Monarchist or Republican?

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

Frankly, I'm sure Orwell would think of this as the 'Thought Police' (ThinkPol not Met Pol) operating.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

10 hours ago, Aggy said:

Nonsense. The “consensus” is that you can protest about what you want as long as you don’t resort to hate crime, cause damage or injury.

There are plenty of right wing protests. There are counter protests which argue against their views but not against the right to peaceful protest.

Did any hate crime, damage or injury happen at the coronation protests? Why were there arrests but no charges made for any of those things?

You seem to be saying people shouldn’t be able to protest if someone doesn’t like it. 

Consensus of whom? Consensus requires some degree of tolerance of disagreement, since unanimity will never be achieved.

Given that the majority do find our monarchy acceptable, the protesters clearly have no interest in the concept of consensus, in favour of disrupting activities that most don't object to, and many want to enjoy. As such, feckless protest like this endanger any consensus over the right to protest for matters more worthy of disruption.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

11 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

We know you are a bit odd already but you are confusing your anecdotal evidence with statistical facts.

By the way - you are not a subject of the monarch but a British citizen. That changed in 81.

You've provided no statistics and your phrasing is more towards absolutes than statistical measure. You've just stated things as if they're fact without actually presenting any information to support it, which is far more worthless than anecdotes that disprove your nonsense overgeneralisations quite satisfactorily by their mere existence.

I didn't know we're not subjects any more. It makes the protesters look even more petty and ludicrous. We're moving from a nation known for putting on a good show to a nation of people who only value their right to go out on the streets whining about things they don't like because they think protest is a game.

Edited May 10, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

10 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The Met Police arresting volunteers for handing out free rape alarms to women is about as sad and ironic as it gets. I hope they sue for wrongful arrest. 

Why would protestors go to the Coronation armed with rape alarms? Because they intended to use them to scare the horses during the procession and so cause mayhem and destruction.

There were no peaceful intentions in the activists motives, they went out to harass and cause maximum damage. The police actions probably saved lives. There were many elderly people and children in the crowd. One could only imagine the horrific scenes had the horses bolted in such cramped spaces. The Met got it right for once, and they need to use the same tactics against the stop oil nutters.

[dylanisabaddog 4,949]

3 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Why would protestors go to the Coronation armed with rape alarms? Because they intended to use them to scare the horses during the procession and so cause mayhem and destruction.

There were no peaceful intentions in the activists motives, they went out to harass and cause maximum damage. The police actions probably saved lives. There were many elderly people and children in the crowd. One could only imagine the horrific scenes had the horses bolted in such cramped spaces. The Met got it right for once, and they need to use the same tactics against the stop oil nutters.

Sorry I think you've misunderstood my post. The 3 ladies arrested work voluntarily for an organisation funded by Westminster Council. They hand out free rape alarms to women in the street and have done so for a long time. They had absolutely nothing to do with any protest group. 

As to whether Republican groups or Stop Oil would attack horses, I think that's highly unlikely. It would be a spectacular own goal. I believe that the monarchy should be abolished but I wouldn't support anything involving hurting horses and neither would hardly anyone else. 

[Herman 9,796]

People do realise that police and military horses are trained to put up with noise. It's a really daft attack line to take. But it is Rocky I suppose.

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

7 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You've provided no statistics and your phrasing is more towards absolutes than statistical measure. You've just stated things as if they're fact without actually presenting any information to support it, which is far more worthless than anecdotes that disprove your nonsense overgeneralisations quite satisfactorily by their mere existence.

I didn't know we're not subjects any more. It makes the protesters look even more petty and ludicrous. We're moving from a nation known for putting on a good show to a nation of people who only value their right to go out on the streets whining about things they don't like because they think protest is a game.

 

Here you go. If you lived in the UK you would of seen these statistics popping up all the time in the last few weeks in the media - Note graphs vs age bands.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2023/05/03/where-does-public-opinion-stand-monarchy-ahead-cor

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

People do realise that police and military horses are trained to put up with noise. It's a really daft attack line to take. But it is Rocky I suppose.

