I still think it is far too early to write off Liz Truss.
What this period does give her is a prominence (without focusing on policy) she wouldn’t have had before, so it’s not all bad.
Yes, she’s awkward, but there is still scope for her to capitalise on the energy cap. The events will also allow her a stage to act as stateswoman pretty much all the way up to the coronation which could be anything up to 10 months away.
As a disclaimer, although I promised to give the Tories a fair hearing under Truss my instinct is still that a Labour government will serve the country better next time and I am probably voting for Starmer. I can’t see myself voting for Truss. But my own feelings aside I can’t count them out just yet - I still think they can come out of 2024 with a 1992 result.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Hang on, I thought it was snowflakes on the woke left who needed safe spaces from people saying things they don't want to hear.
Let's say one of your closest relatives died.
Would you like me to turn up at your funeral and hurl abuse whilst you and your family were trying to grieve?
It wasn't a funeral.
Dick.
Way to engage in debate. One might say that you're being unnecessarily abusive, and in light of your above comments, utterly hypocritical.
You're being a dick. Your post was pompous, as well as inaccurate, and you're now trying to grind your way out of it with pedantry.
It was a hearse. With a coffin in the back. Heading to a lying in state. It was quite literally a funeral cortege. You're trying to defend the indefensible...
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Hang on, I thought it was snowflakes on the woke left who needed safe spaces from people saying things they don't want to hear.
Let's say one of your closest relatives died.
Would you like me to turn up at your funeral and hurl abuse whilst you and your family were trying to grieve?
It wasn't a funeral.
Dick.
Way to engage in debate. One might say that you're being unnecessarily abusive, and in light of your above comments, utterly hypocritical.
You're being a dick. Your post was pompous, as well as inaccurate, and you're now trying to grind your way out of it with pedantry.
It was a hearse. With a coffin in the back. Heading to a lying in state. It was quite literally a funeral cortege. You're trying to defend the indefensible.
I had taken you off my dickhead list. Now, you will go back on, because you are indeed a dick.
Good day.
"county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford" is what the OP said and you re3sponded to.
There were several incidents yesterday.
I was referring to Edinburgh where the funeral cortège passed through.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Hang on, I thought it was snowflakes on the woke left who needed safe spaces from people saying things they don't want to hear.
Let's say one of your closest relatives died.
Would you like me to turn up at your funeral and hurl abuse whilst you and your family were trying to grieve?
I was arrested today in #Oxford after I voiced my opposition to the proclamation of "#CharlesIII". Can we be arrested simply for expressing an opinion in public? I was arrested under the Police Bill passed earlier this year. This is an outrageous assault on democracy. #NotMyKing
When the proclamation was read out, I called out "Who elected him?". 2 or 3 people told me to shut up. I responded (with an opinion, not an insult). Security guards grabbed me. Police took me off them and arrested me. I'll write a fuller account when I'm a bit calmer. #NotMyKing
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Hang on, I thought it was snowflakes on the woke left who needed safe spaces from people saying things they don't want to hear.
Let's say one of your closest relatives died.
Would you like me to turn up at your funeral and hurl abuse whilst you and your family were trying to grieve?
I was arrested today in #Oxford after I voiced my opposition to the proclamation of "#CharlesIII". Can we be arrested simply for expressing an opinion in public? I was arrested under the Police Bill passed earlier this year. This is an outrageous assault on democracy. #NotMyKing
When the proclamation was read out, I called out "Who elected him?". 2 or 3 people told me to shut up. I responded (with an opinion, not an insult). Security guards grabbed me. Police took me off them and arrested me. I'll write a fuller account when I'm a bit calmer. #NotMyKing
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
You'd be the first person to say that free speech had limits if someone's job or livelihood was under threat for forthright criticism of identity politics.
You may need to find some evidence for that statement. When have I ever said that? Or called for anyone to be fired?
I never call for people to be fired or to resign, as a matter of principle because I hate that mob mentality.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
Why are royalists so angry?
@Casino_Royale is in a permanent state of apoplectic rage. It is his natural milieu.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Hang on, I thought it was snowflakes on the woke left who needed safe spaces from people saying things they don't want to hear.
Let's say one of your closest relatives died.
Would you like me to turn up at your funeral and hurl abuse whilst you and your family were trying to grieve?
It wasn't a funeral.
Dick.
Way to engage in debate. One might say that you're being unnecessarily abusive, and in light of your above comments, utterly hypocritical.
You're being a dick. Your post was pompous, as well as inaccurate, and you're now trying to grind your way out of it with pedantry.
It was a hearse. With a coffin in the back. Heading to a lying in state. It was quite literally a funeral cortege. You're trying to defend the indefensible.
I had taken you off my dickhead list. Now, you will go back on, because you are indeed a dick.
Good day.
"county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford" is what the OP said and you re3sponded to.
There were several incidents yesterday.
I was referring to Edinburgh where the funeral cortège passed through.
We're not mindreaders. The thread was clearly about Oxford. Not once did you mention Edinburgh, till late on. It's bad enough you approving of arresting the chap without you blaming him for the sins of other people as well.
On topic I think Truss’s personal style is sufficiently neutral that her poll ratings will track close to the party’s (in its current hybrid Brexiteer / Thatcherite form), and what will decide the next election is the voters’ judgment on the conservatives vs Labour.
Under Boris it was a very different equation. In equal parts more popular and more hated than his party.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Hang on, I thought it was snowflakes on the woke left who needed safe spaces from people saying things they don't want to hear.
Let's say one of your closest relatives died.
Would you like me to turn up at your funeral and hurl abuse whilst you and your family were trying to grieve?
I was arrested today in #Oxford after I voiced my opposition to the proclamation of "#CharlesIII". Can we be arrested simply for expressing an opinion in public? I was arrested under the Police Bill passed earlier this year. This is an outrageous assault on democracy. #NotMyKing
When the proclamation was read out, I called out "Who elected him?". 2 or 3 people told me to shut up. I responded (with an opinion, not an insult). Security guards grabbed me. Police took me off them and arrested me. I'll write a fuller account when I'm a bit calmer. #NotMyKing
If you think arresting somebody for that is fine then you are beyond hope.
Seems like only yesterday that the ‘we are all Ukrainians now’ lads were fulminating against Putin’s goons arresting folk for publicly describing the special operation as a war.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Hang on, I thought it was snowflakes on the woke left who needed safe spaces from people saying things they don't want to hear.
Let's say one of your closest relatives died.
Would you like me to turn up at your funeral and hurl abuse whilst you and your family were trying to grieve?
I was arrested today in #Oxford after I voiced my opposition to the proclamation of "#CharlesIII". Can we be arrested simply for expressing an opinion in public? I was arrested under the Police Bill passed earlier this year. This is an outrageous assault on democracy. #NotMyKing
When the proclamation was read out, I called out "Who elected him?". 2 or 3 people told me to shut up. I responded (with an opinion, not an insult). Security guards grabbed me. Police took me off them and arrested me. I'll write a fuller account when I'm a bit calmer. #NotMyKing
For the “you’ll never get the President on a bus” crowd - a thread:
I’ve got a small, funny story about this, sort of. So it’s the @NATO summit in Wales in 2014 and the Alliance’s leaders are gathered at Celtic Manor. Before their ‘class photo’ they are milling about by themselves without any staff...
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Hang on, I thought it was snowflakes on the woke left who needed safe spaces from people saying things they don't want to hear.
Let's say one of your closest relatives died.
