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.
You wouldn't happen to be posting from a large historical and federated country that also has a problem with its constituent regions, would you, Dynamo ?
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.
You wouldn't have to be posting from a large historical country that also has a problem with its constituent regions, would you, Dynamo ?
It's only 11.15 in that time zone. That's impressively early to be completely pissed.
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.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I wonder if Mr Dynamo is on good terms with the chap who was here a few months back, and seemed to like posting both about the inevitability of Russian victory and Foxy's jokes - who was that again ?
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.
No, I was on the side of him not being a dickhead and going out of his way to cause offence. There's a difference.
The arrest was for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Someone was likely to twat him.
If anyone twats someone then they're the criminal and they should be arrested.
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?
The legislation says : "Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence."
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.
Parliament hasn't been shy about choosing a different monarch if the one the genetic lottery has presented them with hasn't been acceptable.
I'm fairly confident that if Andrew had been ahead of Charles in the succession, and all else the same, that Andrew would have been forced to abdicate and either Charles would be King, or we'd have Queen Beatrice I.
Neither Republicans or Monarchists like to talk about the fact that our current system involves a degree of choice about the identity of the Monarch.
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.
No, I was on the side of him not being a dickhead and going out of his way to cause offence. There's a difference.
The arrest was for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Someone was likely to twat him.
If anyone twats someone then they're the criminal and they should be arrested.
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?
The legislation says : "Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence."
None of which applies to the Oxford case.
Unless someone enacted a Thai style Lèse-majesté law without telling us ?
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.
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.
No, I was on the side of him not being a dickhead and going out of his way to cause offence. There's a difference.
The arrest was for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Someone was likely to twat him.
If anyone twats someone then they're the criminal and they should be arrested.
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?
The legislation says : "Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence."
So if someone says "a woman is an adult, human female" should they be arrested?
Asking "who elected him" should be free speech not a crime.
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.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
Still to QEII. If your parents predecease the monarch it doesn’t remove you from the line of succession.
If William died tomorrow it wouldn’t stop George being the next king, for instance.
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.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I don't think it worked that way. As the daughter of the second son, she would have been next in line. If it had been through her mother that would have been different.
Or to put it another way, if Andrew died and then some freak accident wiped out William, Harry and all their children, the crown would still go to Beatrice not Edward.
Somebody was arrested yesterday for saying they didn't like the monarchy in a public place.
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
I think you'll find a lot of free speech people are not cheering the Police on over this, quite the opposite.
There's people opposed to free speech on both sides of politics, that's just horseshoe theory in action once more.
I'm surprised there's even debate about this one. We all know what the police can be like when people say or do things they don't approve of.
Like (I assume) most people in this country I'm a fairly neutral "on-balance" monarchist who is intensely relaxed about others wanting to express their republicanism where and when they want. That's their right.
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
The article says:
"“Conference is a major part of our budget and we stand to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds through this cancellation in lost income. (Event insurance policies do not cover the death of a monarch.)
“At this point many of our supplier contracts are unavoidable. This means that our party will take a substantial financial hit as a result of cancelling the conference. "
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 see we're saying what a good PM is and how good she is now the polls show a move in her direction
I would say that in the past we have seen it take 10-14 days for events to show up in the polls. Despite the internet age and all that…
If this is the bounce then it's moderately good news for Labour. Like the team that squeezes out a win even when it plays badly, still being ahead after a 6% bounce for the opposition after a popular announcement and during a time of national rallying round the flag is a valuable 3 points.
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: it is notable how well Norway next door handles illegal (and legal) immigration, while Sweden has made a pigs ear of both.
With that said... There's a tonal thing here. "The repatriation express, next stop Kabul" sounds rather like trolling. I suspect it cannot help but increase division, and make those people who came to Sweden legally feel unwanted.
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.
No, I was on the side of him not being a dickhead and going out of his way to cause offence. There's a difference.
The arrest was for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Someone was likely to twat him.
If anyone twats someone then they're the criminal and they should be arrested.
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?
The legislation says : "Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence."
So if someone says "a woman is an adult, human female" should they be arrested?
Asking "who elected him" should be free speech not a crime.
I agree. I disagree with the second part of the quote in the legislation: "...hereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence". If the speech results in at attack on the speaker, it is the attackers who should be charged not the speaker.
After the successful actions carried out by the Defense Forces in the Kherson direction, the Russian 810 separate naval infantry brigade stationed in Sevastopol has already lost almost 85% of its personnel, the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reports. https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1569235036565561344
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.
You don't realise how balls deep Charles and James were in the Royal African Company. Not called Royal just as a mark of respect
And disgrace is not the point. We don't expect contemporary Germans to feel guilt about the holocaust but we do expect them not to lie about its existence or extent and not to celebrate 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.
No, I was on the side of him not being a dickhead and going out of his way to cause offence. There's a difference.
The arrest was for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Someone was likely to twat him.
If anyone twats someone then they're the criminal and they should be arrested.
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?
The legislation says : "Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence."
So if someone says "a woman is an adult, human female" should they be arrested?
Asking "who elected him" should be free speech not a crime.
Yes it should. Has anyone said otherwise, other than those erecting straw men ad absurdum? However, this was neither the time nor the place.
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.
No, I was on the side of him not being a dickhead and going out of his way to cause offence. There's a difference.
The arrest was for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Someone was likely to twat him.
If anyone twats someone then they're the criminal and they should be arrested.
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?
You're overdoing your rape analogies.
In breach of the peace in England the police do get to arrest people in advance of an event occurring ("behaviour likely to cause..."). In Scotland breach of the peace covers any 'disorderly' behaviour aiui and 'behaviour likely to cause a b of the p does not exist as an offence, which may well fit a chap out doing this in these circumstances.
Wasn't the Scottish event where he had an unnecessary sweary insult on his protest board?
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.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I'm open to correction but I don't think so.
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
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.
No, I was on the side of him not being a dickhead and going out of his way to cause offence. There's a difference.
The arrest was for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Someone was likely to twat him.
If anyone twats someone then they're the criminal and they should be arrested.
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?
The legislation says : "Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence."
So if someone says "a woman is an adult, human female" should they be arrested?
Asking "who elected him" should be free speech not a crime.
Yes it should. Has anyone said otherwise, other than those erecting straw men ad absurdum? However, this was neither the time nor the place.
