society is sensationally self-centred.

And again, I'm the lefty too. I'm not meant to be the one that uses the trope, "If you like that sort of thing, go to North Korea". At least in East Germany people got free cars, you get **** all in a right-wing autocracy. Except maybe the trains run on time.

I mean, it would be quite a thing for me to tell you to **** off to another country if you hate republican protesters protesting at a coronation, considering you abandoned a parliamentary monarchy for a country that really knows how to protest.

[canarydan23 4,115]

4 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

See, that's ok, because it's not upsetting those poor, poor people just trying to avoid a stranger becoming King. No wait, he was already King. A stranger's party to celebrate becoming King last year?

I don't know, whatever it is, THEY MUST NOT BE DISTURBED WHILST ENJOYING IT!

[Yellow Fever 3,848]

29 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Are you genuinely typing this, or just on a wind up?

You're fighting the fight for people to enjoy royal events without protesters? And think it's right that protesters are arrested for turning up at an area previously agreed with the police with a few placards and some yellow clothing?

Christ. I'm the millennial here, I'm meant to be the entitled one. But the idea that "I SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENJOY THE CORONATION WITHOUT ANY INCONVENIENCE WHATSOEVER" trumps a key tenet of a democratic society is sensationally self-centred.

And again, I'm the lefty too. I'm not meant to be the one that uses the trope, "If you like that sort of thing, go to North Korea". At least in East Germany people got free cars, you get **** all in a right-wing autocracy. Except maybe the trains run on time.

I mean, it would be quite a thing for me to tell you to **** off to another country if you hate republican protesters protesting at a coronation, considering you abandoned a parliamentary monarchy for a country that really knows how to protest.

I can agree with that CD23 - infact I was listening to R4 yesterday on the slide to 'facism' and its roots and LYBs views are it seems exactly along those lines. An intolerance of 'other' or not one of us.

[dylanisabaddog 5,050]

19 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I can agree with that CD23 - infact I was listening to R4 yesterday on the slide to 'facism' and its roots and LYBs views are it seems exactly along those lines. An intolerance of 'other' or not one of us.

Way back in this thread you'll find a claim that effectively says that our system is the only thing we have left. It doesn't ever cross the mind of anyone with that view that our system is what stops us from being a truly Great country. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

Christ. I'm the millennial here, I'm meant to be the entitled one. But the idea that "I SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENJOY THE CORONATION WITHOUT ANY INCONVENIENCE WHATSOEVER" trumps a key tenet of a democratic society is sensationally self-centred.

Well, yeah, why not? It is actually enshrined in law that minorities should be able to enjoy whatever they want to do without any inconvenience whatsoever, so why not the majority as well? "Tyranny of the majority" complaints about the monarchy are absolute rubbish. It's ceremonial occasions that more people like than don't, causing no harm to anyone. The protesters are just rude.

Edited May 12, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Way back in this thread you'll find a claim that effectively says that our system is the only thing we have left. It doesn't ever cross the mind of anyone with that view that our system is what stops us from being a truly Great country. 

Says the guy who generally seems to endorse the Labour party hanging onto first past the post for grim death. Like I said, the electoral system is a far bigger barrier to decent representation than the monarchy. In fact, the monarchy is no barrier to decent representation at all in any practical or real sense.

Edited May 12, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

I can agree with that CD23 - infact I was listening to R4 yesterday on the slide to 'facism' and its roots and LYBs views are it seems exactly along those lines. An intolerance of 'other' or not one of us.

Oh come on, your brand of socialism is just a brand of fascism dressed up with some sentiment that you're doing it for the good of others. The vote to leave the EU resulted in a majority to leave the EU, but you've no respect for that because you didn't agree with it. Everyone who wanted it is a stupid racist as far as you're concerned and that's that. Tommy Robinson's excessive conviction for mortgage fraud was fine because he's not of your ilk, regardless of the fact that Peter Mandelson not only didn't get charged for the same, but carried on in politics to boot, nor was anyone bothered about the atrocious way due process was disregarded by the judge over his contempt hearing, where, by the way, I recall you being fully in favour of him being denied the right to protest what he felt was the failure of the judicial system.

There's no rational grounds for such vitriolic hatred of King Charles to go out with placards on the day of coronation on the same streets at the same time as all of those going out there to enjoy the occasion. All getting a bit circular now, but the worst anyone experience was being removed without harm, temporarily detained, and released without charge. Perfectly appropriate and proportional way to deal with people setting out to be a pain in the **** for no purpose of great value on a state occasion.