Would you like me to turn up at your funeral and hurl abuse whilst you and your family were trying to grieve?
I was arrested today in #Oxford after I voiced my opposition to the proclamation of "#CharlesIII". Can we be arrested simply for expressing an opinion in public? I was arrested under the Police Bill passed earlier this year. This is an outrageous assault on democracy. #NotMyKing
When the proclamation was read out, I called out "Who elected him?". 2 or 3 people told me to shut up. I responded (with an opinion, not an insult). Security guards grabbed me. Police took me off them and arrested me. I'll write a fuller account when I'm a bit calmer. #NotMyKing
I think there's such a thing as civility. I'm not a fan of the Royal family, but the Queen was genuine. Andrew is a knob head and Charlie doesn't inspire much optimism, but there are some bonuses. The tourist trade is one of them.
As for gobby show-offs, what do they think they achieve? A brave truth-teller? My arse. Only in the same way that Extinction Rebellion and such are. Full of self-importance and convincing no one. One reason Remain lost a winnable referemdum. Too busy insulting anyone with a contrary opinion.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Hang on, I thought it was snowflakes on the woke left who needed safe spaces from people saying things they don't want to hear.
Let's say one of your closest relatives died.
Would you like me to turn up at your funeral and hurl abuse whilst you and your family were trying to grieve?
I was arrested today in #Oxford after I voiced my opposition to the proclamation of "#CharlesIII". Can we be arrested simply for expressing an opinion in public? I was arrested under the Police Bill passed earlier this year. This is an outrageous assault on democracy. #NotMyKing
When the proclamation was read out, I called out "Who elected him?". 2 or 3 people told me to shut up. I responded (with an opinion, not an insult). Security guards grabbed me. Police took me off them and arrested me. I'll write a fuller account when I'm a bit calmer. #NotMyKing
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
Why are royalists so angry?
I suspect it's because so many people have been holding off on reassessing royalty and the monarchy as an institution till after the late Queen died. But her long life - happy and beloved as that was - meant that the question accumulated, so to speak. We're now in an era when historians are more openly discussing the monarchy's role in the British-operrated slave trade, for instance (Charles II and James VII and II and so on). And more generally the role of royalty, deference and honours in propping up the British establishment at a time when the same Establishment has made a howling mess of things - when, for instance, even lawyers can't afford to live in London, never mind nurses, and have a decent house and family life as well. I would be very twitchy if I were a royalist.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
Read the details of the case. Your comparison is completely invalid.
I've read the details of the case and my comparison is totally valid and a measured one. Your post is completely invalid.
It is being "defended" on here - by those who'd usually be extremely quick to qualify free speech if it were affecting someone's job over a violation of Wokery - because they approve of making disruptive and offensive republican statements that ruin the chance for hundreds to grieve and quietly their respects to a monarch.
Nope. Monarchist here. Don't like it, but not a snowflake about it. TheKitchenCabinet likewise incorrect. Twitter would have been outraged at an anti trans rights sign, but I'd not be calling for arrest. Removal just more disruptive sometimes. Leave it and the dicks look like dicks from their own acts.
When people baselessly assume everyone who disagrees with them must be an enemy who thinks the same things its a good sign they are being lazy and wrong.
Mr. Carnyx, could you explain to the class why the elected politicians underfunding (to a dangerous extent) the judicial system is the fault of the monarchy?
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Hang on, I thought it was snowflakes on the woke left who needed safe spaces from people saying things they don't want to hear.
Let's say one of your closest relatives died.
Would you like me to turn up at your funeral and hurl abuse whilst you and your family were trying to grieve?
It wasn't a funeral.
Dick.
Way to engage in debate. One might say that you're being unnecessarily abusive, and in light of your above comments, utterly hypocritical.
You're being a dick. Your post was pompous, as well as inaccurate, and you're now trying to grind your way out of it with pedantry.
It was a hearse. With a coffin in the back. Heading to a lying in state. It was quite literally a funeral cortege. You're trying to defend the indefensible.
I had taken you off my dickhead list. Now, you will go back on, because you are indeed a dick.
Good day.
"county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford" is what the OP said and you re3sponded to.
There were several incidents yesterday.
I was referring to Edinburgh where the funeral cortège passed through.
We're not mindreaders. The thread was clearly about Oxford. Not once did you mention Edinburgh, till late on. It's bad enough you approving of arresting the chap without you blaming him for the sins of other people as well.
In any case wasn’t the Edinburgh arrest at the proclamation of King Charles, hours before the funeral procession and any royal presence? Are even potential funeral routes now to be dissent free zones?
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
Mr. Carnyx, could you explain to the class why the elected politicians underfunding (to a dangerous extent) the judicial system is the fault of the monarchy?
(a) in the monarchy's name (b) because the monarchy is used to justify and help keep power (e.g. honours)
It doesn't have to be the monarchy's fault if HMG does X - but it will potentially get some of the blowback.
The tax and financial arrangements of the RF are likely to get more attention, too, which won't help.
We (the Faculty of Advocates) have been put out of Parliament House in Edinburgh from last Friday to Tuesday and all the public builidings in the top end of the Royal Mile have been closed. I would think everyone in City Chambers is working from home, as are our staff. The scale of the operation is immense. Scale that up to London and major disruption will be inevitable.
Huge crowds on the Kingsway in Dundee yesterday for the cortege. Some flowers, plenty of Union Jacks and some clapping but mainly people just wanting to show their respect. If the crowds in London are the same it should be manageable.
Mr. Carnyx, could you explain to the class why the elected politicians underfunding (to a dangerous extent) the judicial system is the fault of the monarchy?
Thank goodness the monarchy and the political process are kept completely separate in the UK.
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Although TM's initiative was supposedly a goal-oriented government policy, rather than campaigning during the election on the joys of sending people away on trains. That has a rather interesting resonance for a party that was openIy Nazi as recently at the 1980s. I can't actually imagine UKIP doing that.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
There is a right to public speech and political protest. You can't remove that just by calling it trolling - a highly questionable label in this case.
You're effectively arguing that right shouldn't exist if it risks offending anyone.
That is exactly what has been argued as part of the modern “sensitivity” culture.
This is why the ACLU used to defend the free speech of literal, actual Nazis. Because once you start banning offensive people, the list is infinite.
It is very sad that this tradition has been lost. Noam Chomsky also staunchly defended the right of people to say what they want. This development, more than anything else, is what caused me to quit the 'left'.
I do think though that there is a line, in that you shouldn't be able to disrupt public ceremonies/events. If you cannot ultimately arrest people, then how can any event ever take place? It just seems like a practical problem.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
Or perhaps arrest any woman wearing a mini-skirt in public.
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
There are already several parties to the right of the Sweden Democrats, the largest being Alternative for Sweden. Dunno what they got yesterday but probably about 1%.
Regarding your final paragraph: the answer is probably yes. There is going to be a crackdown on the gangs, not least because the Social Democrats are also sick to the back teeth of the shits.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
There are good and bad rulers but Royalty is no longer in power. Henry the VIII? The bastard! Changing the religion of a whole country just because he wanted to get his end away with Anne Boleyn. Charlie can discuss philosophy with a daisy but it won't affect anyone.
How does it affect the balance sheet is more important.
After mourning a much loved Queen and the state funeral Parliament should meet. The current plan for a long conference recess means a delayed return on October 17th. We need to tackle the cost of living crisis and energy shortage before then.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Hang on, I thought it was snowflakes on the woke left who needed safe spaces from people saying things they don't want to hear.