It was absolutely the time and the place, if that was where and when the speaker wanted to say it. In fact, it could hardly be more timely or on topic.
It wasn't protesting a funeral, since this was about our new (not old) head of state it was absolutely the right time and place to say that if someone wanted to.
That's like saying Dennis Skinner should have been arrested for his remarks when Black Rod arrived in the past for being disrespectful.
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: it is notable how well Norway next door handles illegal (and legal) immigration, while Sweden has made a pigs ear of both.
With that said... There's a tonal thing here. "The repatriation express, next stop Kabul" sounds rather like trolling. I suspect it cannot help but increase division, and make those people who came to Sweden legally feel unwanted.
Trump-era shock and glee tactics, and also a nod to its history. The party only seems to have stopped being openly Nazi around 1995.
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
The article says:
"“Conference is a major part of our budget and we stand to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds through this cancellation in lost income. (Event insurance policies do not cover the death of a monarch.)
“At this point many of our supplier contracts are unavoidable. This means that our party will take a substantial financial hit as a result of cancelling the conference. "
The Lib Dems evidently didn't ask for the coverage because yes, event cancellation insurance can cover the death of a Monarch and event cancellation due to a National Period of Mourning.
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.
You don't realise how balls deep Charles and James were in the Royal African Company. Not called Royal just as a mark of respect
And disgrace is not the point. We don't expect contemporary Germans to feel guilt about the holocaust but we do expect them not to lie about its existence or extent and not to celebrate it.
I don’t disagree with anything you say. What I do think is that you can have frank and open conversations about institutions through history without necessarily disagreeing with the existence of the modern institution.
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
The article says:
"“Conference is a major part of our budget and we stand to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds through this cancellation in lost income. (Event insurance policies do not cover the death of a monarch.)
“At this point many of our supplier contracts are unavoidable. This means that our party will take a substantial financial hit as a result of cancelling the conference. "
The Lib Dems evidently didn't ask for the coverage because yes, event cancellation insurance can cover the death of a Monarch and event cancellation due to a National Period of Mourning.
Not sure the point you are making - are you saying that the party is incorrect in thinking they are not covered?
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.
No, I was on the side of him not being a dickhead and going out of his way to cause offence. There's a difference.
The arrest was for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Someone was likely to twat him.
If anyone twats someone then they're the criminal and they should be arrested.
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?
The legislation says : "Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence."
So if someone says "a woman is an adult, human female" should they be arrested?
Asking "who elected him" should be free speech not a crime.
It depends on the context. Our society assumes a sort of right to the decorum of dignified occasions.
Does the right to free speech extend to someone standing up during your grannie's funeral and denouncing her as a murderer and a witch?
(And let's assume it's a secular funeral in a secular place so the special rules about disrupting divine worship don't apply)
I see we're saying what a good PM is and how good she is now the polls show a move in her direction
Nobody as far as I know has said what a good PM she is but she has made a good start
Polls are not relevant at present but the questions in that poll which may surprise some is the broad approval for the removal of levies on energy bills, scrapping the NI increase, and even cancelling the corporation tax increases next April
I see in his temper tantrum at witnessing his troops run away, Putin has used most of his remaining missiles to attack the Ukrainian electricity grid.
He is the kind of person who would throw acid in the face of his ex. "If I can't have you, no-one will..."
The one thing that is certain - Russian isn't going back to Ukraine. Even those collaborators who were suckered into getting Russian passports now see that they don't actually allow access into Russia.
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.
No, I was on the side of him not being a dickhead and going out of his way to cause offence. There's a difference.
The arrest was for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Someone was likely to twat him.
If anyone twats someone then they're the criminal and they should be arrested.
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?
The legislation says : "Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence."
So if someone says "a woman is an adult, human female" should they be arrested?
Asking "who elected him" should be free speech not a crime.
It depends on the context. Our society assumes a sort of right to the decorum of dignified occasions.
Does the right to free speech extend to someone standing up during your grannie's funeral and denouncing her as a murderer and a witch?
(And let's assume it's a secular funeral in a secular place so the special rules about disrupting divine worship don't apply)
In my view?
Anyone trespassing a private ceremony on private property to do that should be committing an offence.
Anyone doing so in public, on public property, should not be.
It may be unpleasant for someone to do that, but people have the right to be unpleasant. Free speech means nothing, unless it goes to those whose speech you don't want to hear.
I've been skeptical about this "end of an era" thing but I think I've changed my mind. Because it does feel that way to me this morning. It feels like something which became as familiar to us as the air that we breathe is over and something new is about to take its place.
Ok there was no Djokovic due to vax rules, but Alcaraz is only 19 and already looks the full monty. With Nadal close to bald now, and Roger over and out, this is surely - and finally! - a changing of the guard in men's tennis. 15 slams minimum for this guy, I think.
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
The article says:
"“Conference is a major part of our budget and we stand to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds through this cancellation in lost income. (Event insurance policies do not cover the death of a monarch.)
“At this point many of our supplier contracts are unavoidable. This means that our party will take a substantial financial hit as a result of cancelling the conference. "
The Lib Dems evidently didn't ask for the coverage because yes, event cancellation insurance can cover the death of a Monarch and event cancellation due to a National Period of Mourning.
Not sure the point you are making - are you saying that the party is incorrect in thinking they are not covered?
They obviously aren't covered because the policy they did buy doesn't cover it. That is not to say they couldn't have bought coverage that DID cover it. Either they refused to pay extra for the required extension to coverage, didn't even think about this eventuality, or didn't have a good enough broker to find/offer it.
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
The article says:
"“Conference is a major part of our budget and we stand to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds through this cancellation in lost income. (Event insurance policies do not cover the death of a monarch.)
“At this point many of our supplier contracts are unavoidable. This means that our party will take a substantial financial hit as a result of cancelling the conference. "
The Lib Dems evidently didn't ask for the coverage because yes, event cancellation insurance can cover the death of a Monarch and event cancellation due to a National Period of Mourning.
Not sure the point you are making - are you saying that the party is incorrect in thinking they are not covered?
They obviously aren't covered because the policy they did buy doesn't cover it. That is not to say they couldn't have bought coverage that DID cover it. Either they refused to pay extra for the required extension to coverage, didn't even think about this eventuality, or didn't have a good enough broker to find/offer it.