Edited May 12, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

19 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Oh come on, your brand of socialism is just a brand of fascism dressed up with some sentiment that you're doing it for the good of others. The vote to leave the EU resulted in a majority to leave the EU, but you've no respect for that because you didn't agree with it. Everyone who wanted it is a stupid racist as far as you're concerned and that's that. Tommy Robinson's excessive conviction for mortgage fraud was fine because he's not of your ilk, regardless of the fact that Peter Mandelson not only didn't get charged for the same, but carried on in politics to boot, nor was anyone bothered about the atrocious way due process was disregarded by the judge over his contempt hearing, where, by the way, I recall you being fully in favour of him being denied the right to protest what he felt was the failure of the judicial system.

There's no rational grounds for such vitriolic hatred of King Charles to go out with placards on the day of coronation on the same streets at the same time as all of those going out there to enjoy the occasion. All getting a bit circular now, but the worst anyone experience was being removed without harm, temporarily detained, and released without charge. Perfectly appropriate and proportional way to deal with people setting out to be a pain in the **** for no purpose of great value on a state occasion.

I would argue its the perfect time to go out and protest. Its the only time they will get noticed. And being a pain in the **** is not a crime. You say its a pain and virtually all monarchists would agree with you. But it doesn't make criminally or morally wrong.

[Herman 9,852]

This reminds me of someone.🤔

"Suella Braverman defends the arrest of protestors during the Coronation: “The people’s right to freely enjoy that day trumped any claim of reckless, selfish people that they should be free to disrupt whatever they want without effective consequence.”"

[canarydan23 4,115]

On 12/05/2023 at 16:47, littleyellowbirdie said:

The protesters are just rude.

How dare they be rude! LET'S ARREST ALL RUDE PEOPLE!

Imagine how outraged you'd be if Cubans were arrested for being "rude" about Che Guevara or Fidel Castro. Or North Koreans were arrested for being "rude" about Kim Jon-whatever-the-last-bit-is.

Your mask is slipping; you're only sanguine about right-wing governments using their police force to snuff out dissent.

Pretty sure that's happened on a wider scale somewhere else.

[TheGunnShow 6,074]

I've got lightbulbs that have blown that are brighter than Suella Braverman. There was never a reason to make peaceful protest a reason for the police to step in.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

How dare they be rude! LET'S ARREST ALL RUDE PEOPLE!

Imagine how outraged you'd be if Cubans were arrested for being "rude" about Che Guevara or Fidel Castro. Or North Koreans were arrested for being "rude" about Kim Jon-whatever-the-last-bit-is.

Your mask is slipping; you're only sanguine about right-wing governments using their police force to snuff out dissent.

Pretty sure that's happened on a wider scale somewhere else.

It's literally removing people from a place without harm and temporarily detained for release without charge a little while later. You only have to look at the protests in Iran at the moment to see there really is no comparison between what they suffer fighting for things far more important than a ceremonial head of state.

If people were really that worried about civil rights then they should have been a bit more alert to the growth of surveillance and AI in terms of monitoring people, because it's now way too late to worry about it. The true absurdity of it all is that we have these people taking to the streets 'fighting the system' while simultaneously bemoaning the fact that the system isn't completely bending over backwards to accomodate them.

And it is rude. It's gratuitous and rather empty protest politics on the most trivial of 'issues' that they only indulge in because they think they're entitled to, which means it's all a bit of a joke. Even the so-called outrage is a joke. At the end of the day, they all know they're totally safe and will be looked after as they play their games; most of them wouldn't turn up if they thought otherwise. In the other direction, we've had decades of political discourse being dictated by things that might cause offense. Protest is supposed to be about punching up, but this is more about punching the majority for liking something a minority thinks they shouldn't.

Incidentally, if any of them were being harmed or getting criminal records for their actions then I definitely wouldn't be sanguine, but that's not the case. I think protest can be important when governments try to fly in the face of wider public opinion, but that's not the case with the monarchy either as it stands.

Edited May 15, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 5,050]

I was listening to BBC radio on the day of the Coronation. A rather condescending reporter asked an American woman in the crowd if she wished the USA had a Royal Family. She laughed and said that America is a proud democracy but it was nice to come here to see how we do it. 

To put it less politely she thinks this country is a joke. The reporter suggested that Britain is actually a democracy, totally missing the point that an unelected billionaire in a gold carriage was about to go past. 

It's very worrying that you can't protest against living in an undemocratic society but that's where we find ourselves. In the circumstances I've decided to write to the moderator of this site because I don't agree with your posts about PR and they spoil the enjoyment of my day. 

Don't worry, you'll only get 16 hours in a cell. 

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[canarydan23 4,115]

8 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's literally removing people from a place without harm and temporarily detained for release without charge a little while later.