Let's say one of your closest relatives died.
Would you like me to turn up at your funeral and hurl abuse whilst you and your family were trying to grieve?
I was arrested today in #Oxford after I voiced my opposition to the proclamation of "#CharlesIII". Can we be arrested simply for expressing an opinion in public? I was arrested under the Police Bill passed earlier this year. This is an outrageous assault on democracy. #NotMyKing
When the proclamation was read out, I called out "Who elected him?". 2 or 3 people told me to shut up. I responded (with an opinion, not an insult). Security guards grabbed me. Police took me off them and arrested me. I'll write a fuller account when I'm a bit calmer. #NotMyKing
Is there much difference between the republican protesters being briefly detained to prevent their attempts at agitation, and the lesbians being blocked from joining the LGBT march recently? I presume the lesbians would have been detained if they'd ignored the cops and attempted to continue marching.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Hang on, I thought it was snowflakes on the woke left who needed safe spaces from people saying things they don't want to hear.
Let's say one of your closest relatives died.
Would you like me to turn up at your funeral and hurl abuse whilst you and your family were trying to grieve?
It wasn't a funeral.
Dick.
Way to engage in debate. One might say that you're being unnecessarily abusive, and in light of your above comments, utterly hypocritical.
You're being a dick. Your post was pompous, as well as inaccurate, and you're now trying to grind your way out of it with pedantry.
It was a hearse. With a coffin in the back. Heading to a lying in state. It was quite literally a funeral cortege. You're trying to defend the indefensible.
I had taken you off my dickhead list. Now, you will go back on, because you are indeed a dick.
Good day.
"county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford" is what the OP said and you re3sponded to.
There were several incidents yesterday.
I was referring to Edinburgh where the funeral cortège passed through.
We're not mindreaders. The thread was clearly about Oxford. Not once did you mention Edinburgh, till late on. It's bad enough you approving of arresting the chap without you blaming him for the sins of other people as well.
In any case wasn’t the Edinburgh arrest at the proclamation of King Charles, hours before the funeral procession and any royal presence? Are even potential funeral routes now to be dissent free zones?
I think CR may be muddling two Edinburgh arrests, on further checking - not sure of the context of the 1550 one.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
But if Andy had been the first born, his life would have been completely different.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
@Casino has said that the death of Queen Elizabeth has affected him greatly and this is but one manifestation of that emotion as he tries to figure out his relationship with the new monarchy and with the new monarchy's relation to the UK.
I don't think we should spend all day debating the rights and wrongs of this as his motivation is pretty clear.
I'm cool with him thinking that as he works his way through it all.
Yours TOPPING AFBPsS (not really, just amateur PB psychologist).
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Hang on, I thought it was snowflakes on the woke left who needed safe spaces from people saying things they don't want to hear.
Let's say one of your closest relatives died.
Would you like me to turn up at your funeral and hurl abuse whilst you and your family were trying to grieve?
It wasn't a funeral.
Dick.
Way to engage in debate. One might say that you're being unnecessarily abusive, and in light of your above comments, utterly hypocritical.
You're being a dick. Your post was pompous, as well as inaccurate, and you're now trying to grind your way out of it with pedantry.
It was a hearse. With a coffin in the back. Heading to a lying in state. It was quite literally a funeral cortege. You're trying to defend the indefensible.
I had taken you off my dickhead list. Now, you will go back on, because you are indeed a dick.
Good day.
"county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford" is what the OP said and you re3sponded to.
There were several incidents yesterday.
I was referring to Edinburgh where the funeral cortège passed through.
We're not mindreaders. The thread was clearly about Oxford. Not once did you mention Edinburgh, till late on. It's bad enough you approving of arresting the chap without you blaming him for the sins of other people as well.
In any case wasn’t the Edinburgh arrest at the proclamation of King Charles, hours before the funeral procession and any royal presence? Are even potential funeral routes now to be dissent free zones?
I think CR may be muddling two Edinburgh arrests, on further checking - not sure of the context of the 1550 one.
After mourning a much loved Queen and the state funeral Parliament should meet. The current plan for a long conference recess means a delayed return on October 17th. We need to tackle the cost of living crisis and energy shortage before then.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
Or perhaps arrest any woman wearing a mini-skirt in public.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
But if Andy had been the first born, his life would have been completely different.
Same with Harry.
Classic nature over nurture question. But without doubt the hereditary principle is at the mercy of the genetic lottery. We’ve been lucky. Still, the alternative history, counter factual raise some curious thoughts and feelings.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
Poor Magna Carta. Always being invited to parties where she's not
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
There is a right to public speech and political protest. You can't remove that just by calling it trolling - a highly questionable label in this case.
You're effectively arguing that right shouldn't exist if it risks offending anyone.
That is exactly what has been argued as part of the modern “sensitivity” culture.
This is why the ACLU used to defend the free speech of literal, actual Nazis. Because once you start banning offensive people, the list is infinite.
Agreed. What was laughable about the reaction of those complaining about this was that their commentary of "why should someone be arrested for expressing an unpopular opinion?" is exactly at odds with their stance when it comes to their causes. If the sign has said "F**k Trans Rights", Twitter would have been inundated with calls to arrest the perpetrator etc.
As usual, with such types, they are not objecting on the grounds of principle but because it's 'their' side being targeted.
Indeed. Justice and free speech for your friends is trivial. Justice and free speech for your enemies is where the test is.
I understand that they would not want to run the conference on the day of the Queen's funeral. Given that it was a four day conference I wonder why they didn't just run it for three days - avoiding the day of the funeral? Going to cost them a fortune, no insurance cover for cancelling something needlessly. Would the Queen have wanted this? Is this a manifestation of the tyranny of the majority that the liberals are supposed to fight against?
Suspect they have insurance. A lot of major events buy "death of the Monarch" cover.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
Why are royalists so angry?
I suspect it's because so many people have been holding off on reassessing royalty and the monarchy as an institution till after the late Queen died. But her long life - happy and beloved as that was - meant that the question accumulated, so to speak. We're now in an era when historians are more openly discussing the monarchy's role in the British-operrated slave trade, for instance (Charles II and James VII and II and so on). And more generally the role of royalty, deference and honours in propping up the British establishment at a time when the same Establishment has made a howling mess of things - when, for instance, even lawyers can't afford to live in London, never mind nurses, and have a decent house and family life as well. I would be very twitchy if I were a royalist.
I find a significant amount to disagree with in this. Other countries have honours systems, including those that are republics. The economic situation in the country is not down to the monarchy but the actions of the government. You can perhaps raise concerns about how it perpetuates inequalities in society simply by one figure being above all others, but every country has to have a head of state, and many republics don’t get the balance right either.
And I’m afraid I don’t subscribe to the modern notion of visiting the sins of the parents on the children. We can criticise and learn from mistakes that were made historically, but that does not mean that we have to hold the descendants of those that made them in a permanent state of disgrace.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
Or perhaps arrest any woman wearing a mini-skirt in public.
I understand that they would not want to run the conference on the day of the Queen's funeral. Given that it was a four day conference I wonder why they didn't just run it for three days - avoiding the day of the funeral? Going to cost them a fortune, no insurance cover for cancelling something needlessly. Would the Queen have wanted this? Is this a manifestation of the tyranny of the majority that the liberals are supposed to fight against?