I'm sorry - got it - I misread your original post!
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?
The fervent monarchists overlap a lot with the anti-woke brigade who are always saying that black people, women, working class people, people who don't inherit loads of money, or who can't afford private healthcare, etc., and who get offended by speech that derides them shouldn't be such a bunch of crybaby "snowflakes".
But say anything against their beloved "Charles III's" right to reign, or make disapproving noises when they publicly "proclaim" his "accession" to the "throne", and they erupt with tears of fury. Sure, they've got loads of guns, but they're still a lot of ninnies. Deep down they know they've got no case for what they believe. The last thing they want is a public debate that they don't stitch up beforehand (as they did in Australia).
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.
"...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 [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
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.
"...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 [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
ISTR something similar happened in Manchester around the statue of Emmeline Pankhurst where there was a feminist/trans stand off.
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.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I'm open to correction but I don't think so.
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously the ancient Danes did things differently. I could never understand why Claudius succeeded old Hamlet. I'd sit in the stalls muttering "but the whole premise of this play doesn't make sense".
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.
Not interesting at all, and you have been given the right answer. If Andrew as httt had wanted 16 yo totty it would have been discreetly procured for him I would think. If nonetheless he had gone rogue and got in with Epstein he would have had the importance of keeping out of photographs drummed in to him. If not and we ended up where we are with the lawsuit he would have been able to settle it himself out of his own assets. Worse comes to worst he gets pushed out in favour of Edward.
You are aware what happened to Juan Carlos of Spain?
This reminds me of the rumours we often have about MPs being in discussion about defecting. Generally speaking if we hear a rumour about it then it doesn't happen. And if it happens we don't normally hear a rumour about it first. Will the same hold true in war?
KyivPost @KyivPost ⚡️#Ukrainian official: Some units of #Russian soldiers located on the right bank of the #Dnipro river in #Kherson Oblast are trying to negotiate their surrender.
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.
No, I was on the side of him not being a dickhead and going out of his way to cause offence. There's a difference.
The arrest was for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Someone was likely to twat him.
Oh come on. You can hardly hear it.
I think it's at 4m50 in this recording - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUq2flu7v5w - but it's hard to pick out. I don't know where Symon Hill was standing but it sounds like he was halfway down the High.
Oxford survived Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer being burned at the stake... I think it can cope with one churchgoer deep in the crowd doing a three-word Dennis Skinner impression.
The Lord Lieutenant of Oxfordshire is a friend. Next time I bump into her I'll ask her whether any peace was indeed breached but I'm pretty sure I know what her answer will be.
I always wonder why far-right parties go to the trouble of such extensive makeovers when the choice of security guards instantly gives the game away again. It could also be useful and intended as a subtle signal to party bases, ofcourse - we're stlll with you. Unless this guy isn't security but an actual politician.
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?
The fervent monarchists overlap a lot with the anti-woke brigade who are always saying that black people, women, working class people, people who don't inherit loads of money, or who can't afford private healthcare, etc., and who get offended by speech that derides them shouldn't be such a bunch of crybaby "snowflakes".
But say anything against their beloved "Charles III's" right to reign, or make disapproving noises when they publicly "proclaim" his "accession" to the "throne", and they erupt with tears of fury. Sure, they've got loads of guns, but they're still a lot of ninnies. Deep down they know they've got no case for what they believe. The last thing they want is a public debate that they don't stitch up beforehand (as they did in Australia).
And also vice versa. People who apply principles of free speech consistently whether they agree with what is being said or not tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Because while lots of people believe in free speech, few do so viscerally: few have instinctive 'heart' reaction to issues of free speech. They tend to need thinking through with the head. And the immediate reaction in humans is with the heart, not the head.
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.
"...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 [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
Thank you, Cyclefree, for some common sense on this.
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?
The fervent monarchists overlap a lot with the anti-woke brigade who are always saying that black people, women, working class people, people who don't inherit loads of money, or who can't afford private healthcare, etc., and who get offended by speech that derides them shouldn't be such a bunch of crybaby "snowflakes".
But say anything against their beloved "Charles III's" right to reign, or make disapproving noises when they publicly "proclaim" his "accession" to the "throne", and they erupt with tears of fury. Sure, they've got loads of guns, but they're still a lot of ninnies. Deep down they know they've got no case for what they believe. The last thing they want is a public debate that they don't stitch up beforehand (as they did in Australia).
Strong Rick from the Young Ones energy this morning, and what's with all the "quotation" "marks"? This is just the politics of envy, huzzah for Good King Charles!
I always wonder why far-right parties go to the trouble of such extensive makeovers when the choice of security guards instantly gives the game away again. It could also be useful and intended as a subtle signal to party bases, ofcourse - we're stlll with you. Unless this guy isn't security but an actual politician.
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?
The fervent monarchists overlap a lot with the anti-woke brigade who are always saying that black people, women, working class people, people who don't inherit loads of money, or who can't afford private healthcare, etc., and who get offended by speech that derides them shouldn't be such a bunch of crybaby "snowflakes".
But say anything against their beloved "Charles III's" right to reign, or make disapproving noises when they publicly "proclaim" his "accession" to the "throne", and they erupt with tears of fury. Sure, they've got loads of guns, but they're still a lot of ninnies. Deep down they know they've got no case for what they believe. The last thing they want is a public debate that they don't stitch up beforehand (as they did in Australia).
Strong Rick from the Young Ones energy this morning, and what's with all the "quotation" "marks"? This is just the politics of envy, huzzah for Good King Charles!
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 didn't think she was being understated. Just that she forgot that she was talking about a human being who most of us have known all our lives and nearly all of us have some respect for. It was so cold I was actually surprised she didn't mention her trade deal with New Zealand. Or maybe she did?
I agree not having Johnson muscling in was a blessing and I'm sure there will be no impact. But as a clue to Truss the human being and Truss the PM I thought it was very instructive.
The Duke of Grope finally found a new role appropriate to his abilities.
It's quite sweet that Andrew and Fergie live together. I believe there was talk of remarriage some time ago but HMQ was dead against. Perhaps they'll quietly do it now.
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?
The fervent monarchists overlap a lot with the anti-woke brigade who are always saying that black people, women, working class people, people who don't inherit loads of money, or who can't afford private healthcare, etc., and who get offended by speech that derides them shouldn't be such a bunch of crybaby "snowflakes".