You're belittling the experience of being detained in a cell for hours and hours whilst simultaneously making out that PEOPLE WAVING PLACARDS AND WEARING YELLOW is this mega inconvenience. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's literally removing people from a place without harm and temporarily detained for release without charge a little while later. You only have to look at the protests in Iran at the moment to see there really is no comparison between what they suffer fighting for things far more important than a ceremonial head of state.

If people were really that worried about civil rights then they should have been a bit more alert to the growth of surveillance and AI in terms of monitoring people, because it's now way too late to worry about it. The true absurdity of it all is that we have these people taking to the streets 'fighting the system' while simultaneously bemoaning the fact that the system isn't completely bending over backwards to accomodate them.

And it is rude. It's gratuitous and rather empty protest politics on the most trivial of 'issues' that they only indulge in because they think they're entitled to, which means it's all a bit of a joke. Even the so-called outrage is a joke. At the end of the day, they all know they're totally safe and will be looked after as they play their games; most of them wouldn't turn up if they thought otherwise. In the other direction, we've had decades of political discourse being dictated by things that might cause offense. Protest is supposed to be about punching up, but this is more about punching the majority for liking something a minority thinks they shouldn't.

Incidentally, if any of them were being harmed or getting criminal records for their actions then I definitely wouldn't be sanguine, but that's not the case. I think protest can be important when governments try to fly in the face of wider public opinion, but that's not the case with the monarchy either as it stands.

Good luck with telling your French neighbours that protest is rude.

[Creative Midfielder 2,004]

On 12/05/2023 at 17:00, littleyellowbirdie said:

All getting a bit circular now, but the worst anyone experience was being removed without harm, temporarily detained, and released without charge. Perfectly appropriate and proportional way to deal with people setting out to be a pain in the **** for no purpose of great value on a state occasion.

😂 I rather doubt that the Australian tourist who had flown over at a cost of goodness what to experience the coronation and who wasn't part of any protest but was arrested anyway and held for 13 hours would agree with such a ridiculous proposition and frankly nobody who genuinely believes in democracy, free speech and the rule of law would either.

[Yellow Fever 3,848]

I'm amazed LYB can't see the absurdity of his position - he's acting as a dictator / tyrant.

To surmise his position; peaceful demonstrations and free speech are good if he agrees with them but if he doesn't then lock them up / hide them away!

I'm sure he'd fit right in in an any autocracy. He's a natural.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[Nuff Said 5,223]

On 12/05/2023 at 17:00, littleyellowbirdie said:

The vote to leave the EU resulted in a majority to leave the EU, but you've no respect for that because you didn't agree with it.

The vote to leave the EU resulted in a majority of those who voted to leave the EU. A majority of the electorate didn’t vote to leave the EU and an even greater majority of the population didn’t vote for it either, but I guess those majorities don’t matter because that doesn’t agree with your argument. Sounds like the tyranny of the minority to me.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

One thing that really gets up my nose is 

"I believe that freedom of speech is a fundemental right but . . ."

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

The vote to leave the EU resulted in a majority of those who voted to leave the EU. A majority of the electorate didn’t vote to leave the EU and an even greater majority of the population didn’t vote for it either, but I guess those majorities don’t matter because that doesn’t agree with your argument. Sounds like the tyranny of the minority to me.

It wasn't a supermajority sure, but that's neither here nor there. It was a majority of the people who could be bothered to turn out and express an opinion either way. It should also be remembered that it was also followed through by two general elections under First Past the Post that very few around here seem half as inclined to make a fuss about as they do the monarchy, even though our electoral system enabled leaving the EU to a far greater extent than the monarchy did, and when there was one party explicitly offering calling the whole thing off that  few people bothered voting for, although I did.

41 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

One thing that really gets up my nose is 

"I believe that freedom of speech is a fundemental right but . . ."

Sure, but we're not talking about speech here, because you can hear plenty of arguments against the monarchy freely on a regular basis; we're talking about disruption of a publc event in the face of majority opinion of something that's not remotely tyrannical.

Arguably, it'd be fair to characterise protesting on this as just plain anti-social behaviour.

Funny thing is, I can't say I'm honestly motivated much either way about the monarchy. I suppose it's a comfortable part of the furniture in some respects. A lot of people enjoy it though, so I've no inclination to spoil their fun when it's something they like and it's definitely a net benefit to the country in many ways. I suppose my lack of sympathy with the so-called protesters is  I just enjoy seeing killjoys having their fun spoiled.

Edited May 16, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[canarydan23 4,115]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

we're talking about disruption of a publc event in the face of majority opinion of something that's not remotely tyrannical.

