I heard hammering from next door this afternoon. Turned out it was the neighbour fixing a union flag to her side of my close-board fence with one inch nails through the boards. For the sake of good relations I decided not to have a word. It’s only one flag and it’s already up so what’s the point. However she does know it’s my fence so it’s a bit inconsiderate.
It turned out the flag was only the start.
Half an hour later she began nailing bunting along the fifty foot length of my fence. I went round and asked her to stop. I said she could leave up the flag as it’s already there.
I know it’s only a fence and a few holes will not bring it down although drawing pins pressed in would have been the sensible option.
Also had she wanted say permanent hanging baskets I’d have willingly carefully screwed them up for her But her swinging her claw hammer was beyond the pale (pun intended).
Am I being unreasonable?
|
Absolutely not!!
Despite being (generally) a supporter of the monarchy, not a republican, I dread the prospect of a week of never ending, hushed, repetitive, monotonal royal media claptrap.
Were it not that we have just moved and builders are renovating the pile, I would have flown somewhere beyond the reach of UK media.
Final solution - find a decent pub with decent beer and decent food, no bunting and no TV. Campout there for a week!!
|
Apparently we are expected to swear allegiance to the crown.
Stuff that.
|
I’m kicking myself so hard....instead of being on the 07:00 Jet2 Saturday i booked the 15:40....by early afternoon I could, and should have been, half way up a hill swearing allegiance to the Royal Buddha Tandoori and a case of Lidl Albariño.
Double drat
|
PPPPPP :)
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 30 Apr 23 at 21:52
|
|
Done it once and believe it gets handed down to the heirs and successors.
|
|
Nine-year-old grandson was asked if he wanted to go to the city to see the pomp & ceremony, replied nah, expect to see it all again!
|
>> Done it once and believe it gets handed down to the heirs and successors.
Same here.
|
Got back from a dogging weekend inSuffolk last night, just in time to see some BBC thing about Charlie, Making of a King was it?
rarely do I see anything that truly wants to make me vomit, but that was the exception. Kringworthy to the extreme, trying to big up all the things he did as a kid, making a thing of his naval career best he got was help to captain a minesweeper!
I dont get this "I am here to serve" sheet. He serves only himself and the monarchy.
The Queen has died, at that point we should have gone republic and dumped the monarchy.
|
>>The Queen has died, at that point we should have gone republic and dumped the monarchy.
I agree.
The civil list went in 2011, replaced by the Sovereign Grant Act 2011. The grant started off at £31m in 2012/13 and has increased to £86m for 2021/22!
The King, kindly allows the £1billion generated from leasing the seabed to offshore wind farms to be used for the "public good". Well, if we were a republic, that would be the state's anyway.
|
> The King, kindly allows the £1billion generated from leasing the seabed to offshore wind farms
>> to be used for the "public good". Well, if we were a republic, that would
>> be the state's anyway.
>>
I think it's the law, I don't believe there's any 'allowing' by any monarch.
|
>>
>> I think it's the law, I don't believe there's any 'allowing' by any monarch.
>>
My source was this: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/19/cash-and-the-crown-estate-a-look-at-the-british-monarchys-funding-deal
Of course, it's biased.
|
The monarch surrenders the revenue from the estate to the Treasury each year for the benefit of the nation’s finances, in exchange for the sovereign grant. The funding arrangement dates back to 1760, when George III reached an agreement to surrender his income from the estate in return for an annual fixed payment.
I think this is what i was thinking of.
|
>> >> Done it once and believe it gets handed down to the heirs and successors.
>>
>> Same here.
>>
And those placed over me, if I remember right, is somewhere in there.
|
>>increased to £86m for 2021/22!
Compared Biden & Macron the Queen was good value for money!
|
While it's a funny and old fashioned concept, I really don't have a problem with the Monarchy. That's not to say I'm a fan but neither am I anti. In general I think I like harmless tradition to be maintained, but undoubtedly someone will find something I hadn't thought of which I'd dislike.
I don't think there is a net cost to us They don't pass laws which bother me, or prevent me going about my business. Obviously some behaviours are questionable.