Suspect they have insurance. A lot of major events buy "death of the Monarch" cover.
insurance generally only pays out if it has to be cancelled - ie somebody or some circumstance makes it impossibel to go ahead with - If the insured cancel it voluntarily it is unlikely to pay out, As there is nobody telling them they must cancel it I doubt it will be covered
So what happened to Boris’ honours? Would be rather funny if there was an arcane convention that honours submitted to a passed monarch became void and couldn’t transfer to the next. Would Truss have to submit the recommendations?
Ukraine Holds the Future The War Between Democracy and Nihilism https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraine-war-democracy-nihilism-timothy-snyder ...When the Soviet Union came to an end in 1991, Ukrainians again seized on the trident as their national symbol. In the three decades since, Ukraine has moved, haltingly but unmistakably, in the direction of functional democracy. The generation that now runs the country knows the Soviet and pre-Soviet history but understands self-rule as self-evident. At a time when democracy is in decline around the world and threatened in the United States, Ukrainian resistance to Russian aggression provides a surprising (to many) affirmation of faith in democracy’s principles and its future. In this sense, Ukraine is a challenge to those in the West who have forgotten the ethical basis of democracy and thereby, wittingly or unwittingly, ceded the field to oligarchy and empire at home and abroad. Ukrainian resistance is a welcome challenge, and a needed one...
...On the Sunday before Russia began its latest invasion of Ukraine, I predicted on American television that Zelensky would remain in Kyiv if Russia invaded. I was mocked for this prediction, just as I was when I predicted the previous Russian invasion, the danger that U.S. President Donald Trump posed to American democracy, and Trump’s coup attempt. Former advisers to Trump and President Barack Obama disagreed with me in a class at Yale University, where I teach. They were doing nothing more than reflecting the American consensus. Americans tend to see the war in Ukraine in the long shadow of the 9/11 attacks and the American moral and military failures that followed. In the Biden administration, officials feared that taking the side of Kyiv risked repeating the fall of Kabul. Among younger people and on the political left, a deeper unease arose from the lack of a national reckoning over the invasion of Iraq, justified at the time with the notion that destroying one regime would create a tabula rasa from which democracy would naturally emerge. The idiocy of this argument made a generation doubt the possibility that war and democracy could have something to do with each other. The unease with another military effort was perhaps understandable, but the resemblance between Iraq and Ukraine was only superficial. Ukrainians weren’t imposing their own vision on another country. They were protecting their right to choose their own leaders against an invasion designed to undo their democracy and eliminate their society....
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
Why are royalists so angry?
I suspect it's because so many people have been holding off on reassessing royalty and the monarchy as an institution till after the late Queen died. But her long life - happy and beloved as that was - meant that the question accumulated, so to speak. We're now in an era when historians are more openly discussing the monarchy's role in the British-operrated slave trade, for instance (Charles II and James VII and II and so on). And more generally the role of royalty, deference and honours in propping up the British establishment at a time when the same Establishment has made a howling mess of things - when, for instance, even lawyers can't afford to live in London, never mind nurses, and have a decent house and family life as well. I would be very twitchy if I were a royalist.
I find a significant amount to disagree with in this. Other countries have honours systems, including those that are republics. The economic situation in the country is not down to the monarchy but the actions of the government. You can perhaps raise concerns about how it perpetuates inequalities in society simply by one figure being above all others, but every country has to have a head of state, and many republics don’t get the balance right either.
And I’m afraid I don’t subscribe to the modern notion of visiting the sins of the parents on the children. We can criticise and learn from mistakes that were made historically, but that does not mean that we have to hold the descendants of those that made them in a permanent state of disgrace.
Not blaming the monarchy for the economic situation - but it is in their name, as is anything HMG does.
On the second point, it's the institution that cis under scrutiny. It's silly to blame Charles III for what Charles II did - but it does show how rooted in the UK economy the monarchy was, as an institution. And the wider issue of hte relation of the momarchy with the economy over time is a valid subject of inquiry.
So what happened to Boris’ honours? Would be rather funny if there was an arcane convention that honours submitted to a passed monarch became void and couldn’t transfer to the next. Would Truss have to submit the recommendations?
She could honour Dominic Cummings and ITV News, for helping get rid of Boris.
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
So what happened to Boris’ honours? Would be rather funny if there was an arcane convention that honours submitted to a passed monarch became void and couldn’t transfer to the next. Would Truss have to submit the recommendations?
She could honour Dominic Cummings and ITV News, for helping get rid of Boris.
Truss owes Dacre for his defenestration of Penny Mordaunt.
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
Which particular party are you identifying yourself with here, or do you mean the rightwing coalition as a whole ?
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
Or perhaps arrest any woman wearing a mini-skirt in public.
After mourning a much loved Queen and the state funeral Parliament should meet. The current plan for a long conference recess means a delayed return on October 17th. We need to tackle the cost of living crisis and energy shortage before then.
Didn't you earlier say that the LibDems had cancelled their conference unnecessarily ? Seems to me they're trying to make the same case as you.
How do you work that out? The LibDem rationale for cancelling their conference was “out of respect for the late Queen” even though they are going well beyond the recommended changes suggested, rather than calling for a recall of parliament.
The Labour (25-28/9) & Conservative (2-5/10) Conferences are going ahead. Recess is 22/9 - 17/10 - looks like they could substantially shorten the recess since they only resumed sitting on September 5th.
While it's true that you only have one chance to make a first impression in this instance events have probably done Truss a favour. What fate showed us was that she has no empathy.
Her speech to the nation had top billing and she blew it. It was an easy speech to make. All it needed was a bit of soul and a warm heart but she showed neither. She had a golden opportunity to show the nation who Liz Truss was and if it hadn't been in shock they would have have clocked it wasn't a pretty sight.
She was fortunate that in the fast moving events that followed it disappeared under the carpet even after we were shown how it should be done by Macron May and Charles. But for those looking for clues about the leader we've been gifted the signs aren't good
So what happened to Boris’ honours? Would be rather funny if there was an arcane convention that honours submitted to a passed monarch became void and couldn’t transfer to the next. Would Truss have to submit the recommendations?
She could honour Dominic Cummings and ITV News, for helping get rid of Boris.
Truss could honour Boris for helping to get rid of Boris, which would have the additional benefit that he could not stand again for leader from the House of Lords.
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
Which particular party are you identifying yourself with here, or do you mean the rightwing coalition as a whole ?
Hate to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but there is no “rightwing coalition”.
I am identifying myself with mainstream Sweden, with ‘The Establishment’: S+M+C+KD+MP+L. We have fucked up. All of us. Big time. Integration is an absolute joke. Law and order is not being upheld. We, all of us in the heart of society, are going to fix that. The gangs are going to be utterly smashed.
So what happened to Boris’ honours? Would be rather funny if there was an arcane convention that honours submitted to a passed monarch became void and couldn’t transfer to the next. Would Truss have to submit the recommendations?
She could honour Dominic Cummings and ITV News, for helping get rid of Boris.
Truss could honour Boris for helping to get rid of Boris, which would have the additional benefit that he could not stand again for leader from the House of Lords.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
On topic, she'll be okay, it's a bit like Starmer when he first became LOTO, we were a few weeks into lockdown and he didn't get much coverage for the first year or so of his leadership.
Unless we go full North Korean and declare a three year mourning period for Her Majesty there's enough time for the country to get to know Truss.