But say anything against their beloved "Charles III's" right to reign, or make disapproving noises when they publicly "proclaim" his "accession" to the "throne", and they erupt with tears of fury. Sure, they've got loads of guns, but they're still a lot of ninnies. Deep down they know they've got no case for what they believe. The last thing they want is a public debate that they don't stitch up beforehand (as they did in Australia).
Strong Rick from the Young Ones energy this morning, and what's with all the "quotation" "marks"? This is just the politics of envy, huzzah for Good King Charles!
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.
To be clear my comment just now relates to the alleged incident in Oxford at an accession proclamation.
Incidentally Millom Town Council - who are completely and utterly useless - managed to completely cock up the proclamation yesterday. So we have not had ours and are presumably now living in some sort of royalist no-man's land a la Passport to Pimlico. This will be a bit of help in my forthcoming whisky-smuggling business I dare say.
Also today is my 30th wedding anniversary. Which is quite something. To celebrate we went out to dinner last night with friends and had one of the most enjoyable times with old and new friends long into the night I've ever had. We put the world to rights and had lots and lots of laughs. Today I have lots of work to do and then we're off to a concert in a very beautiful Pugin church in Barrow, St Mary of Furness.
On topic, Truss has all the presence and charisma of a damp rag, judged by the last few days. I find it odd that experienced politicians are so bad at an important part of their job. Maybe she will develop it.
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 didn't think she was being understated. Just that she forgot that she was talking about a human being who most of us have known all our lives and nearly all of us have some respect for. It was so cold I was actually surprised she didn't mention her trade deal with New Zealand. Or maybe she did?
I agree not having Johnson muscling in was a blessing and I'm sure there will be no impact. But as a clue to Truss the human being and Truss the PM I thought it was very instructive.
As if you were ever going to admit liking anything that she says.
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.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I'm open to correction but I don't think so.
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously the ancient Danes did things differently. I could never understand why Claudius succeeded old Hamlet. I'd sit in the stalls muttering "but the whole premise of this play doesn't make sense".
Until the later middle ages kings were usually elected by aristocratic assemblies rather than inherited automatically. True, the eldest legitimate son would be a front-runner but it wasn't automatic, unless the dead King had named him as heir. Sometimes, not even then. That's why Hamlet talks of Claudius having 'popped in between th'election and my hopes.'
Just to focus on England, that was how, for example, Stephen became King of England in 1135 ahead of both Henry I's daughter and his older brother Theobald. It was also how John became King in 1199 even though on paper his nephew Arthur had a better claim, and how Henry VII could be put forward as a candidate for the throne even though he wasn't actually a member of the Royal Family. It was also how King James leapfrogged several other candidates who on paper had better claims in 1603, and how (William and) Mary and later Anne jumped ahead of their father and brother in 1688.
In Scotland, until the Stewart era things were even more complicated, which is how Edward I started meddling in their affairs to begin with. If you want confusion, look at the succession to Malcolm III.
The concept of 'royal succession' began in the Middle Ages, and the French with Salic Law and Edward III with his designation of a list of heirs, and then Henry VIII with his succession act all tried to come up with different ways of nominating successors. All of them caused immense trouble. Salic Law, for example, led to the Hundred Years' War. Edward III's succession act, passing over the Duke of Clarence's line and substituting the House of Lancaster, was a factor in the Wars of the Roses (albeit not the most important one) and Henry VIII's meddling with the succession process in the Second Succession Act was a key part of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
But it wasn't finally fixed until the Act of Settlement in 1701, which clearly stated who the next Queen (at that time) would be, and set the order in which her successors would come. As Sophia died before Anne, it was in fact used for the first time to make her son George the King.
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.
To be clear my comment just now relates to the alleged incident in Oxford at an accession proclamation.
Incidentally Millom Town Council - who are completely and utterly useless - managed to completely cock up the proclamation yesterday. So we have not had ours and are presumably now living in some sort of royalist no-man's land a la Passport to Pimlico. This will be a bit of help in my forthcoming whisky-smuggling business I dare say.
Also today is my 30th wedding anniversary. Which is quite something. To celebrate we went out to dinner last night with friends and had one of the most enjoyable times with old and new friends long into the night I've ever had. We put the world to rights and had lots and lots of laughs. Today I have lots of work to do and then we're off to a concert in a very beautiful Pugin church in Barrow, St Mary of Furness.
On topic, Truss has all the presence and charisma of a damp rag, judged by the last few days. I find it odd that experienced politicians are so bad at an important part of their job. Maybe she will develop it.
Many congratulations on your 30th (pearl) anniversary
By chance, I was at the Oxford proclamation yesterday - about 30 yards from the 'main event' and heard absolutely no shouting or disruption.
Inevitably with such a swiftly organised, the civilian security were inexperienced and this may have led to some over-enthusiastic interpretation of instructions. In such cases, it would not be unusual for the police to back the security guards initially.
However, the guy seems to have been released pronto when the police got the full facts and this feels to me like someone simply wanting his 15 minutes of fame.
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 didn't think she was being understated. Just that she forgot that she was talking about a human being who most of us have known all our lives and nearly all of us have some respect for. It was so cold I was actually surprised she didn't mention her trade deal with New Zealand. Or maybe she did?
I agree not having Johnson muscling in was a blessing and I'm sure there will be no impact. But as a clue to Truss the human being and Truss the PM I thought it was very instructive.
I suspect you're at the other end of the emotional spectrum from me Roger. Some of us quite enjoy our public figures refusing to emote. I much prefer the Truss approach to the Blair one. We were talking last week about which PMs would have been good and bad at this. There was some support from across the spectrum for the view that Brown would have probably struck the right note.
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.
"...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 [under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986].”..."
And I'm not a republican.
I will take the last piece of your comment as a poor joke.
We’ve only heard the protester’s side though. I suspect the police asked him to desist - he refused; they asked him to depart - he refused; arresting him resolved the situation…
I hate to bring the law into this argument. But unless someone is committing an offence or is about to you cannot simply arrest someone simply because they disagree with the police. Or express a minority view or say something that others might find in poor taste.
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
I agree completely.
My favourite example - back in the day, there was a chap whose opinions were so upsetting that every time he held a public meeting in about half the country there was violence.