I occasionally get enjoyment from something royal - the grounds of Windsor are great to explore, state occasions can be quite a spectacle (for 10 minutes or so anyway).
On the whole I prefer having a monarchy to a president. Many of those are a bit dodgy one way or another.
|
I'm in agreement with Smokie. I don't care either way. The Monarchy doesn't bother me.
When you look at the other Monarchies near us, from Scandinavia down through the Low Countries, Spain and into Morocco, It seems that most of those nations, including us, seem reasonably at peace with themselves.
Ted
|
>>
>> I'm in agreement with Smokie. I don't care either way. The Monarchy doesn't bother me.
As I've said before if you started with a blank sheet and a brainstorm exercise a constitutional monarchy wouldn't get past first base. However we've got one that's developed and, for the most part, works.
Crrating a Republic is like another grand project in recent times; you'd spend aeons down in the detail with a massive opportunity for political malevolence and a huge opportunity cost for things that actually affect real people.
Let's see how easily we can reform the Monarchy, slim it down etc but stick with the basic idea.
See also the House of Lords.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 1 May 23 at 15:58
|
Re Coronation, Charlie automatically became King at the death of QE2.
So there is no actual need to have a coronation is there? He is already King.
Am I right?
And therefore we could save the ridiculous amount of money that it’s going to cost the nation?
|
|
Probably not more than a few mill. And it will give a lot of people (not including you, obviously) some pleasure.
|
You are technically right. A monarch does not need a coronation to become king but it is a ceremony that goes back over a thousand years. It’s a sort of confirmation of the right to rule and a promise to rule within the law. I guess all presidents do take some sort oath as well although usually not as colourful and splendid as a coronation.
A few monarchs have never been crowned notably Edward VIII and Edward V and you could make a case for Empress Matilda, Lady Jane Grey and James Stuart, the Old Pretender.
|
|
I think one is on dodgy ground if one tries to justify abolition of the monarchy on cost grounds. I am fairly sure they bring in income by way of tourism etc which counters the cost of said monarchy.
|
'if one tries to justify abolition of the monarchy'
I read that as abortion. Must start using my glasses.
|
>> And therefore we could save the ridiculous amount of money that it’s going to cost
>> the nation?
Yes we could because it is now purely ceremonial.
But I think the original purpose was to bind the subjects to the accession, particularly when succession tended to be contested. The heir to the throne becomes the monarch immediately, but the coronation is the endorsement, the signing of the contract by the subjects, who pledge loyalty to the new King or Queen.
I do my pledging with a duster, when the furniture has finger marks on it.
|
Had a walk in the Forest of Bowland today, passing through various villages en route to Dunsop Bridge, all adorned with bunting and suchlike, even stuff on front doors.
Obviously keen Monarchists...an acquaintance has posted what a great environmentalist KC3 is, but I assume he’s done his fair share of shooting things when younger, and these days uses commercial flights , apart from RYR, Jet2 and EasyJet, to get around and do his bit to save the planet.
Unlike yours truly...hangs head in shame and scuttles off to LBA for yet another crammed cheap flight.
Last edited by: legacylad on Tue 2 May 23 at 21:43
|
"Apparently we are expected to swear allegiance to the crown."
This is how The Grauniad puts it: "Members of the public watching the coronation on television, online and in parks and pubs will be invited to swear aloud their allegiance to the monarch in a 'chorus of millions of voices' to be known as the Homage of the People."
It would be hard to imagine a more stupid idea, whoever came up with it. I imagine the vast majority of people, for various reasons, whether they be rooted in reticence, indifference or antipathy, will tut-tut or growl in annoyance.
It seems guaranteed to be provocative. It's anachronistic. Most of us probably don't have any strong feelings for or against the monarchy, but to require, expect or even suggest we offer our personal support for Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor as the rightful Sovereign Lord, Charles III, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, and Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.
It's fatuous nonsense.
Allegiance - Merriam-Webster offers this: "the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord; the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government; devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause"
Last edited by: James Loveless on Thu 4 May 23 at 19:31
|
Apparently we are expected to swear allegiance to the crown."