Meanwhile back in the real world: It is the increase in the cost of energy that is due to be announced that will be the big test for Truss. Currently electricity costs about 27p per KWh from October 1st it will go to about 35p KWh (though why hasn't this been announced?)- whilst offset by £66 a month for 6 month only, this and the equivalent gas price increase (no £66 discount here) will hit people hard. Over 1.5m homes mainly in rural (Conservative?) areas use oil for heating and the likely cost increase here is very uncertain. Truss has 'promised" a saving of £1,000 per household - there is likely to be a significant reaction when people get their actual bills.
Heating oil prices are surprisingly stable. To wit:
At the moment the price per kWh are Elec: 28p/kWh, Gas: 7p/kWh.
Up 20% (£2500/£1971) leaves us very approx at Elec: 35p, Gas: 9p. As you say.
The heating oil price has been stable since April-May at ~95p/l (England), +10% in Scotland. *
Heating oil is 10.35 kWh/l. So the current price puts it at (0.95 / (10.35) ) = 9p/kWh. Once you add in the standing charge for gas, it is roughly on a par with gas, assuming similar boiler efficiency. But anyone with a normal buying cycle perhaps bought it already before the usual pre-winter uplift.
I'd say there will be an adjustment, but it will only need to be quite small. Probably.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
Which particular party are you identifying yourself with here, or do you mean the rightwing coalition as a whole ?
Hate to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but there is no “rightwing coalition”.
I am identifying myself with mainstream Sweden, with ‘The Establishment’: S+M+C+KD+MP+L. We have fucked up. All of us. Big time. Integration is an absolute joke. Law and order is not being upheld. We, all of us in the heart of society, are going to fix that. The gangs are going to be utterly smashed.
The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government after this election arguably now gives Sweden the most populist right government in the Western world now, at least until Italy votes later this month.
While it's true that you only have one chance to make a first impression in this instance events have probably done Truss a favour. What fate showed us was that she has no empathy.
Her speech to the nation had top billing and she blew it. It was an easy speech to make. All it needed was a bit of soul and a warm heart but she showed neither. She had a golden opportunity to show the nation who Liz Truss was and if it hadn't been in shock they would have have clocked it wasn't a pretty sight.
She was fortunate that in the fast moving events that followed it disappeared under the carpet even after we were shown how it should be done by Macron May and Charles. But for those looking for clues about the leader we've been gifted the signs aren't good
You are being unfair. She was very understated, but that was fine.
Can you imagine the circus that Johnson would have created?
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
But if Andy had been the first born, his life would have been completely different.
Same with Harry.
Classic nature over nurture question. But without doubt the hereditary principle is at the mercy of the genetic lottery. We’ve been lucky. Still, the alternative history, counter factual raise some curious thoughts and feelings.
Had Andrew been first born, I think that the security forces would have taken the view that on occasion, even the most distinguished family trees require pruning.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
That is not to say he is wrong. Contrast Elizabeth, raised from a young girl to be monarch, with her younger sister, Princess Margaret, left to get on with it and best known for her love of gin and "unsuitable" men. Or William and Harry.
I don't think she's going to get a bounce now. It was always unlikely as people see the currently tories as tawdry and toxic. She belonged to the Johnson milieu and, unlike him, she's not going to reach those Alf Garnett types.
After Black Wednesday there was a 4.5 year inevitability about the forthcoming tory shellacking. The same is true now.
Those who seem convinced that a Labour majority is vanishingly unlikely are making a big gambling blunder.
Lo and behold, there's a poll giving her a bounce.
So what happened to Boris’ honours? Would be rather funny if there was an arcane convention that honours submitted to a passed monarch became void and couldn’t transfer to the next. Would Truss have to submit the recommendations?
She could honour Dominic Cummings and ITV News, for helping get rid of Boris.
Truss could honour Boris for helping to get rid of Boris, which would have the additional benefit that he could not stand again for leader from the House of Lords.
Nice. Also make him Ambassador to Dombass.
The dumbarse to the Dombass (sic) has a certain ring to it.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
Or perhaps arrest any woman wearing a mini-skirt in public.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
That is not to say he is wrong. Contrast Elizabeth, raised from a young girl to be monarch, with her younger sister, Princess Margaret, left to get on with it and best known for her love of gin and "unsuitable" men. Or William and Harry.
Of course Elizabeth was not initially raised to be monarch. Her father is the perfect example of the second son being a better King than the first.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
Let them speak their minds, and let them reap the consequences, IMHO.
If what we've seen over the past few days is British Republicanism's First XV, I think the future of the monarchy is assured.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
Or perhaps arrest any woman wearing a mini-skirt in public.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
That is not to say he is wrong. Contrast Elizabeth, raised from a young girl to be monarch, with her younger sister, Princess Margaret, left to get on with it and best known for her love of gin and "unsuitable" men. Or William and Harry.
Of course Elizabeth was not initially raised to be monarch. Her father is the perfect example of the second son being a better King than the first.
Actually that's not quite true. It was generally expected by senior politicians that unless her parents had a son (which by about 1931 seemed unlikely) she would be queen one day.
This was based on the assumption that the Prince of Wales would never marry, an assumption based on the fact that every time people raised the subject with him he bit their heads off.
There is a certain irony therefore in the way she did, eventually, become Queen.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
That is not to say he is wrong. Contrast Elizabeth, raised from a young girl to be monarch, with her younger sister, Princess Margaret, left to get on with it and best known for her love of gin and "unsuitable" men. Or William and Harry.
Of course Elizabeth was not initially raised to be monarch. Her father is the perfect example of the second son being a better King than the first.
Some seriously grim revelations about Edward on a documentary the other week. He apparently wrote that "after significant bombing, England make change her position on Germany". This was locked away somewhere but found again recently. A real traitor.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
Who is condoning it? That is what happened.
You seem to be condoning it, suggesting that having your windows smashed is an acceptable or appropriate response to offending others.
If you're not condoning it, you seem to be victim blaming.
Arresting people who are engaging in peaceful free speech is not doing anyone "a favour".
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
Why are royalists so angry?
I suspect it's because so many people have been holding off on reassessing royalty and the monarchy as an institution till after the late Queen died. But her long life - happy and beloved as that was - meant that the question accumulated, so to speak. We're now in an era when historians are more openly discussing the monarchy's role in the British-operrated slave trade, for instance (Charles II and James VII and II and so on). And more generally the role of royalty, deference and honours in propping up the British establishment at a time when the same Establishment has made a howling mess of things - when, for instance, even lawyers can't afford to live in London, never mind nurses, and have a decent house and family life as well. I would be very twitchy if I were a royalist.
There have been times in Britain when every decent person has felt themselves Irish, regardless of whether they actually are or not. We might be reaching a point where every decent person in Britain feels Scottish whether they are or not. I certainly felt a strong sense of solidarity and pride when those good people in Edinburgh booed the proclamation of the accession. (Or ascension, ascendancy, whatever.) If the lady who was arrested needs to crowdfund her defence, I shall certainly make a contribution.
Here's a question for monarchists. Why shouldn't we have a public debate on whether to abolish the monarchy or keep it?
Earlier this year, 26% (22/84) of those who expressed an opinion were against keeping the monarchy. Why don't we get a quarter of the time on the media? Why don't we have 150 MPs representing us?
In Scotland opposition to monarchy is running at about 40% (32/79), so there isn't a fair representation in Holyrood either.
