Plod has 'regrets'...

[Brigadier]

Start an internet debate about anything and someone will argue passionately for one side or the other.

Isn't that the point of debate?

It's football fan syndrome, the need to have a cause you believe in.

Just as easy to say the same about obsessing over having a president (which no-one has yet to demonstrate why it is any better than what we already have).

Asking someone with this mindset about anything to consider alternatives is like asking a Man U fan to think about whether Man City might be worth supporting. Grunt, angry response, end of thought process.

For some, I agree.

For others though, don't confuse they're not coming around to your point of view than anything other than their coming to their own, considered, position.
We're allowed to disagree.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

We're allowed to disagree.

I agree in theory.

But nobody was allowed to disagree . Plod has regrets.

 

[Brigadier]

I was replying to Windy, @carmanmemoranda

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I was replying to Windy, @carmanmemoranda

I know. But the point stands.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

For others though, don't confuse they're not coming around to your point of view than anything other than their coming to their own, considered, position.
We're allowed to disagree.

Not pointing any fingers, definitely not at you, but here and elsewhere on the internet there are people who just enjoy bickering as some kind of weird keyboard warrior sport.

If anyone can convince me of the logical and fair reasons why the monarchy makes any sense then I'm all ears. I just haven't heard anything along these lines, just the usual tradition, stability, tourists stuff that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

If anyone was to start an anti-monarchy political party then their MPs would be required to swear allegiance to the monarch before entering the house - the single reason that elected Sinn Fein MPs can never attend. Then, even if they did falsely swear their allegiance in order to get through the door, the moment they tried to debate anything related to the royals in any way they'd be booted out. As confirmed in that article I linked previously, where Starmer attempted debate that was only loosely connected with them.

You have to ask yourself why we need this extremely heavy-handed approach, and what it is that they fear. It's all a bit mafia-like.

Protest was the one and only legal means of questioning the concept of monarchy that was available. If this is now being prevented then what happens? Either they all shut up, go away and don't question authority, or they break the law. Perhaps this is the intention, then they can lock them all in the tower or whatever.

 

[denso13]

the moment they tried to debate anything related to the royals in any way they'd be booted out

Course they wouldn't, https://assets.nationbuilder.com/re...1645091115/Letter_from_Speaker.pdf?1645091115

 

[transam]

Tbh I don’t give a stuff if said protestors were arrested not a jot

And no I never watched one second
If the coronation because ultimately I do not give a stuff about that either

I was to busy

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Course they wouldn't, https://assets.nationbuilder.com/re...1645091115/Letter_from_Speaker.pdf?1645091115

Thanks, hadn't seen that.

Putting it bluntly, that is a very diplomatically worded load of spin.

I'm not a lawyer, but it's definitely the case that many specifics relating to the royals are banned from debate - abolishing them definitely would be for starters. That letter seems to be taking a few specific examples of things relating to the royals that could be discussed, but that's definitely not everything.

Here's the official rule...

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4946/royal-family/?highlight=Royal%20family&s=09

It sounds like you can discuss how much they're fleecing costing us all, you can't discuss whether they should keep their jobs.

 

[Odds]

Start an internet debate about anything and someone will argue passionately for one side or the other.

It's football fan syndrome, the need to have a cause you believe in. Asking someone with this mindset about anything to consider alternatives is like asking a Man U fan to think about whether Man City might be worth supporting. Grunt, angry response, end of thought process.

I like football analogies, so here's one for you:

A guy goes into the home crowd at an Arsenal-Spurs match, takes off his jacket and reveals his white shirt. What will be the reaction?

Now this guy goes to a protest about the monarchy and takes off his jacket to reveal his shirt...

and is removed/arrested.
Many climate change activists infiltrated the protest, cause a disturbance, as they do, and complained they were arrested on public order laws. They wanted to cause a fuss, get attention and used the Coronation in order to gain publicity. Mission accomplished.

 

[noseall]

having a president (which no-one has yet to demonstrate why it is any better than what we already have).

Oh, I think the USA and their Trump experiment encapsulates perfectly why the UK will never inflict such shít, on these great shores.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I like football analogies, so here's one for you:

A guy goes into the home crowd at an Arsenal-Spurs match, takes off his jacket and reveals his white shirt. What will be the reaction?

Now this guy goes to a protest about the monarchy and takes off his jacket to reveal his shirt...

and is removed/arrested.
Many climate change activists infiltrated the protest, cause a disturbance, as they do, and complained they were arrested on public order laws. They wanted to cause a fuss, get attention and used the Coronation in order to gain publicity. Mission accomplished.

But that protestor could have gone to the football match, and sat in the appropriate place, as agreed with normal requirements. And could have joined in shouting at the opposition, whether he and his team won or lost.

Not quite the same as not even being allowed into the match is it

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Stretching that strained football match analogy even further, we've all been forced to pay for tickets whether we want to go or not.

And should we really take our moral guidance from a footy crowd? Are they now the last word in social protocol?

Actually just give up with the analogy, it's nonsense.

 

[Odds]

But that protestor could have gone to the football match, and sat in the appropriate place, as agreed with normal requirements. And could have joined in shouting at the opposition, whether he and his team won or lost.

Not quite the same as not even being allowed into the match is it

He could have. But he did not. He didn't for the reason given; to disrupt the crowd and make his point.
This is why a crowd is segregated at a match...to keep the peace.

Stretching that strained football match analogy even further, we've all been forced to pay for tickets whether we want to go or not.

And should we really take our moral guidance from a footy crowd? Are they now the last word in social protocol?

Actually just give up with the analogy, it's nonsense.

You seemed happy enough to highlight Liverpool fans chanting anti-monarchy slogans at Anfield.
Nobody forces you to pay for the Royal Family.

 

[motorbiking]

The football analogy doesn't really work. It's an event you buy a ticket for, you have a choice. The Coronation (unlike a royal wedding) was funded by the tax payer. It was estimated to cost £100M. Supposedly the ROI was 10:1, I'm not convinced.

Those opposing the king could easily have been allowed to protest without disrupting the enjoyment of others. The police's arrests were likely unlawful. If these were a planned systematic deliberate strategy, then disciplinary measures should be considered against the officer in charge who thought it was ok for the police to break the law.

 

[Odds]

Have any arrests led to charges, or was it just a way to remove disruptive spectators?
If you make a nuisance of yourself at a match stewards will remove you. If you disrupt the match on the pitch police will arrest you.