He killed several people - found to be self defence, but still…
He wrote a pamphlet on knife fighting - he wasn’t ashamed of the violence. He owned 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.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I'm open to correction but I don't think so.
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously the ancient Danes did things differently. I could never understand why Claudius succeeded old Hamlet. I'd sit in the stalls muttering "but the whole premise of this play doesn't make sense".
Until the later middle ages kings were usually elected by aristocratic assemblies rather than inherited automatically. True, the eldest legitimate son would be a front-runner but it wasn't automatic, unless the dead King had named him as heir. Sometimes, not even then. That's why Hamlet talks of Claudius having 'popped in between th'election and my hopes.'
Just to focus on England, that was how, for example, Stephen became King of England in 1135 ahead of both Henry I's daughter and his older brother Theobald. It was also how John became King in 1199 even though on paper his nephew Arthur had a better claim, and how Henry VII could be put forward as a candidate for the throne even though he wasn't actually a member of the Royal Family. It was also how King James leapfrogged several other candidates who on paper had better claims in 1603, and how (William and) Mary and later Anne jumped ahead of their father and brother in 1688.
In Scotland, until the Stewart era things were even more complicated, which is how Edward I started meddling in their affairs to begin with. If you want confusion, look at the succession to Malcolm III.
The concept of 'royal succession' began in the Middle Ages, and the French with Salic Law and Edward III with his designation of a list of heirs, and then Henry VIII with his succession act all tried to come up with different ways of nominating successors. All of them caused immense trouble. Salic Law, for example, led to the Hundred Years' War. Edward III's succession act, passing over the Duke of Clarence's line and substituting the House of Lancaster, was a factor in the Wars of the Roses (albeit not the most important one) and Henry VIII's meddling with the succession process in the Second Succession Act was a key part of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
But it wasn't finally fixed until the Act of Settlement in 1701, which clearly stated who the next Queen (at that time) would be, and set the order in which her successors would come. As Sophia died before Anne, it was in fact used for the first time to make her son George the King.
Interesting - I knew Denmark (and Poland, I believe) had been an elected monarchy but it never really struck me that historical England was the same.
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 didn't think she was being understated. Just that she forgot that she was talking about a human being who most of us have known all our lives and nearly all of us have some respect for. It was so cold I was actually surprised she didn't mention her trade deal with New Zealand. Or maybe she did?
I agree not having Johnson muscling in was a blessing and I'm sure there will be no impact. But as a clue to Truss the human being and Truss the PM I thought it was very instructive.
I suspect you're at the other end of the emotional spectrum from me Roger. Some of us quite enjoy our public figures refusing to emote. I much prefer the Truss approach to the Blair one. We were talking last week about which PMs would have been good and bad at this. There was some support from across the spectrum for the view that Brown would have probably struck the right note.
I tend to agree with you, though I have just listened to Truss's speech and it is OK but no more and a bit flat. I got the impression that she just wanted to get through it.
By chance, I was at the Oxford proclamation yesterday - about 30 yards from the 'main event' and heard absolutely no shouting or disruption.
Inevitably with such a swiftly organised, the civilian security were inexperienced and this may have led to some over-enthusiastic interpretation of instructions. In such cases, it would not be unusual for the police to back the security guards initially.
However, the guy seems to have been released pronto when the police got the full facts and this feels to me like someone simply wanting his 15 minutes of fame.
You're putting the guy down for telling people about his experience.
The Duke of Grope finally found a new role appropriate to his abilities.
It's quite sweet that Andrew and Fergie live together. I believe there was talk of remarriage some time ago but HMQ was dead against. Perhaps they'll quietly do it now.
I didn't know they lived together - though I'm not a royal-watcher to any degree.
By chance, I was at the Oxford proclamation yesterday - about 30 yards from the 'main event' and heard absolutely no shouting or disruption.
Inevitably with such a swiftly organised, the civilian security were inexperienced and this may have led to some over-enthusiastic interpretation of instructions. In such cases, it would not be unusual for the police to back the security guards initially.
However, the guy seems to have been released pronto when the police got the full facts and this feels to me like someone simply wanting his 15 minutes of fame.
Thanks v much that makes a huge amount of sense. And absolutely - you can see the chain of events: hyper-sensitive, hastily-recruited civilian security jump on someone, anyone, for getting out of line and plod then arrive, understandably, and, seeing what is in front of them, respond until they have more information.
Edit: not sure about the 15 mins of fame comment, that said; he could genuinely be anti-monarchist and what better platform than the proclamation of a new monarch.
The Duke of Grope finally found a new role appropriate to his abilities.
It's quite sweet that Andrew and Fergie live together. I believe there was talk of remarriage some time ago but HMQ was dead against. Perhaps they'll quietly do it now.
By chance, I was at the Oxford proclamation yesterday - about 30 yards from the 'main event' and heard absolutely no shouting or disruption.
Inevitably with such a swiftly organised, the civilian security were inexperienced and this may have led to some over-enthusiastic interpretation of instructions. In such cases, it would not be unusual for the police to back the security guards initially.
However, the guy seems to have been released pronto when the police got the full facts and this feels to me like someone simply wanting his 15 minutes of fame.
You're putting the guy down for telling people about his experience.
Being taken prisoner affects people.
Having your home invaded by a megalomaniac dictator also affects people but you don't seem bothered by that.
By chance, I was at the Oxford proclamation yesterday - about 30 yards from the 'main event' and heard absolutely no shouting or disruption.
Inevitably with such a swiftly organised, the civilian security were inexperienced and this may have led to some over-enthusiastic interpretation of instructions. In such cases, it would not be unusual for the police to back the security guards initially.
However, the guy seems to have been released pronto when the police got the full facts and this feels to me like someone simply wanting his 15 minutes of fame.
Thanks v much that makes a huge amount of sense. And absolutely - you can see the chain of events: hyper-sensitive, hastily-recruited civilian security jump on someone, anyone, for getting out of line and plod then arrive, understandably, and, seeing what is in front of them, respond until they have more information.
Edit: not sure about the 15 mins of fame comment, that said; he could genuinely be anti-monarchist and what better platform.
Civilian security overreach is a big problem. Absolutely endemic on the railways.