No, we aren't "expected" Its purely a voluntary thing. You wont be carted off to the Tower if you don't comply.
The Order of Service reads:
"All who so desire, in the Abbey, and elsewhere, say together:
"All: I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."
There will then be a fanfare, after which Mr Welby will say: "God Save The King", with all asked to respond: "God Save King Charles. Long Live King Charles. May The King live forever."
Hardly worth getting worked up about. The military swear to something very similar.
“I swear by almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty King Charles III his heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.”
|
>> The military swear to something very similar.
>>
>> “I swear by almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to
>> Her Majesty King Charles III his heirs and successors and that I will as in
>> duty bound honestly and faithfully defend her Majesty, her heirs and successors.....
>>
...that'd be the new, "woke" military affirmation, then......?
|
|
Yes my slip. Updated the monarch’s name but forgot to change the pronouns.
|
|
Army, rather than military. Not many generals in the senior service.
|
|
Yes the Navy does not swear an oath of allegiance apparently due to it being founded by Queen Elizabeth I. The RAF do.
|
|
I don't think the navy give the loyal toast either. Mind you some army units don't either.
|
>> I don't think the navy give the loyal toast either. Mind you some army units
>> don't either.
Isn't there something about the navy giving the toast sitting down? I believe it was due to lack of headroom in wooden ships or maybe submarines.
|
Isn't there something about the navy giving the toast sitting down? I believe it was
>> due to lack of headroom in wooden ships or maybe submarines.
>>
Yes they remain seated for the loyal toast but again I think some other units do as well. Some don't have alcohol for the loyal toast either, I think it's mainly some odd scottish unit thing.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 6 May 23 at 22:53
|
I think it was the Archbish of Canterbury who came up with it.
Bit daft really.
|
Well the whole ceremony can be seen as a bit daft but as a ceremony dating back in some ways to the Roman Emperors and beyond and the only such ceremony left it seems a sort of a shame to do away with it. A bit like knocking down a cathedral.
|
>> bit like knocking down a cathedral.
Old hat, pox ridden Kings have already tried that.
|
>> "Apparently we are expected to swear allegiance to the crown."
Some of the foreign press have picked up on that and done some polls of the citizens - ie us.
Now treat polls with as much caution as you wish, but it seems we, the people, are a bit miffed about it. I am, to me its an indication of how far removed from reality royalty and the upper echelons of the church have become. Its a fantasy world up there, I think Charlie actually believes we love and worship him.
|
|
Piece on the Beeb this am - today prog. They reckon it was Welby's idea, not Charlie's.
|
|
And CR3 (not 7) thinks it's a crazy idea.
|
Hopefully tomorrow will be a good day for me...we’re off for a late morning fry up at Shed24, Hellifield station...£7.50 for a large ( non greasy) Fireman’s Breakfast, with tea, toast and marmalade.
Fingers crossed the afternoon Jet2 flight will be on time, but I’ll have my Yorkshire Post to read. By evening I’ll be outside on the terrace wearing shorts, sipping Albariño and listening to Spotify, chatting with friends.
Each to their own but I hope to completely avoid all the days razzmatazz.
Hope everyone has a lovely day whatever you choose to do.
|
We have some goodies for a lunchtime pig-out. Scotch eggs, wee pork pies, Tesco trifle and other stuff we don't normally buy.
Will watch most of it with an essential break for Man City V Leeds at 1400 hrs.
Y'all have a good Coronation. Probably my last one.
Ted
|
|
Got the ingredients for the trifle, apart from Scottish strawberries.
|
Difficult to be interest in the royals but I'm certainly not anti. Just indifferent. I suppose it's just the scandals that I might read about. For a laugh.
It all peaked my interest when Claire Foy was cast as the Queen in The Crown. She was hot in Going Postal, I watch that whenever they show it.
I'll put the telly on tomorrow and have a gander but I only realise it was the Coronation 3 or 4 days ago. Was Fergie invited? Always fancied her. And I still would. Obviously.
Last edited by: BiggerBadderDave on Fri 5 May 23 at 21:53
|
>> Was Fergie invited? Always fancied her. And
>> I still would. Obviously.