Who would be a better person to lead the debate on the monarchist side but the "king" himself? He could wear whatever clothes he liked - ordinary clothes, fancy dress, whatever. His opponents, however, as is normal in debates, would be entitled to the same respect that he was. So nobody would call anyone "Sir" or "Your majesty". Nobody would get to sit in a special chair. Chairmanship would be impartial, with interruption or straying from the topic by one debater being treated in exactly the same way as it would be if done by the other.
Nobody should be arrested for holding up signs supporting one side or the other. Nobody should be scared for their career or anything like that.
The channel that held the debate wouldn't play "God save the king" at the end of it, and it wouldn't play the Chanson du Père Dûchene either.
Deal?
C'mon, monarchists, argue your case in front of "the people" that you think "Charles III" should be "king" of.
Let's see whether monarchists can argue their case - whether "Charles III" can argue his case - in front of the electorate other than by spitting, other than by telling their opponents they're filth who should get back to Russia, or by saying they want to bring "harmony" (or is it natural order?) to the world.
It is quite amusing to see the Sweden Democrats branded in these articles as 'far right'. One day the 'far right' will actually come on the scene and make parties like the Sweden Democrats look like Nick Clegg circa 2010.
It does seem to me, looking at the changes that have taken place in Sweden through mass immigration and the failure of elements of multiculturalism, that there would inevitably be this type of political reaction.
The real question, for those genuinely concerned about the 'far right', is whether or not the Sweden Democracts and their likely partners can make any real progress at dealing with the situation that has emerged.
Hmm.
"At the height of the campaign, the SD billed a metro train decorated in its electoral colours as the “repatriation express”. “Welcome aboard with a one-way ticket. Next stop, Kabul,” tweeted the party’s legal spokesperson, highlighting the SD’s demand to remove non-European immigrants."
How different is all this to Theresa May's "go home or face arrest" vans circa 2012/2013? It just seems to me like it is all the same thing. I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system. You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way? I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
Indeed.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
Which particular party are you identifying yourself with here, or do you mean the rightwing coalition as a whole ?
Hate to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but there is no “rightwing coalition”.
I am identifying myself with mainstream Sweden, with ‘The Establishment’: S+M+C+KD+MP+L. We have fucked up. All of us. Big time. Integration is an absolute joke. Law and order is not being upheld. We, all of us in the heart of society, are going to fix that. The gangs are going to be utterly smashed.
The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government after this election arguably now gives Sweden the most populist right government in the Western world now, at least until Italy votes later this month.
Sweden? Who would have thought it!
God you are so thick. Absolutely infuriating. Why on earth do you keep saying things that are just utter nonsense?
“The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government”? WTF? Stop telling blatant lies. C&S is not the same as being in government.
Further, neither M nor KD - the two Min Gov parties - are “populist right”. M are like Tory Wets, and KD are ultra-liberals when compared to other Christian Democratic parties.
So what happened to Boris’ honours? Would be rather funny if there was an arcane convention that honours submitted to a passed monarch became void and couldn’t transfer to the next. Would Truss have to submit the recommendations?
She could honour Dominic Cummings and ITV News, for helping get rid of Boris.
Truss could honour Boris for helping to get rid of Boris, which would have the additional benefit that he could not stand again for leader from the House of Lords.
Nice. Also make him Ambassador to Dombass.
The dumbarse to the Dombass (sic) has a certain ring to it.
I wonder what would be happening now if the genetic lottery has been less kind and that Prince Andrew had become king. Fortunately we dodged that bullet.
Had Andrew been PoW, I doubt he would have been allowed to get in with the wrong crowd in the same way he did.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
It’s interesting that only easy answer to this question is to dodge it and say it could never happen.
That is not to say he is wrong. Contrast Elizabeth, raised from a young girl to be monarch, with her younger sister, Princess Margaret, left to get on with it and best known for her love of gin and "unsuitable" men. Or William and Harry.
Of course Elizabeth was not initially raised to be monarch. Her father is the perfect example of the second son being a better King than the first.
Actually that's not quite true. It was generally expected by senior politicians that unless her parents had a son (which by about 1931 seemed unlikely) she would be queen one day.
This was based on the assumption that the Prince of Wales would never marry, an assumption based on the fact that every time people raised the subject with him he bit their heads off.
There is a certain irony therefore in the way she did, eventually, become Queen.
Interesting. Just underlines what an interesting and challenging life she lived.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
He’s free to say it elsewhere but not where he’s creating public nuisance and risks disorder. A bit like when Borat went to that animals rights march and started saying how he likes to eat bears. Sure it was funny but it wasn’t the smartest thing to do. Emotions are running high, someone trolling in this way can do it somewhere else. On here perhaps.
Those overzealous police might have been doing him a favour. That chippy owner had her windows smashed in. The trouble with setting out to offend people is you might succeed.
I hope you're not condoning criminal damage?
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
Or perhaps arrest any woman wearing a mini-skirt in public.
At the "proclamation" of the king's "accession" in Oxford, a man was arrested for shouting "Who elected him?"
He was later "de-arrested". "A Thames Valley police spokesperson said: 'A 45-year-old man was arrested in connection with a disturbance that was caused during the county proclamation ceremony of King Charles III in Oxford. He has subsequently been de-arrested and is engaging with us voluntarily as we investigate a public order offence. The man was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence."
I wonder whether they told him he'd been "de-arrested", and if so, why he didn't just walk out of the police station.
I guess the authorities don't want anyone to appear in court in the near future (Magna Carta etc.) for expressing republican sentiments.
There's a difference between being arrested and removed.
If someone was highly disruptive in a comedy club, musical or theatre, shouting abuse or making a scene, you'd expect them to be thrown out by security, and rightly so.
But he wasn't in a club, theatre etc, he was in a public place.
He wasn't the only one arrested yesterday by overzealous police, free speech is important.
Free speech is important but there's a time and a place.
It's not really free speech then.
Living in a society requires concessions to others’ feelings. There’s a difference between a free debate and protesting at a funeral cortège. Now if it was a Pinochet or Franco (for example) there might be a case because of their actions - but for the Queen there is no over-riding justification.
It wasn't a funeral cortege.
God, you're such a dick.
It was quite literally a funeral cortege. The BBC spent hours announcing it so.
I've changed my mind: all republicans should be arrested for the next 10 days, and subject to dental torture as well.
Why are royalists so angry?
I suspect it's because so many people have been holding off on reassessing royalty and the monarchy as an institution till after the late Queen died. But her long life - happy and beloved as that was - meant that the question accumulated, so to speak. We're now in an era when historians are more openly discussing the monarchy's role in the British-operrated slave trade, for instance (Charles II and James VII and II and so on). And more generally the role of royalty, deference and honours in propping up the British establishment at a time when the same Establishment has made a howling mess of things - when, for instance, even lawyers can't afford to live in London, never mind nurses, and have a decent house and family life as well. I would be very twitchy if I were a royalist.
There have been times in Britain when every decent person has felt themselves Irish, regardless of whether they actually are or not. We might be reaching a point where every decent person in Britain feels Scottish whether they are or not. I certainly felt a strong sense of solidarity and pride when those good people in Edinburgh booed the proclamation of the accession. (Or ascension, ascendancy, whatever.) If the lady who was arrested needs to crowdfund her defence, I shall certainly make a contribution.
Here's a question for monarchists. Why shouldn't we have a public debate on whether to abolish the monarchy or keep it?
Earlier this year, 26% (22/84) of those who expressed an opinion were against keeping the monarchy. Why don't we get a quarter of the time on the media? Why don't we have 150 MPs representing us?