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 didn't think she was being understated. Just that she forgot that she was talking about a human being who most of us have known all our lives and nearly all of us have some respect for. It was so cold I was actually surprised she didn't mention her trade deal with New Zealand. Or maybe she did?
I agree not having Johnson muscling in was a blessing and I'm sure there will be no impact. But as a clue to Truss the human being and Truss the PM I thought it was very instructive.
I suspect you're at the other end of the emotional spectrum from me Roger. Some of us quite enjoy our public figures refusing to emote. I much prefer the Truss approach to the Blair one. We were talking last week about which PMs would have been good and bad at this. There was some support from across the spectrum for the view that Brown would have probably struck the right note.
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 didn't think she was being understated. Just that she forgot that she was talking about a human being who most of us have known all our lives and nearly all of us have some respect for. It was so cold I was actually surprised she didn't mention her trade deal with New Zealand. Or maybe she did?
I agree not having Johnson muscling in was a blessing and I'm sure there will be no impact. But as a clue to Truss the human being and Truss the PM I thought it was very instructive.
I suspect you're at the other end of the emotional spectrum from me Roger. Some of us quite enjoy our public figures refusing to emote. I much prefer the Truss approach to the Blair one. We were talking last week about which PMs would have been good and bad at this. There was some support from across the spectrum that Brown would have probably struck the right note.
Yes. I'm heartily sick of "charisma" in politics. Way I feel atm my ideal PM is a robot. No jokes, no rhetoric, no "twinkle" in the eye, no trolling or button pushing, just concentrate on doing the basics well and get the right words in the right order when explaining things.
I suspect that we will have more discussions about the future of the Royal Family but now is really not the time. I think it is only fair that Charles gets his feet under the desk first and see if he can build on his first address which was excellent.
The trigger will probably be some countries turning into republics. People will inevitably be asking why not us?
Personally, the loss of the Queen and her exemplary dedication to duty does raise question marks and the drivelling deference is tiresome but a modern trend has been the division of powers. We have Parliaments, executives and the Judiciary but we also need the symbolic which holds the nation together.
The downside in the Monarchy fulfilling that role are the lottery of the gene pool but the upsides of a unifying institution which is entirely separate from all the other branches is considerable. Those countries who have an elected President fulfilling that role tend to find that politics infects the post and that understanding of the limitations of the role is sparse. I do not think our Royal family has that risk.
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.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I'm open to correction but I don't think so.
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously the ancient Danes did things differently. I could never understand why Claudius succeeded old Hamlet. I'd sit in the stalls muttering "but the whole premise of this play doesn't make sense".
Until the later middle ages kings were usually elected by aristocratic assemblies rather than inherited automatically. True, the eldest legitimate son would be a front-runner but it wasn't automatic, unless the dead King had named him as heir. Sometimes, not even then. That's why Hamlet talks of Claudius having 'popped in between th'election and my hopes.'
Just to focus on England, that was how, for example, Stephen became King of England in 1135 ahead of both Henry I's daughter and his older brother Theobald. It was also how John became King in 1199 even though on paper his nephew Arthur had a better claim, and how Henry VII could be put forward as a candidate for the throne even though he wasn't actually a member of the Royal Family. It was also how King James leapfrogged several other candidates who on paper had better claims in 1603, and how (William and) Mary and later Anne jumped ahead of their father and brother in 1688.
In Scotland, until the Stewart era things were even more complicated, which is how Edward I started meddling in their affairs to begin with. If you want confusion, look at the succession to Malcolm III.
The concept of 'royal succession' began in the Middle Ages, and the French with Salic Law and Edward III with his designation of a list of heirs, and then Henry VIII with his succession act all tried to come up with different ways of nominating successors. All of them caused immense trouble. Salic Law, for example, led to the Hundred Years' War. Edward III's succession act, passing over the Duke of Clarence's line and substituting the House of Lancaster, was a factor in the Wars of the Roses (albeit not the most important one) and Henry VIII's meddling with the succession process in the Second Succession Act was a key part of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
But it wasn't finally fixed until the Act of Settlement in 1701, which clearly stated who the next Queen (at that time) would be, and set the order in which her successors would come. As Sophia died before Anne, it was in fact used for the first time to make her son George the King.
An excellent summation. @HYUFD 'Divine Right of Kings', please read and carefully digest.
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.
All other things being equal, wouldn't the crown have passed to the Duke of Gloucester in 1972 if Edward VIII hadn't abdicated, and thence to the current DoG in 1974?
I'm open to correction but I don't think so.
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
Thanks for the explanation.
Obviously the ancient Danes did things differently. I could never understand why Claudius succeeded old Hamlet. I'd sit in the stalls muttering "but the whole premise of this play doesn't make sense".
Until the later middle ages kings were usually elected by aristocratic assemblies rather than inherited automatically. True, the eldest legitimate son would be a front-runner but it wasn't automatic, unless the dead King had named him as heir. Sometimes, not even then. That's why Hamlet talks of Claudius having 'popped in between th'election and my hopes.'
Just to focus on England, that was how, for example, Stephen became King of England in 1135 ahead of both Henry I's daughter and his older brother Theobald. It was also how John became King in 1199 even though on paper his nephew Arthur had a better claim, and how Henry VII could be put forward as a candidate for the throne even though he wasn't actually a member of the Royal Family. It was also how King James leapfrogged several other candidates who on paper had better claims in 1603, and how (William and) Mary and later Anne jumped ahead of their father and brother in 1688.
In Scotland, until the Stewart era things were even more complicated, which is how Edward I started meddling in their affairs to begin with. If you want confusion, look at the succession to Malcolm III.
The concept of 'royal succession' began in the Middle Ages, and the French with Salic Law and Edward III with his designation of a list of heirs, and then Henry VIII with his succession act all tried to come up with different ways of nominating successors. All of them caused immense trouble. Salic Law, for example, led to the Hundred Years' War. Edward III's succession act, passing over the Duke of Clarence's line and substituting the House of Lancaster, was a factor in the Wars of the Roses (albeit not the most important one) and Henry VIII's meddling with the succession process in the Second Succession Act was a key part of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
But it wasn't finally fixed until the Act of Settlement in 1701, which clearly stated who the next Queen (at that time) would be, and set the order in which her successors would come. As Sophia died before Anne, it was in fact used for the first time to make her son George the King.