No, we're talking about a lawful, peaceful protest of a public event. There was no plan or intention to disrupt it. The location and nature of the protest was discussed weeks ahead of the event with the Police.

Edited May 16, 2023 by canarydan23

[Nuff Said 5,223]

10 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

No, we're talking about a lawful, peaceful protest of a public event. There was no plan or intention to disrupt it. The location and nature of the protest was discussion weeks ahead of the event with the Police.

Both key points. The plan was to hold up placards, not disrupt the event. And Republic had discussed it with the police and agreed what they would/could do and what they wouldn’t/couldn’t.
 

To then be arrested was either complete incompetence or betrayal by the police. Which has backfired on them, because a) they won’t get that sort of advance cooperation from protesters again and b) Republic saw their recruitment shoot up after the arrests.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

45 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Both key points. The plan was to hold up placards, not disrupt the event. And Republic had discussed it with the police and agreed what they would/could do and what they wouldn’t/couldn’t.
 

To then be arrested was either complete incompetence or betrayal by the police. Which has backfired on them, because a) they won’t get that sort of advance cooperation from protesters again and b) Republic saw their recruitment shoot up after the arrests.

Bacon on the doors of a mosque. It's a direct attack on people's values in their presence. Standing on a street calling everybody a c**t as they pass by can be considered peaceful protest and exercising freedom of speech as well. You can also say it's obnoxious.

Edited May 16, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,852]

Neither of those cases can be classed as peaceful protest.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

2 minutes ago, Herman said:

Neither of those cases can be classed as peaceful protest.

Yes it can if you think anybody should be able to do and say what they want wherever they want according to their beliefs. Nobody's being hurt and no property is being damaged. The complaint against me here seems to be that I'm suggesting that completely unqualified freedom of speech isn't a thing; now you're suggesting it is and should be, provided it suits you.

Edited May 16, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,852]

I don't know what you are going on about anymore.

You're allowed peaceful protest. The two cases you suggested could be construed as incitement.

[Yellow Fever 3,848]

13 minutes ago, Herman said:

I don't know what you are going on about anymore.

You're allowed peaceful protest. The two cases you suggested could be construed as incitement.

One is clearly a hate crime etc.  Existing laws can deal with verbal abuse (verbal abuse & harassment).

What happened to the protesters was something else.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,611]

13 minutes ago, Herman said:

I don't know what you are going on about anymore.

You're allowed peaceful protest. The two cases you suggested could be construed as incitement.

Protesting against the monarchy in the faces of people out to celebrate the coronation of the monarch could as easily be considered incitement as throwing bacon at Muslims or randomly calling people c**ts on the street.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It wasn't a supermajority sure, but that's neither here nor there. It was a majority of the people who could be bothered to turn out and express an opinion either way. It should also be remembered that it was also followed through by two general elections under First Past the Post that very few around here seem half as inclined to make a fuss about as they do the monarchy, even though our electoral system enabled leaving the EU to a far greater extent than the monarchy did, and when there was one party explicitly offering calling the whole thing off that  few people bothered voting for, although I did.

Sure, but we're not talking about speech here, because you can hear plenty of arguments against the monarchy freely on a regular basis; we're talking about disruption of a publc event in the face of majority opinion of something that's not remotely tyrannical.

Arguably, it'd be fair to characterise protesting on this as just plain anti-social behaviour.

Funny thing is, I can't say I'm honestly motivated much either way about the monarchy. I suppose it's a comfortable part of the furniture in some respects. A lot of people enjoy it though, so I've no inclination to spoil their fun when it's something they like and it's definitely a net benefit to the country in many ways. I suppose my lack of sympathy with the so-called protesters is  I just enjoy seeing killjoys having their fun spoiled.

There can never be freedom of speech. For example, its not on to publicly give away someone's secrets or skeletons, or to accuse them of something that is patently untrue.

Protest is something different though. By not turning up on masse to watch Norwich after a social post is not violent, rude, untrue or anti social. It might spoil the game and hurt the club but it is nevertheless a right to abstain from something that isn't compulsory.

As in everything in life, there are exceptions to all rules. And personal choice is valid. For instance, in Cornwall, there is more protest about Devonians putting the jam on top of the cream than the eprformance of our local MP. Its annoying to many but important to others.

I believe there may have been incidents that could have occurred at the Coronation. But I am also disturbed that there appears to be acceptance that the police can act to stop people blowing whistles just because it suits also. What next? You must not say you agree with Sinn Fein? 

Braverman is pushing an agenda that, apart from her own ambitions, chooses to single out issues that suit her and sympathisers rather than a modern society.

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by keelansgrandad