No, and you are the only one who hasn't.
|
I think Charlie actually believes we love and worship him.
Bit like North Korea then?
|
>> I think Charlie actually believes we love and worship him.
>>
>>
>> Bit like North Korea then?
No, I don't think we worship North Korea.
|
>> I think Charlie actually believes we love and worship him.
>>
>>
>> Bit like North Korea then?
>>
But with more food...
|
BBC reports £200m will be spent on food, drink and decorations for the coronation this weekend.
I thought there was no money about!
|
>> BBC reports £200m will be spent on food, drink and decorations for the coronation this
>> weekend.
>> I thought there was no money about!
Thats £3.17 per head of population. Less than a pint of beer or a maccy d each.
|
Cafe closed at Hellifield station !! Had to return to Settle for a pre flight fry up.
|
Of course if there was no coronation then no one would be eating today obviously.
What a useless made up stat to use by the BBC.
|
|
I think there might be a bit more spent this Sat on food, hotels etc then next Saturday. Not unreasonable to put that in a news report.
|
|
I wonder if Charles is as deluded as his mother in believing he was chosen by God?
|
When you ancestors created the religion, of course you do.
|
|
Harry seemed to struggle to sing the National Anthem.
|
|
Well that’s better than me…
|
>> When you ancestors created the religion, of course you do.
>>
Gosh I didn’t know the King’s ancestors invented Christianity
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sat 6 May 23 at 19:12
|
>> >> When you ancestors created the religion, of course you do.
>> >>
>> Gosh I didn’t know the King’s ancestors invented Christianity
When you create your own religion, you create your own deity.
|
In the end it seems the "Homage of the People" was in effect so watered down that all that was called for was some sort of response from the congregation that was no different from various other responses expected during the course of the service.
I gather I was not alone in voicing consternation at the stupidity of the original idea - not that I conveyed that to anyone who might have influenced things.
|
|
..happily, I'm in France studiously ignoring it all (apart from this post, obvs), which is more than most French people I've encountered.
|
The Met cock up again! They arrested a group of people from a Night Safety a group that gives out rape alarms to women and seized their rape alarms, in case they disrupt the Coronation!
The group is sponsored by Westminster City Council - so it's probably a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/safety-volunteers-arrested-claim-planned-29914164
If one were really unkind, one might suggest that with all the rapey met police officers, they were really trying to make their lives easier and protect their own.
|
They've also apologised to six of the protestors from the group Republic arrested on Saturday while unloading placards from their van:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65527007
It's also been explained that the law used was that related to 'locking on' which came into effect only a few days previously.
|
Tricky one that. The Met were clearly under orders* to take the position of zero tolerance towards any protest, in any form, anywhere near the coronation environs. They acted under what was clearly comprehensively obtained intelligence.
*Without doubt such orders trampled all over the democratic right for peaceful protest, so criticism should not be directed at the Met (who actually handled it well) but directed towards the source of the policy and orders.
|
>> *Without doubt such orders trampled all over the democratic right for peaceful protest, so criticism
>> should not be directed at the Met (who actually handled it well) but directed towards
>> the source of the policy and orders.
>>
Slippery slope and all that, when arrests become political!
|
>> Slippery slope and all that, when arrests become political!
The justification of public order, safety and security will be trotted out. While that may be true, alas its also the same reasons totalitarian states use. The right to protest in a democracy is fraught with difficulties.
|
|
Perhaps arresting people for crimes they might commit in the future is a Raab idea. Didn't he once say that police don't investigate crimes that have taken place in the past?
|
|
"Going equipped" has been a quite common offence for ages hasn't it, in relation o car crime or house breaking.
|
>> "Going equipped" has been a quite common offence for ages hasn't it, in relation o
>> car crime or house breaking.
Good point. "A person shall be guilty of an offence if, when not at his place of abode, he has with him any article for use in the course of or in connection with any burglary, theft or cheat."
I can see that going equipped for chaining oneself to infrastructure might need a bit of thinking about. That wouldn't in my view really cover the arrest of journalist even if they are there specifically to cover the event, or a woman simply standing with a poster or placard.
|
Where do you draw the line for “going equipped”?