Interesting - I knew Denmark (and Poland, I believe) had been an elected monarchy but it never really struck me that historical England was the same.
It was in everyone's interests to pretend it wasn't. The Crown, because otherwise it makes their position precarious (any time you don't like a King, dump them and get a new one). The ordinary people, because it's easier and means if they don't get a say, nobody else does either. And actually, the electors themselves, because it provides certainty and stability.
Doesn't mean it wasn't a thing. And in fact there were good reasons for it. If you had a choice, would you want as your military leader a five year old boy/girl who can just about lift a toy wooden sword, or their 30 year old uncle who has already proved himself a successful war leader?
Difficulties tended to arise later on with sons and daughters who had been overlooked. So, for example, when Alfred died his nephew Aethelstan tried to seize the throne of Wessex. And when Stephen was elected King, his cousin spent sixteen years trying to throw him off the throne.
Which is also where you begin to get the royal tradition of having the losers *cough* eliminated. In Ireland this used to be done by having them blinded (as the disabled were ineligible to be kings) but in later medieval England failed monarchs tended to suffer mysterious accidents. Arthur de Bretagne vanished after John became King. Richard II allegedly starved himself to death. Henry VI 'died of pure displeasure and melancholy' that somehow caused a massive skull wound. While exactly what Richard III did to his nephews remains mysterious but it didn't involve toys and chocolate.
Comments
If we reverse the process we get Dice Hard, either a great Christmas movie or a film about a very angry chef.
Things must be going *really* badly out West...
There's people opposed to free speech on both sides of politics, that's just horseshoe theory in action once more.
starring Clint Easttree
I'm fairly confident that if Andrew had been ahead of Charles in the succession, and all else the same, that Andrew would have been forced to abdicate and either Charles would be King, or we'd have Queen Beatrice I.
Neither Republicans or Monarchists like to talk about the fact that our current system involves a degree of choice about the identity of the Monarch.
Unless someone enacted a Thai style Lèse-majesté law without telling us ?
Asking "who elected him" should be free speech not a crime.
Bad news for Tories. No change, you could argue the bounce is yet to happen. It's happened and it isn't enough.
If William died tomorrow it wouldn’t stop George being the next king, for instance.
Or to put it another way, if Andrew died and then some freak accident wiped out William, Harry and all their children, the crown would still go to Beatrice not Edward.
Like (I assume) most people in this country I'm a fairly neutral "on-balance" monarchist who is intensely relaxed about others wanting to express their republicanism where and when they want. That's their right.
"“Conference is a major part of our budget and we stand to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds through this cancellation in lost income. (Event insurance policies do not cover the death of a monarch.)
“At this point many of our supplier contracts are unavoidable. This means that our party will take a substantial financial hit as a result of cancelling the conference. "
Offensive to whom? The *existence* of various minority groups is offensive to other minority groups.
With that said... There's a tonal thing here. "The repatriation express, next stop Kabul" sounds rather like trolling. I suspect it cannot help but increase division, and make those people who came to Sweden legally feel unwanted.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1569235036565561344
And disgrace is not the point. We don't expect contemporary Germans to feel guilt about the holocaust but we do expect them not to lie about its existence or extent and not to celebrate it.
In breach of the peace in England the police do get to arrest people in advance of an event occurring ("behaviour likely to cause..."). In Scotland breach of the peace covers any 'disorderly' behaviour aiui and 'behaviour likely to cause a b of the p does not exist as an offence, which may well fit a chap out doing this in these circumstances.
Wasn't the Scottish event where he had an unnecessary sweary insult on his protest board?
Edward VIII had no children, so the crown passes to his next (now late) brother George, whose eldest child is Elizabeth who is therefore next in line.
So, for example Anne's claim to the crown would be defeated by her brothers of any age, (under the old law) but would not be defeated by a male son of Margaret.
It wasn't protesting a funeral, since this was about our new (not old) head of state it was absolutely the right time and place to say that if someone wanted to.
That's like saying Dennis Skinner should have been arrested for his remarks when Black Rod arrived in the past for being disrespectful.
Does the right to free speech extend to someone standing up during your grannie's funeral and denouncing her as a murderer and a witch?
(And let's assume it's a secular funeral in a secular place so the special rules about disrupting divine worship don't apply)
Polls are not relevant at present but the questions in that poll which may surprise some is the broad approval for the removal of levies on energy bills, scrapping the NI increase, and even cancelling the corporation tax increases next April
People support lower taxes
He is the kind of person who would throw acid in the face of his ex. "If I can't have you, no-one will..."
The one thing that is certain - Russian isn't going back to Ukraine. Even those collaborators who were suckered into getting Russian passports now see that they don't actually allow access into Russia.
Anyone trespassing a private ceremony on private property to do that should be committing an offence.
Anyone doing so in public, on public property, should not be.
It may be unpleasant for someone to do that, but people have the right to be unpleasant. Free speech means nothing, unless it goes to those whose speech you don't want to hear.
Ok there was no Djokovic due to vax rules, but Alcaraz is only 19 and already looks the full monty. With Nadal close to bald now, and Roger over and out, this is surely - and finally! - a changing of the guard in men's tennis. 15 slams minimum for this guy, I think.
But say anything against their beloved "Charles III's" right to reign, or make disapproving noises when they publicly "proclaim" his "accession" to the "throne", and they erupt with tears of fury. Sure, they've got loads of guns, but they're still a lot of ninnies. Deep down they know they've got no case for what they believe. The last thing they want is a public debate that they don't stitch up beforehand (as they did in Australia).
La Chanson du Père Duchesne:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFejYiLOWyU
This is what s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says -
"Harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening [F5or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F5or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."
Hard to see how the phrase "Who elected him" could be said to be threatening or abusive.
"In poor taste" or "inappropriately timed" are not yet criminal offences, thank God.
And there is another point: there are plenty of other examples in recent weeks of people in public using words threatening violence to women, sometimes names women or a category of women and behaving in abusive and violent ways toward them with the police standing by and doing precisely nothing even when asked by the targets for help.
The police will do themselves no favours with an inconsistent approach to such laws. They exist to stop crimes not to enforce good manners. And it is time the police - and others - realised this.
Obviously the ancient Danes did things differently. I could never understand why Claudius succeeded old Hamlet. I'd sit in the stalls muttering "but the whole premise of this play doesn't make sense".