In Scotland opposition to monarchy is running at about 40% (32/79), so there isn't a fair representation in Holyrood either.
Who would be a better person to lead the debate on the monarchist side but the "king" himself? He could wear whatever clothes he liked - ordinary clothes, fancy dress, whatever. His opponents, however, as is normal in debates, would be entitled to the same respect that he was. So nobody would call anyone "Sir" or "Your majesty". Nobody would get to sit in a special chair. Chairmanship would be impartial, with interruption or straying from the topic by one debater being treated in exactly the same way as it would be if done by the other.
Nobody should be arrested for holding up signs supporting one side or the other. Nobody should be scared for their career or anything like that.
The channel that held the debate wouldn't play "God save the king" at the end of it, and it wouldn't play the Chanson du Père Dûchene either.
Deal?
C'mon, monarchists, argue your case in front of "the people" that you think "Charles III" should be "king" of.
Let's see whether monarchists can argue their case - whether "Charles III" can argue his case - in front of the electorate other than by spitting, other than by telling their opponents they're filth who should get back to Russia, or by saying they want to bring "harmony" (or is it natural order?) to the world.
But, you're a Russian bot, so that disqualifies you from this debate.
Comments
What this period does give her is a prominence (without focusing on policy) she wouldn’t have had before, so it’s not all bad.
Yes, she’s awkward, but there is still scope for her to capitalise on the energy cap. The events will also allow her a stage to act as stateswoman pretty much all the way up to the coronation which could be anything up to 10 months away.
As a disclaimer, although I promised to give the Tories a fair hearing under Truss my instinct is still that a Labour government will serve the country better next time and I am probably voting for Starmer. I can’t see myself voting for Truss. But my own feelings aside I can’t count them out just yet - I still think they can come out of 2024 with a 1992 result.
#NotMyKing
When the proclamation was read out, I called out "Who elected him?". 2 or 3 people told me to shut up. I responded (with an opinion, not an insult). Security guards grabbed me. Police took me off them and arrested me. I'll write a fuller account when I'm a bit calmer. #NotMyKing
https://twitter.com/symonhill/status/1568961085809516547?s=46&t=7vZCw_wpKYpEyORalo1YdQ
If you think arresting somebody for that is fine then you are beyond hope.
How can it be sustained if there is just 1 seat either way and is this not unstable politically
I never call for people to be fired or to resign, as a matter of principle because I hate that mob mentality.
Exclusive:
** 750,000 people to come to Westminster to pay their respects to the Queen
** Queues of up to 5 miles from Southwark Park to Westminster
** People may have to queue for 20 hours
** Unprecedented security operation to protect queue
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/49928812-3209-11ed-a08f-af84e8072b22?shareToken=8fc3a8a2eb75f921bcc13a78c5cb3576
Under Boris it was a very different equation. In equal parts more popular and more hated than his party.
I’ve got a small, funny story about this, sort of. So it’s the @NATO summit in Wales in 2014 and the Alliance’s leaders are gathered at Celtic Manor. Before their ‘class photo’ they are milling about by themselves without any staff...
https://twitter.com/danielkorski/status/1569020079362248704
As for gobby show-offs, what do they think they achieve? A brave truth-teller? My arse. Only in the same way that Extinction Rebellion and such are. Full of self-importance and convincing no one. One reason Remain lost a winnable referemdum. Too busy insulting anyone with a contrary opinion.
I cannot think of anything I'd rather do less although amazingly, now that I think about it, I do see why people might want to.
It just seems to me like it is all the same thing.
I don't think that the Sweden Democrats have any actual, real policy of repatriating lawful immigrants, they are trying to deal with illegal immigration and abuses in the system.
You may not like this which is fair enough. But you have to ask yourself the question, is it better for these concerns to be advanced through the democratic system, or in some other way?
I don't really know Sweden well enough to say how I would vote, but it seems like there are lots of problems arising from mass immigration, including gun crime, which the liberal system is not dealing particularly well with.
When people baselessly assume everyone who disagrees with them must be an enemy who thinks the same things its a good sign they are being lazy and wrong.
Offending people is legal and acceptable.
If it's OK to smash someone's windows as they offended you, where is the line drawn? Can you smash someone's windows for saying a woman is an adult, human female? Can you smash someone's windows as they have a poster up for a party you don't like?
(b) because the monarchy is used to justify and help keep power (e.g. honours)
It doesn't have to be the monarchy's fault if HMG does X - but it will potentially get some of the blowback.
The tax and financial arrangements of the RF are likely to get more attention, too, which won't help.
Huge crowds on the Kingsway in Dundee yesterday for the cortege. Some flowers, plenty of Union Jacks and some clapping but mainly people just wanting to show their respect. If the crowds in London are the same it should be manageable.
This development, more than anything else, is what caused me to quit the 'left'.
I do think though that there is a line, in that you shouldn't be able to disrupt public ceremonies/events.
If you cannot ultimately arrest people, then how can any event ever take place?
It just seems like a practical problem.
Rare misstep from @DecrepiterJohnL - show again.
Regarding your final paragraph: the answer is probably yes. There is going to be a crackdown on the gangs, not least because the Social Democrats are also sick to the back teeth of the shits.
How does it affect the balance sheet is more important.
After mourning a much loved Queen and the state funeral Parliament should meet. The current plan for a long conference recess means a delayed return on October 17th. We need to tackle the cost of living crisis and energy shortage before then.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1569192480696078341
This is not unlike Sturgeon's "the day having a Y in it makes it plain Scotland should be independent" line of 'thinking'.
"A bad thing happened. We have a monarchy. It must be to blame."
Do you think the Queen is the reason England's ladies' football team have done so well recently? Or might such things be entirely unrelated?
He's just wrong.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/21272984.two-breach-peace-arrests-made-amid-king-charless-edinburgh-proclamation/
Same with Harry.
Bloomberg probably correct.
It cannot be sustained. It is profoundly unstable.
The Moderates won this battle, but it looks like they’re going to lose the war. The SD are playing an absolute blinder.
I don't think we should spend all day debating the rights and wrongs of this as his motivation is pretty clear.
I'm cool with him thinking that as he works his way through it all.
Yours
TOPPING AFBPsS (not really, just amateur PB psychologist).
Seems to me they're trying to make the same case as you.
Depluralise a film.
I’ll start.
Jaw.
Benjamin Judge @benjaminjudge
Replying to @jameshannah
A Crow on the Orient Express
https://twitter.com/benjaminjudge/status/1568904252801843207
The economic situation in the country is not down to the monarchy but the actions of the government. You can perhaps raise concerns about how it perpetuates inequalities in society simply by one figure being above all others, but every country has to have a head of state, and many republics don’t get the balance right either.
And I’m afraid I don’t subscribe to the modern notion of visiting the sins of the parents on the children. We can criticise and learn from mistakes that were made historically, but that does not mean that we have to hold the descendants of those that made them in a permanent state of disgrace.
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/what-does-show-again-braincell-mean.232432/page-2#post-6353279
Ukraine Holds the Future
The War Between Democracy and Nihilism
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/ukraine-war-democracy-nihilism-timothy-snyder
...When the Soviet Union came to an end in 1991, Ukrainians again seized on the trident as their national symbol. In the three decades since, Ukraine has moved, haltingly but unmistakably, in the direction of functional democracy. The generation that now runs the country knows the Soviet and pre-Soviet history but understands self-rule as self-evident. At a time when democracy is in decline around the world and threatened in the United States, Ukrainian resistance to Russian aggression provides a surprising (to many) affirmation of faith in democracy’s principles and its future. In this sense, Ukraine is a challenge to those in the West who have forgotten the ethical basis of democracy and thereby, wittingly or unwittingly, ceded the field to oligarchy and empire at home and abroad. Ukrainian resistance is a welcome challenge, and a needed one...