Did you see one of horses losing control and crashing into the crowd (ugly - of 'loyalists'). I guess they were making too much 'supportive' noise and were to blame. Should of been arrested. 😉

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

43 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Here you go. If ypu lived in the UK you would of seen these statistics popping up all the time in the last few weeks in the media - Note graphs vs age bands.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2023/05/03/where-does-public-opinion-stand-monarchy-ahead-cor

 

Yeah yeah yeah, except the ultimate statistic is that the majority of the population as a whole is still in favour of the monarchy. Incidentally, Hitler was also very much in favour of discounting the values of older people in favour of pointing out how youngsters were on his side as well.

Youth is not a moral force; it's merely a passing experience.

Support has always ebbed and flowed. There has still never been an elected PM approaching the popularity of either Queen Elizabeth or King Charles. In fact, maybe all PMs should have a run off against the sitting monarch after their first term to be appointed head of state and settle the question. My money would be on the monarchy never being abolished if that approach was taken.

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[dylanisabaddog 4,949]

29 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Yeah yeah yeah, except the ultimate statistic is that the majority of the population as a whole is still in favour of the monarchy. Incidentally, Hitler was also very much in favour of discounting the values of older people in favour of pointing out how youngsters were on his side as well.

Youth is not a moral force; it's merely a passing experience.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others. For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

Edited May 11, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

5 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself) than others. For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

You can find plenty of recent threads on here to demonstrate that Godwin's law isn't a thing on the Pinkun forum.

[KiwiScot 1,459]

17 hours ago, TheDarkKnight said:

Seeing since Southern Asian countries broke away from England, I would think that people who were born in Southern Asia would've voted yes, or at least, a fair majority.

Bit of a reach there surely. People born in the non-scottish parts of the UK & Ireland voted No and people born in the non-uk parts of the world voted yes(in the majority).  I mean I don't know if they recorded data on migrants votes, but you could counter argue migrants are more likley to vote no as they came to the UK only knowing about "England" or the UK and wanting to go there. Ending up in Scotland they might not want to leave "England" having made the effort to get there.

Generalising I would agree that someone born in the UK would have more deep rooted opinions on yes/no, but not agree on people not born here dispete my counter argument.

[Herman 9,796]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Did you see one of horses losing control and crashing into the crowd (ugly - of 'loyalists'). I guess they were making too much 'supportive' noise and were to blame. Should of been arrested. 😉

 

I heard that an old dear had opened a bag of crisps. Those new extra crispy one from Walkers. With ruffles. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,949]

Ruffles is just asking for it

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Did you see one of horses losing control and crashing into the crowd (ugly - of 'loyalists'). I guess they were making too much 'supportive' noise and were to blame. Should of been arrested. 😉

 

 

11 minutes ago, Herman said:

I heard that an old dear had opened a bag of crisps. Those new extra crispy one from Walkers. With ruffles. 

 

9 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Ruffles is just asking for it

Right, so protestors against a popular national institution being removed without harm is something to be outraged by, but innocent spectators at a public event potentially being harmed is something to laugh about because they like the monarchy. That really does sum you all up.

Edited May 11, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,796]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

 

Right, so protestors against a popular national institution being removed without harm is something to be outraged by, but innocent spectators at a public event potentially being harmed is something to laugh about because they like the monarchy. That really does sum you all up.

You are Owen Jones's right wing alter ego and I claim my five pounds. 

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

 

Right, so protestors against a popular national institution being removed without harm is something to be outraged by, but innocent spectators at a public event potentially being harmed is something to laugh about because they like the monarchy. That really does sum you all up.

Don't be an idiot or at least quote Rockies daft statement noted here to which these were ironic responses. A horse lost control and crashed through the safety barriers into the crowd anyway and nowt to do with 'Republic' or rape alarms. Perhaps the whole 'parade' was dangerous already to the general public then? It's a nonsense argument.

Rocky - There were many elderly people and children in the crowd. One could only imagine the horrific scenes had the horses bolted in such cramped spaces"

The outrage is the 6 (or more) lawful demonstrators who were liaising with the Met police to ensure a safe and lawful protest being arrested without charge and detained for 16 hours. That's totally un-British and even the likes of David Davies are causing a stink.  

If you can for simple expedience because its uncomfortable for the establishment override peoples liberties then you are already on a very slippery slope.  

[Barbe bleu 829]

I am beginning to really hate the phrase 'chilling effect' and its 'chilling' derivatives.It made an impact once but now after its 4 billionth outing on social media its nothing more than a lazy insult to the entire English language.