You are aware what happened to Juan Carlos of Spain?
KyivPost
@KyivPost
⚡️#Ukrainian official: Some units of #Russian soldiers located on the right bank of the #Dnipro river in #Kherson Oblast are trying to negotiate their surrender.
https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1569244824846360579
Plural film: Some Fish Called Wandas
I think it's at 4m50 in this recording - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUq2flu7v5w - but it's hard to pick out. I don't know where Symon Hill was standing but it sounds like he was halfway down the High.
Oxford survived Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer being burned at the stake... I think it can cope with one churchgoer deep in the crowd doing a three-word Dennis Skinner impression.
The Lord Lieutenant of Oxfordshire is a friend. Next time I bump into her I'll ask her whether any peace was indeed breached but I'm pretty sure I know what her answer will be.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/12/jimmie-akesson-who-is-the-leader-of-the-far-right-sweden-democrats
People who apply principles of free speech consistently whether they agree with what is being said or not tend to be the exception rather than the rule. Because while lots of people believe in free speech, few do so viscerally: few have instinctive 'heart' reaction to issues of free speech. They tend to need thinking through with the head. And the immediate reaction in humans is with the heart, not the head.
Jimmie will be furious.
I agree not having Johnson muscling in was a blessing and I'm sure there will be no impact. But as a clue to Truss the human being and Truss the PM I thought it was very instructive.
One Angry Man
We have enough problems with 650 of them
Incidentally Millom Town Council - who are completely and utterly useless - managed to completely cock up the proclamation yesterday. So we have not had ours and are presumably now living in some sort of royalist no-man's land a la Passport to Pimlico. This will be a bit of help in my forthcoming whisky-smuggling business I dare say.
Also today is my 30th wedding anniversary. Which is quite something. To celebrate we went out to dinner last night with friends and had one of the most enjoyable times with old and new friends long into the night I've ever had. We put the world to rights and had lots and lots of laughs. Today I have lots of work to do and then we're off to a concert in a very beautiful Pugin church in Barrow, St Mary of Furness.
On topic, Truss has all the presence and charisma of a damp rag, judged by the last few days. I find it odd that experienced politicians are so bad at an important part of their job. Maybe she will develop it.
Just to focus on England, that was how, for example, Stephen became King of England in 1135 ahead of both Henry I's daughter and his older brother Theobald. It was also how John became King in 1199 even though on paper his nephew Arthur had a better claim, and how Henry VII could be put forward as a candidate for the throne even though he wasn't actually a member of the Royal Family. It was also how King James leapfrogged several other candidates who on paper had better claims in 1603, and how (William and) Mary and later Anne jumped ahead of their father and brother in 1688.
In Scotland, until the Stewart era things were even more complicated, which is how Edward I started meddling in their affairs to begin with. If you want confusion, look at the succession to Malcolm III.
The concept of 'royal succession' began in the Middle Ages, and the French with Salic Law and Edward III with his designation of a list of heirs, and then Henry VIII with his succession act all tried to come up with different ways of nominating successors. All of them caused immense trouble. Salic Law, for example, led to the Hundred Years' War. Edward III's succession act, passing over the Duke of Clarence's line and substituting the House of Lancaster, was a factor in the Wars of the Roses (albeit not the most important one) and Henry VIII's meddling with the succession process in the Second Succession Act was a key part of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
But it wasn't finally fixed until the Act of Settlement in 1701, which clearly stated who the next Queen (at that time) would be, and set the order in which her successors would come. As Sophia died before Anne, it was in fact used for the first time to make her son George the King.
History will judge Republicans who stay silent about the big lie
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/11/trump-big-lie-republicans-democracy-election
Inevitably with such a swiftly organised, the civilian security were inexperienced and this may have led to some over-enthusiastic interpretation of instructions. In such cases, it would not be unusual for the police to back the security guards initially.
However, the guy seems to have been released pronto when the police got the full facts and this feels to me like someone simply wanting his 15 minutes of fame.
We were talking last week about which PMs would have been good and bad at this. There was some support from across the spectrum for the view that Brown would have probably struck the right note.
My favourite example - back in the day, there was a chap whose opinions were so upsetting that every time he held a public meeting in about half the country there was violence.
He killed several people - found to be self defence, but still…
He wrote a pamphlet on knife fighting - he wasn’t ashamed of the violence. He owned it.
Should he have been silenced?
(Platoon) Yeah it's actually shit and I posted four of them including the one above.
https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1569215789432963073
Being taken prisoner affects people.
Edit: not sure about the 15 mins of fame comment, that said; he could genuinely be anti-monarchist and what better platform than the proclamation of a new monarch.
The trigger will probably be some countries turning into republics. People will inevitably be asking why not us?
Personally, the loss of the Queen and her exemplary dedication to duty does raise question marks and the drivelling deference is tiresome but a modern trend has been the division of powers. We have Parliaments, executives and the Judiciary but we also need the symbolic which holds the nation together.
The downside in the Monarchy fulfilling that role are the lottery of the gene pool but the upsides of a unifying institution which is entirely separate from all the other branches is considerable. Those countries who have an elected President fulfilling that role tend to find that politics infects the post and that understanding of the limitations of the role is sparse. I do not think our Royal family has that risk.
@HYUFD 'Divine Right of Kings', please read and carefully digest.
Doesn't mean it wasn't a thing. And in fact there were good reasons for it. If you had a choice, would you want as your military leader a five year old boy/girl who can just about lift a toy wooden sword, or their 30 year old uncle who has already proved himself a successful war leader?
Difficulties tended to arise later on with sons and daughters who had been overlooked. So, for example, when Alfred died his nephew Aethelstan tried to seize the throne of Wessex. And when Stephen was elected King, his cousin spent sixteen years trying to throw him off the throne.
Which is also where you begin to get the royal tradition of having the losers *cough* eliminated. In Ireland this used to be done by having them blinded (as the disabled were ineligible to be kings) but in later medieval England failed monarchs tended to suffer mysterious accidents. Arthur de Bretagne vanished after John became King. Richard II allegedly starved himself to death. Henry VI 'died of pure displeasure and melancholy' that somehow caused a massive skull wound. While exactly what Richard III did to his nephews remains mysterious but it didn't involve toys and chocolate.