Are all men potential rapists?
|
The issue here, so far as those arrested and released without charge are concerned, is legislation both drafted and implemented in haste - see the Rozenberg article I linked above.
It's quite clear that Republic had done all that was required in liaising with the Metroplitan Police and they should have been able to stage their protest as both planned and agreed.
It seems that they then ran into officers of the Territorial Support Group who would have nothing of the protestor's explanation and instead 'ran them in' under the specific locking on legislation mentioned above. The TSG are successors to the Special PAtrol Group who had a reputation as the Met's 'hard men' and were very likely responsible for, amongst other things, the death of Blair Peach in 1979.
TSG have their own reputation.
Over the Bank Holiday weekend I read a book called Unlawful Killing by a Judge who retired from the Old Bailey last year. It recounts six examples where people died, apparently at the hands of others. Each starts with a narrative of how the deceased met their end and then a day by day account of the trial.
One of the author's main messages is just how much law is passed ill drafted and overlapping what's already there to little avail except to make it more difficult to explain to jurors.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 9 May 23 at 15:14
|
>> It seems that they then ran into officers of the Territorial Support Group who would
>> have nothing of the protestor's explanation and instead 'ran them in' under the specific locking
>> on legislation mentioned above. The TSG are successors to the Special PAtrol Group who had
>> a reputation as the Met's 'hard men' and were very likely responsible for, amongst other
>> things, the death of Blair Peach in 1979.
I would go a little step further than that. I doubt they "just ran into the TSG" I would suggest they were targeted specifically by a briefed resource, It was all too well planned and carried out from what I saw.
|
>> I would go a little step further than that. I doubt they "just ran into
>> the TSG" I would suggest they were targeted specifically by a briefed resource, It was
>> all too well planned and carried out from what I saw.
>>
I strongly suspect you're correct Zero!
However, AIUI, a police officer must form their own suspicion that an offence has taken place to arrest or the arrest is illegal. So they can't be told go and nick person A or persons in "Not My King" shirts.
Of course a senior officer could explain that there are people in certain tops who have been seen to lock on and that would contribute to the level of suspicion, but going out and arresting someone on just the say so of another is not legal or allowed.
|
"Where do you draw the line for "going equipped"?
Are all men potential rapists?"
I assume this is not a serious comment.
"Going equipped" means making a choice to provide oneself with housebreaking tools or whatever. Most men don't have that choice regarding the tool you have in mind.
On the other hand, there might also be interesting legal discussions about whether possession of Viagra could be regarded as "going equipped".
|
>> "Going equipped" means making a choice to provide oneself with housebreaking tools or whatever. Most
>> men don't have that choice regarding the tool you have in mind.
"Going Equipped" is fairly easily legally defended. House breaking tools are just tools and at the end of the day easily justified. (ok you cant get away with a jemmy AND balaclava)
I could have a baseball bat in my car for defence, which is an offence, but only need to have a ball in the car and claim to use it for games with my dogs when questioned. Its all about how you handle your contact with the law.
|
I question the proposition that the freedom to protest is absolute. If by protesting the rights of others are impacted, the right to protest must be a balance with the right of the public to go about their lives unimpeded.
That the right to protest should have a higher priority than the rights of those impacted is important. How much higher is the question.
For example - would public opinion support the following protests, or should the police stand idly by, or would most public opinion be outraged that the police did nothing about:
- anti abortion protests outside an abortion clinic
- protesting the right to smoke cigarettes outside a cancer ward
- advertising (or selling) bacon butties outside a synagogue on the sabbath
- protesting the elimination of LGBT rights in favour of heterosexuality
Given the size of the coronation event, and the consequences of any disruption (reputation, violence, enjoyment by the majority etc) I believe the police right to use their judgement and act in anticipation as they did, rather than wait until unacceptable protests were evident.
Whether disruption would have happened is a judgement - but it is clear that their actions eliminated the risk.
I suspect if I looked back at earlier threads on the stop oil protests, most on this forum would have been frothing out the mouth at the dilatory and inadequate police response.