...On the Sunday before Russia began its latest invasion of Ukraine, I predicted on American television that Zelensky would remain in Kyiv if Russia invaded. I was mocked for this prediction, just as I was when I predicted the previous Russian invasion, the danger that U.S. President Donald Trump posed to American democracy, and Trump’s coup attempt. Former advisers to Trump and President Barack Obama disagreed with me in a class at Yale University, where I teach. They were doing nothing more than reflecting the American consensus. Americans tend to see the war in Ukraine in the long shadow of the 9/11 attacks and the American moral and military failures that followed. In the Biden administration, officials feared that taking the side of Kyiv risked repeating the fall of Kabul. Among younger people and on the political left, a deeper unease arose from the lack of a national reckoning over the invasion of Iraq, justified at the time with the notion that destroying one regime would create a tabula rasa from which democracy would naturally emerge. The idiocy of this argument made a generation doubt the possibility that war and democracy could have something to do with each other. The unease with another military effort was perhaps understandable, but the resemblance between Iraq and Ukraine was only superficial. Ukrainians weren’t imposing their own vision on another country. They were protecting their right to choose their own leaders against an invasion designed to undo their democracy and eliminate their society....
On the second point, it's the institution that cis under scrutiny. It's silly to blame Charles III for what Charles II did - but it does show how rooted in the UK economy the monarchy was, as an institution. And the wider issue of hte relation of the momarchy with the economy over time is a valid subject of inquiry.
The “liberal system”, as you describe it, has indeed failed regarding law & order and regarding integration. We all know that. It is rarely publicly acknowledged, but The Establishment in Sweden (which is all the parties excluding V and SD) have fucked up. Big time. We are going to fix it.
The Labour (25-28/9) & Conservative (2-5/10) Conferences are going ahead. Recess is 22/9 - 17/10 - looks like they could substantially shorten the recess since they only resumed sitting on September 5th.
Her speech to the nation had top billing and she blew it. It was an easy speech to make. All it needed was a bit of soul and a warm heart but she showed neither. She had a golden opportunity to show the nation who Liz Truss was and if it hadn't been in shock they would have have clocked it wasn't a pretty sight.
She was fortunate that in the fast moving events that followed it disappeared under the carpet even after we were shown how it should be done by Macron May and Charles. But for those looking for clues about the leader we've been gifted the signs aren't good
I am identifying myself with mainstream Sweden, with ‘The Establishment’: S+M+C+KD+MP+L. We have fucked up. All of us. Big time. Integration is an absolute joke. Law and order is not being upheld. We, all of us in the heart of society, are going to fix that. The gangs are going to be utterly smashed.
Spare Heir isn't a great role to be assigned. Cushy, sure, but gilded pointlessness. And worse for someone growing up a few decades ago than now.
At the moment the price per kWh are Elec: 28p/kWh, Gas: 7p/kWh.
Up 20% (£2500/£1971) leaves us very approx at Elec: 35p, Gas: 9p. As you say.
The heating oil price has been stable since April-May at ~95p/l (England), +10% in Scotland. *
Heating oil is 10.35 kWh/l. So the current price puts it at (0.95 / (10.35) ) = 9p/kWh. Once you add in the standing charge for gas, it is roughly on a par with gas, assuming similar boiler efficiency. But anyone with a normal buying cycle perhaps bought it already before the usual pre-winter uplift.
I'd say there will be an adjustment, but it will only need to be quite small. Probably.
* https://www.boilerjuice.com/heating-oil-prices-england/
* https://www.boilerjuice.com/heating-oil-prices-scotland/
NEWS: The new 1 Oct price guarantee average direct debit rates have been announced
Electricity
Unit rate: 34.00p per kWh
Standing charge: 46.36p per day.
Gas
Unit rate: 10.30p per kWh.
Standing charge: 28.49p per day
Pls share
Sweden? Who would have thought it!
Can you imagine the circus that Johnson would have created?
https://twitter.com/willgeorgelloyd/status/1569221632366940160
I see we're saying what a good PM is and how good she is now the polls show a move in her direction
Overseas votes do however tend to be good for the Moderates and the Liberals.
If what we've seen over the past few days is British Republicanism's First XV, I think the future of the monarchy is assured.
This was based on the assumption that the Prince of Wales would never marry, an assumption based on the fact that every time people raised the subject with him he bit their heads off.
There is a certain irony therefore in the way she did, eventually, become Queen.
If you're not condoning it, you seem to be victim blaming.
Arresting people who are engaging in peaceful free speech is not doing anyone "a favour".
There have been times in Britain when every decent person has felt themselves Irish, regardless of whether they actually are or not. We might be reaching a point where every decent person in Britain feels Scottish whether they are or not. I certainly felt a strong sense of solidarity and pride when those good people in Edinburgh booed the proclamation of the accession. (Or ascension, ascendancy, whatever.) If the lady who was arrested needs to crowdfund her defence, I shall certainly make a contribution.
Here's a question for monarchists. Why shouldn't we have a public debate on whether to abolish the monarchy or keep it?
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2022/06/01/platinum-jubilee-where-does-public-opinion-stand-m
Earlier this year, 26% (22/84) of those who expressed an opinion were against keeping the monarchy. Why don't we get a quarter of the time on the media? Why don't we have 150 MPs representing us?
In Scotland opposition to monarchy is running at about 40% (32/79), so there isn't a fair representation in Holyrood either.
Who would be a better person to lead the debate on the monarchist side but the "king" himself? He could wear whatever clothes he liked - ordinary clothes, fancy dress, whatever. His opponents, however, as is normal in debates, would be entitled to the same respect that he was. So nobody would call anyone "Sir" or "Your majesty". Nobody would get to sit in a special chair. Chairmanship would be impartial, with interruption or straying from the topic by one debater being treated in exactly the same way as it would be if done by the other.
Nobody should be arrested for holding up signs supporting one side or the other. Nobody should be scared for their career or anything like that.
The channel that held the debate wouldn't play "God save the king" at the end of it, and it wouldn't play the Chanson du Père Dûchene either.
Deal?
C'mon, monarchists, argue your case in front of "the people" that you think "Charles III" should be "king" of.
Let's see whether monarchists can argue their case - whether "Charles III" can argue his case - in front of the electorate other than by spitting, other than by telling their opponents they're filth who should get back to Russia, or by saying they want to bring "harmony" (or is it natural order?) to the world.
“The inclusion of the Sweden Democrats in the new Swedish government”? WTF? Stop telling blatant lies. C&S is not the same as being in government.
Further, neither M nor KD - the two Min Gov parties - are “populist right”. M are like Tory Wets, and KD are ultra-liberals when compared to other Christian Democratic parties.
You don't pre-arrest victims before they're attacked. Should we arrest women who wear short skirts, so that they don't get raped?
Sadly not much cricket to watch today; I don't THINK England can lose ten wickets this morning.
In other thoughts, my wife and I are quite pleased that Liz Truss is PM; we fear that her predecessor would've gone well over the top in his comments!
Quantum Lamb
Funny how the cancel culture free speech brigade were cheering the Police on, almost like this whole debate isn't about free speech at all