 

Its not personal benchwarmer.   No more personal to the nearly 4 billion  users that went before.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Aggy 757]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

I am beginning to really hate the phrase 'chilling effect' and its 'chilling' derivatives.It made an impact once but now after its 4 billionth outing on social media its nothing more than a lazy insult to the entire English language.

 

Its not personal benchwarmer.   No more personal to the nearly 4 billion  users that went before.

The majority don’t mind its usage, so pipe down. 

[Barbe bleu 829]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

The majority don’t mind its usage, so pipe down. 

Good for them. Wouldn't life be boring if we all liked and disliked the same things ?

[Aggy 757]

5 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Good for them. Wouldn't life be boring if we all liked and disliked the same things ?

I was saying only in jest as that is the line used above by some to argue against monarchy protests.. This is what happens when I try not to over explain for comedic affect 😞 

[KiwiScot 1,459]

13 hours ago, TheDarkKnight said:

According to YouGov only 26% of those who were born in England, Wales or Northern Ireland voted Yes

Always thought it was a shame Scottish people abroad could not vote. I could have been abroad in Sept 2014 and discovered I was unable to register a postal or proxy vote from abroad as it wasn't a general election. i.e. a local election within an already elected goverment. At least thats what I remember, but I know I could not have voted.

Tories have to be daft to not be encouraging people to move to Scotland

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

20 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Don't be an idiot or at least quote Rockies daft statement noted here to which these were ironic responses. A horse lost control and crashed through the safety barriers into the crowd anyway and nowt to do with 'Republic' or rape alarms. Perhaps the whole 'parade' was dangerous already to the general public then? It's a nonsense argument.

Rocky - There were many elderly people and children in the crowd. One could only imagine the horrific scenes had the horses bolted in such cramped spaces"

The outrage is the 6 (or more) lawful demonstrators who were liaising with the Met police to ensure a safe and lawful protest being arrested without charge and detained for 16 hours. That's totally un-British and even the likes of David Davies are causing a stink.  

If you can for simple expedience because its uncomfortable for the establishment override peoples liberties then you are already on a very slippery slope.  

I was quoting your somewhat smug response. As someone else said, the right to protest is dependent on a consensus in public opinion prepared to defend that right should governments attempt to remove it. If people pushing minority arguments insist on getting in the face of those lawfully enjoying a public event then they themselves are putting that consensus at risk by eroding people's willingness to tolerate the difference of views. In my view, those protesters are encouraging that slippery slope by poor judgement on what and when to protest.

In an intellectual sense, I agree it was wrong to arrest them. The problem is that emotionally I enjoy that they were ignonimously carted off, because I like the fact that some people who really irritiate me have been irritated by how they were dealt with while going out of their way to irritate a lot of other people. Personally, I am the sort of person who will put their own feelings aside for a greater idea, but the question people like you need to ask yourself is what proportion of others who also support our monarchy and are angered by people insisting on the right to gratuitously aggravate others for little purpose and whether that's worth eroding the consensus in favour of protest that undermines protesting more worthwhile causes.

At the end of the day, the protesters are there protesting because they themselves are unwilling to practise a bit of tolerance, in which case it's a tough ask to demand that you are in turn tolerated.

Edited May 12, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[sonyc 5,539]

52 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

At the end of the day, the protesters are there protesting because they themselves are unwilling to practise a bit of tolerance, in which case it's a tough ask to demand that you are in turn tolerated.

Tolerance is a much under-estimated quality LYB. Being able to tolerate other people is incredibly important (and occasionally a tough task) but most of all, we have to learn to tolerate ourselves. To live fulfilled and balanced lives we do anyway.

Apologies for butting in to an argument but the word just shouted out to me.

[Creative Midfielder 1,999]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

If people pushing minority arguments insist on getting in the face of those lawfully enjoying a public event

I think you'll find that you are years out of date if you think climate protesters are pushing a 'minority argument'.

Of course, based upon the very scientific poll on this thread it seems that Republican protesters aren't now pushing a minority argument either 😀, and in reality although they may be a minority, it is a large minority and growing.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I think you'll find that you are years out of date if you think climate protesters are pushing a 'minority argument'.