Just to be clear - I broadly support a monarchy, accept that others may have different views, and felt the whole build up and event overblown. The tedium of it all overcame me so went out and did something else.
|
I don't have a problem with these people being arrested.
The days when protestors carried out peaceful protests seem to be over. Nowadays, they aren't satisfied unless they cause serious disruption and stop people going about their lawful business.
I also object to the day that they chose to carry out their protest. Why should they be able to stop people enjoying a ceremony or a procession? Let's say in man in the street's terms, they wanted to disrupt a your special birthday party or wedding anniversary. Is that fair or reasonable? No.
For the record, I am not a monarchist. I would have Charlie replaced tomorrow by a democratic federal republic, but I may well be in a minority.
|
>> I don't have a problem with these people being arrested.
>>
Many of the people arrested were not protesting. They were handing out anti rape kits to women waiting to see the procession and you don't have a problem with that - shame on you!
Also, those that were protesting worked closely with the Met who agreed a remit and then absolutely reneged on it. That duplicitous and the Met have enough trust problems with the general public.
And lastly, it seems the arrests were illegal. You're ok with people being illegally arrested - having their liberty taken away without rule of law? Shameful. I've been on the receiving end of wrongful police action and pleasant it ain't!
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 9 May 23 at 17:37
|
If the protests were illegal as some of the protesters claim then they are entitled to bring an action for unlawful arrest. Personally I doubt that they would succeed but they have that right.
It will give them all something to protest against though if they lose.
Tiresome and tedious people.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 9 May 23 at 17:53
|
>> If the protests were illegal as some of the protesters claim then they are entitled
>> to bring an action for unlawful arrest. Personally I doubt that they would succeed but
>> they have that right.
My guess is that if the 6 from Republic do as they say and bring an action they won't need to win; the Met will concede and make them an offer that, in monetary terms, they'd be fools and out of pocket in costs to reject it.
As to the rest of the 60+ we'll have to see what charges are (a) proffered and (b) are proceeded with until a successful conviction. I'd guess fewer than 50%, probably many fewer.
>> Tiresome and tedious people.
Really?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 9 May 23 at 18:00
|
Yes really. There are plenty of channels open to those who wish to argue for a Republic and most of those arguments I would agree with. Making a nuisance of yourself hardly moves the Republican movement forward.
Tiresome and tedious.
|
And if the intelligence was that anti-rape devices were to be used in a disruptive manner, a cover story should not stop the police stepping in to protect the public and service personnel.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-65537069
|
>> And if the intelligence was that anti-rape devices were to be used in a disruptive
>> manner, a cover story should not stop the police stepping in to protect the public
>> and service personnel.
>> www.bbc.com/news/uk-65537069
Is there any real suggestion that the distribution of alarms to women sleeping out of doors was a 'cover story'?
|
"Is there any real suggestion that the distribution of alarms to women sleeping out of doors was a 'cover story'?"
Likewise is there any real suggestion that it wasnt a good cover story?
|
>> "Is there any real suggestion that the distribution of alarms to women sleeping out of
>> doors was a 'cover story'?"
>>
>> Likewise is there any real suggestion that it wasnt a good cover story?
Let's see.
Surely there's a burden on those arresting to prove people are telling fibs.
It's reported that people are sponsored by one or more of the Boroughs in Central London to help lone women stuck out overnight on their ground look after themselves. It shouldn't need a massive amount of time or effort to prove one way or another if Freda Bloggs is one of their folks.
|
>Is there any real suggestion that the distribution of alarms to women sleeping out of doors was a 'cover story'?
What a spiffing idea.
"It's Chuck's coronation on Saturday, London's gonna be absolutely ram jam packed with sightseers. Let's go hand out rape alarms."
Yeah, right.
|
>> Yeah, right.
Those volunteers are out every weekend handing them out. If the State is frightened of a few alarms going off then we have a lot more to worry about!
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 10 May 23 at 10:37
|
|
It is not every weekend where you have 250 horses ambling down the Mall.
|
>> It is not every weekend where you have 250 horses ambling down the Mall.
But those are Army or Police horses, not wee Ponies that would otherwise be in Thelwell cartoons.
Surely they're trained to deal with noises off that are far more intimidating than the sound of a AAA battery powered alarm.
|
>..a AAA battery powered alarm.
A 140dB AAA battery powered alarm.
|
|
Wrong time, wrong place, wrong demographic. They might do more good outside pubs and clubs at chucking-out time.
|
>> Wrong time, wrong place, wrong demographic. They might do more good outside pubs and clubs
>> at chucking-out time.
I'm sure that's where they'll be next weekend.
Coronations and other big events change the place and perhaps the time. The demographic though remains; people who are vulnerable due to circumstance and, perhaps, drink.
Some reports say that as well as rape - in reality "I'm being hassled"- alarms they have they have flip flops for women who can't walk in their heels.
|
|
You won't find the target demographic amongst thousands of flag waving sightseers down from the shires and that's reasonable suspicion to me.
|
>> Wrong time, wrong place, wrong demographic. They might do more good outside pubs and clubs
>> at chucking-out time.
Not clear how you can be sure about the demographic. But OK, I'll accept those there to cheer the King on are all totally disinterested in having a party. Time & place however, I think we're talking late Friday or early Saturday, and around Whitehall, Westminster and Trafalgar Sq are exactly where people will party after work and then get themselves in a mess at closing time.
Still it'd be an odd place where we all agreed.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 10 May 23 at 11:58
|
>the Met have enough trust problems with
>> the general public.
No. It's you that has a king sized chip on your shoulder about authority.
Tiresome and tedious person.
|
>> No. It's you that has a king sized chip on your shoulder about authority.
What is authority? If we don't remain vigilant we're sunk:
They came for etc....
|
>> >the Met have enough trust problems with
>> >> the general public.
>>
>> No. It's you that has a king sized chip on your shoulder about authority.
>>
>> Tiresome and tedious person.
>>
>>
I have no problem with legitimate authority. I do have an issue with abuse of authority which there seems to be a lot off, and to be honest I'm surprised that seemingly normal people don't see the issue, unless they are used to abusing their position or authority in a similar manner and are condoning it, which, again to be honest, is the action of bullies and their supporters.
Even other police forces keep a "days since last feck-up" by the Met or its officers, just like those "days without an industrial accident" signs. My employer has about the same number of employees as the Met and we are vetted. I bet there aren't as many murderers, rapists and criminals in my workforce as there are in the Met. We're even kept to a higher standard by the authorities who insist on employees being barred and sacked for indiscretion that would not even get a disciplinary hearing in the police or for members of Parliament.
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 9 May 23 at 23:17
|
>> The days when protestors carried out peaceful protests seem to be over. Nowadays, they aren't
>> satisfied unless they cause serious disruption and stop people going about their lawful business.
Were there ever days when all protests were peaceful protests?
Chartism? Suffragettes? Miners Strikes throughout the 20th Century? Poll Tax?
>> I also object to the day that they chose to carry out their protest. Why
>> should they be able to stop people enjoying a ceremony or a procession? Let's say
>> in man in the street's terms, they wanted to disrupt a your special birthday party
>> or wedding anniversary. Is that fair or reasonable? No.
You'd have to be a lot of a snowflake for men in #Not My King shirts to stop you enjoying the ceremony. If they'd been in the Abbey and chanting, throwing ink or worse then you'd have a point but a few people along the procession route?
>> For the record, I am not a monarchist. I would have Charlie replaced tomorrow by
>> a democratic federal republic, but I may well be in a minority.
>>
>>
>>
|
I've some long cable ties in my boot, does that make me liable for arrest?
If I ever come across some of these loons holding me up, I'll have no compunction about donning my balaclava, dragging them off to the nearest lampost and binding their wrists around it (I'm 6', 16 stone).
|
And when they boot you in the balls and your 16 stone hits the deck???
And they rip your balaclava off and film you?
And within an hour you will be offered contracts from GB News and The Sun.
That’s how it works nowadays.
|
Nailing Coronation tat to my fence - Terry