Of course, based upon the very scientific poll on this thread it seems that Republican protesters aren't now pushing a minority argument either 😀, and in reality although they may be a minority, it is a large minority and growing.

You really like to attack a straw man, don't you? I don't think that, which is why I'm raising the point on something about the monarchy rather than something about climate change. The extinction rebellion protests are about pushing government to accelerate action on increasing chances of everyone's survival. All of the people going to work who can't get on trains will find them a personal inconvenience, but most will tolerate it on the basis they can understand the worth of what they're doing as something to benefit wider society.

That has nothing to do with people attacking popular parts of society itself that cause no harm and bring a lot of benefit to society in terms of diplomacy, PR, and an excuse for a day off every once in a while because of an overzealous approach to 'democracy', particularly when the actual democratic representation we have is dysfunctional for reasons that have nothing to do with the monarchy. Whether you want a monarchy or not is entirely subjective. Those who don't like it are welcome not to like it. Those who do should be welcome to enjoy it without being disrupted for the sake of self-indulgence on the part of those who don't.

The minority may be growing. It might diminish again in the future. If they become a majority then I'll respect that, but in the meantime I don't give a sh1t what they think while people like myself do reflect the majority view.

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

5 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I was quoting your somewhat smug response. As someone else said, the right to protest is dependent on a consensus in public opinion prepared to defend that right should governments attempt to remove it. If people pushing minority arguments insist on getting in the face of those lawfully enjoying a public event then they themselves are putting that consensus at risk by eroding people's willingness to tolerate the difference of views. In my view, those protesters are encouraging that slippery slope by poor judgement on what and when to protest.

In an intellectual sense, I agree it was wrong to arrest them. The problem is that emotionally I enjoy that they were ignonimously carted off, because I like the fact that some people who really irritiate me have been irritated by how they were dealt with while going out of their way to irritate a lot of other people. Personally, I am the sort of person who will put their own feelings aside for a greater idea, but the question people like you need to ask yourself is what proportion of others who also support our monarchy and are angered by people insisting on the right to gratuitously aggravate others for little purpose and whether that's worth eroding the consensus in favour of protest that undermines protesting more worthwhile causes.

At the end of the day, the protesters are there protesting because they themselves are unwilling to practise a bit of tolerance, in which case it's a tough ask to demand that you are in turn tolerated.

I'm not really sure what you think your argument is apart from the rule of the mob or more succinctly put, the tyranny of the majority.

There are of course limits on all protests - indeed few would argue against stopping people 'locking-on' to the road and criminal damage (I'd prefer to remove them and their personal bit of road/railing still attached to them to and then leave - with bill for road repairs).

However, generally peaceful protest or dissent is a sign of a civilized, mature and democratic society. It also the case that we need such laws to defend such rights when they are indeed uncomfortable for the majority - its easy to agree with such laws and liberties when it doesn't affect you after-all. The proof is do you honour and follow them when its not and hard? 

Did you by the way note today the 'Loyalist' protester who was also detained (13 hours?) and is now VERY pissed off. Mob rule. ThinkPol.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'm not really sure what you think your argument is apart from the rule of the mob or more succinctly put, the tyranny of the majority.

There are of course limits on all protests - indeed few would argue against stopping people 'locking-on' to the road and criminal damage (I'd prefer to remove them and their personal bit of road/railing still attached to them to them then leave - with bill for road repairs).

However, generally peaceful protest or dissent is a sign of a civilized, mature and democratic society. It also the case that we need such laws to defend such rights when they are indeed uncomfortable for the majority - its easy to agree with such laws and liberties when it doesn't affect you after-all. The proof is do you honour and follow them when its not and hard? 

Did you by the way note today the 'Loyalist' protester who was also detained (3 hours?) and is now VERY pissed off. Mob rule. ThinkPol.

Tyranny of the majority... tell me how you're tyrannised by the UK having a monarchy.

There's nothing mature about protesting peaceful public celebrations. ,

Edited May 12, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,807]

13 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Tyranny of the majority... tell me how you're tyrannised by the UK having a monarchy.

There's nothing mature about protesting peaceful public celebrations. ,

When your rights are trampled over I suggest you don't ever complain 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

25 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

When your rights are trampled over I suggest you don't ever complain 

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.

Still no answer on how you're being tyrannised by the UK having a monarchy as well.

Edited May 12, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie