Meanwhile in Cardiff - 100s attend 'not my king' march while only around 20 attend 'official coronation screening' in Cardiff Castle. And special postbox has been redecorated.
Why would you watch it outside in the bad weather when you can watch it for home?
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
Actually the only element of the ceremony it mentions in connection with the coronation of Edgar is the anointing. And as we all know that is much older - "Zadok the priest [etc]".
An article tainted with Woke bullshit
“During the early medieval period (also known anachronistically as the Anglo-Saxon era),”
American historians have decided “Anglo-Saxon” is white supremacist. They can fuck off. It’s our history, not theirs
Have they? I thought the problem with Anglo-Saxon was that it was pretty localised to dear old blighty, and it is the term "dark ages" that has historians clutching their pearls and reaching for neologisms like "early mediaeval".
There is an issue in the U.S., where various troglodyte Trumpians have started using phrases like "proud Anglo-Saxon", even if they're more commonly actually something else, and parts of the American left have this now decided that this now can always only represent anything awful, in the usual current symbiosis of extremism of modern America, and polarisation from right to left.
All this article says - in passing - is that the term is anachronistic.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
More to the point - what gives these protesters the right to barbecue babies?
Penny Mordaunt looks and acts the part, and can do empathy just like Jacinda, but that is where her capabilities begin and end. There is no depth or thought to the lady.
Her pro-Woke views are probably similarly shallow but she could also turn up to be obstinately pig-headed about them rather than think it through and that sort of intellectual limitation rules her out, I'm afraid.
We need someone who knows how, where and why to put up resistance.
I share some of your reservations but she was very good as leader of the House in some pretty tricky spots for the government. I don't think she is the brightest but she has a clear sense of narrative and a good turn of phrase. I think she will make a good LOTO during the first term of the Labour government.
I would say if you have mystique, you can use that in tricky situations, even if others are quicker on their feet. I can't think of any other modern politicians with some sort of mystique. is there anyone ? Possibly Rory Stewart.
Tricky one to pin down, but here’s a selection of some politicians I think have some mystique in the sense of seeming somewhat otherworldly
- John Redwood (alas) - Caroline Lucas - Wera Hobhouse - Rishi Sunak, actually - Thangam Debbonaire - Emily Thornberry - Mark Drakeford - Jeremy Hunt - Rory
Isn't Jacob Rees-Mogg both otherworldly and othertimely.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
More to the point - what gives these protesters the right to barbecue babies?
Don't those babies have a right to life?
Wtf are you talking about who either protestor or governement mentioned barbecuing babies. I know you are thick but no need to prove it
Penny Mordaunt looks and acts the part, and can do empathy just like Jacinda, but that is where her capabilities begin and end. There is no depth or thought to the lady.
Her pro-Woke views are probably similarly shallow but she could also turn up to be obstinately pig-headed about them rather than think it through and that sort of intellectual limitation rules her out, I'm afraid.
We need someone who knows how, where and why to put up resistance.
I share some of your reservations but she was very good as leader of the House in some pretty tricky spots for the government. I don't think she is the brightest but she has a clear sense of narrative and a good turn of phrase. I think she will make a good LOTO during the first term of the Labour government.
I would say if you have mystique, you can use that in tricky situations, even if others are quicker on their feet. I can't think of any other modern politicians with some sort of mystique. is there anyone ? Possibly Rory Stewart.
Tricky one to pin down, but here’s a selection of some politicians I think have some mystique in the sense of seeming somewhat otherworldly
- John Redwood (alas) - Caroline Lucas - Wera Hobhouse - Rishi Sunak, actually - Thangam Debbonaire - Emily Thornberry - Mark Drakeford - Jeremy Hunt - Rory
Isn't Jacob Rees-Mogg both otherworldly and othertimely.
Please refer to him by his well earned titles, Victorian Stick Pursuivant and Royal Stool.
No, it was a fantastic show of the UK to the World, and one of the largest gatherings of Heads of State in decades.
Everyone who was there, will tell their children and grandchildren that they were there.
I spent most of it on a plane, first time I’d ever paid for internet access on a plane, and it was all that everyone else on the plane was talking about.
"With King Charles at the helm, Britain is on course to a brighter, fairer future Our new monarch's hands will shape a confident, forward-looking country Keir Starmer"
Actually the only element of the ceremony it mentions in connection with the coronation of Edgar is the anointing. And as we all know that is much older - "Zadok the priest [etc]".
An article tainted with Woke bullshit
“During the early medieval period (also known anachronistically as the Anglo-Saxon era),”
American historians have decided “Anglo-Saxon” is white supremacist. They can fuck off. It’s our history, not theirs
Have they? I thought the problem with Anglo-Saxon was that it was pretty localised to dear old blighty, and it is the term "dark ages" that has historians clutching their pearls and reaching for neologisms like "early mediaeval".
There's two issues.
There is an issue in the U.S., where various troglodyte Trumpians have started using phrases like "proud Anglo-Saxon", even if they're more commonly actually something else, and parts of the American left have thus now decided that this can now always only represent anything awful, in the usual and current symbiosis of extremism, and polarisation from right to left, of modern America.
Anglo Saxon has also, thanks to first the French and more recently the Russians, become a new version of the age old illuminati / elders of Zion / Lizard people conspiracy theory. It already had decent roots in some Middle Eastern (particularly Iranian) beliefs that the English were the true puppet masters holding the reins of world power, but it’s been given a nice mysterious name now that trips off the tongue: Anglo Saxons.
Also has the advantage of being explicitly not antisemitic, so people can use it without fear of evoking Hitler.
Actually the only element of the ceremony it mentions in connection with the coronation of Edgar is the anointing. And as we all know that is much older - "Zadok the priest [etc]".
An article tainted with Woke bullshit
“During the early medieval period (also known anachronistically as the Anglo-Saxon era),”
American historians have decided “Anglo-Saxon” is white supremacist. They can fuck off. It’s our history, not theirs
To be fair it is their history too and forged a lot of their attitudes and institutions, common law for example and their sherrifs etc but they just have the hump that they got President Trump.
A lot of the comments on the NYT live-blog were corkers though with readers slagging off the Brits for colonising and taking objects without the self-awareness once to see what they did to Native Americans. Didn’t notice any demands there to hand back the land they stole.
One of the main reasons the American colonists broke the link with us was because the British authorities were preventing them from expanding more aggressively into Native American lands, IIRC. There's plenty of blame and shame to go around (or pride I suppose if colonialism is your bag).
In particular the British Colonial authorities regarded the treaties signed with the locals as something to at least pretend to honour.
No, it was a fantastic show of the UK to the World, and one of the largest gatherings of Heads of State in decades.
Everyone who was there, will tell their children and grandchildren that they were there.
I spent most of it on a plane, first time I’d ever paid for internet access on a plane, and it was all that everyone else on the plane was talking about.
Republicans will take what they want from the event, and monarchists will do the same. I never saw any of it, but my guess is it went off well, and was widely supported. Was it as popular as his mum's? Dunno, but probably not. I don't feel like I've missed out, my kids have definitely not been interested in it (all mid 20s, all Republicans and all Labour voters). After today, I'll probably never think about it again in any great depth.
No, it was a fantastic show of the UK to the World, and one of the largest gatherings of Heads of State in decades.
Everyone who was there, will tell their children and grandchildren that they were there.
I spent most of it on a plane, first time I’d ever paid for internet access on a plane, and it was all that everyone else on the plane was talking about.
The ceremony itself actually made me quite fancy being king. Getting crowned definitely more exciting than getting confirmed or married.
"With King Charles at the helm, Britain is on course to a brighter, fairer future Our new monarch's hands will shape a confident, forward-looking country Keir Starmer"
He had plenty of opportunity to try and make a party-political point after the local elections, but chose instead to take the high moral ground in a Conservative newspaper, and focus on the celebration of national identity.
The first sign of him re-opening the Blair playbook?
Actually the only element of the ceremony it mentions in connection with the coronation of Edgar is the anointing. And as we all know that is much older - "Zadok the priest [etc]".
An article tainted with Woke bullshit
“During the early medieval period (also known anachronistically as the Anglo-Saxon era),”
American historians have decided “Anglo-Saxon” is white supremacist. They can fuck off. It’s our history, not theirs
Have they? I thought the problem with Anglo-Saxon was that it was pretty localised to dear old blighty, and it is the term "dark ages" that has historians clutching their pearls and reaching for neologisms like "early mediaeval".
There's two issues.
There is an issue in the U.S., where various troglodyte Trumpians have started using phrases like "proud Anglo-Saxon", even if they're more commonly actually something else, and parts of the American left have thus now decided that this can now always only represent anything awful, in the usual and current symbiosis of extremism, and polarisation from right to left, of modern America.
Anglo Saxon has also, thanks to first the French and more recently the Russians, become a new version of the age old illuminati / elders of Zion / Lizard people conspiracy theory. It already had decent roots in some Middle Eastern (particularly Iranian) beliefs that the English were the true puppet masters holding the reins of world power, but it’s been given a nice mysterious name now that trips off the tongue: Anglo Saxons.
Also has the advantage of being explicitly not antisemitic, so people can use it without fear of evoking Hitler.
I don't think that's quite what it is. The term isn't used to imply a kind of ethnic secret society pulling the strings but is simply a shorthand for the Anglosphere in general and in particular the US and UK. It allows countries like France and Russia to link historical rivalries with England to discontent with the contemporary world order.
Actually the only element of the ceremony it mentions in connection with the coronation of Edgar is the anointing. And as we all know that is much older - "Zadok the priest [etc]".
An article tainted with Woke bullshit
“During the early medieval period (also known anachronistically as the Anglo-Saxon era),”
American historians have decided “Anglo-Saxon” is white supremacist. They can fuck off. It’s our history, not theirs
To be fair it is their history too and forged a lot of their attitudes and institutions, common law for example and their sherrifs etc but they just have the hump that they got President Trump.
A lot of the comments on the NYT live-blog were corkers though with readers slagging off the Brits for colonising and taking objects without the self-awareness once to see what they did to Native Americans. Didn’t notice any demands there to hand back the land they stole.
One of the main reasons the American colonists broke the link with us was because the British authorities were preventing them from expanding more aggressively into Native American lands, IIRC. There's plenty of blame and shame to go around (or pride I suppose if colonialism is your bag).
In particular the British Colonial authorities regarded the treaties signed with the locals as something to at least pretend to honour.
In a future happily unified world kids should do 2 courses early on in secondary school history in every nation: 1. All the honourable things done in or by our country; 2. All the shameful things done in or by our country.
Actually the only element of the ceremony it mentions in connection with the coronation of Edgar is the anointing. And as we all know that is much older - "Zadok the priest [etc]".
An article tainted with Woke bullshit
“During the early medieval period (also known anachronistically as the Anglo-Saxon era),”
American historians have decided “Anglo-Saxon” is white supremacist. They can fuck off. It’s our history, not theirs
Have they? I thought the problem with Anglo-Saxon was that it was pretty localised to dear old blighty, and it is the term "dark ages" that has historians clutching their pearls and reaching for neologisms like "early mediaeval".
There's two issues.
There is an issue in the U.S., where various troglodyte Trumpians have started using phrases like "proud Anglo-Saxon", even if they're more commonly actually something else, and parts of the American left have thus now decided that this can now always only represent anything awful, in the usual and current symbiosis of extremism, and polarisation from right to left, of modern America.
Anglo Saxon has also, thanks to first the French and more recently the Russians, become a new version of the age old illuminati / elders of Zion / Lizard people conspiracy theory. It already had decent roots in some Middle Eastern (particularly Iranian) beliefs that the English were the true puppet masters holding the reins of world power, but it’s been given a nice mysterious name now that trips off the tongue: Anglo Saxons.
Also has the advantage of being explicitly not antisemitic, so people can use it without fear of evoking Hitler.
I still get amused by the Iranian thing which blames everything on us so when someone trips over a stone someone else will say “the British put it (the stone) there”. It’s quite sweet the fact they think we have such reach.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Actually the only element of the ceremony it mentions in connection with the coronation of Edgar is the anointing. And as we all know that is much older - "Zadok the priest [etc]".
An article tainted with Woke bullshit
“During the early medieval period (also known anachronistically as the Anglo-Saxon era),”
American historians have decided “Anglo-Saxon” is white supremacist. They can fuck off. It’s our history, not theirs
Have they? I thought the problem with Anglo-Saxon was that it was pretty localised to dear old blighty, and it is the term "dark ages" that has historians clutching their pearls and reaching for neologisms like "early mediaeval".
There's two issues.
There is an issue in the U.S., where various troglodyte Trumpians have started using phrases like "proud Anglo-Saxon", even if they're more commonly actually something else, and parts of the American left have thus now decided that this can now always only represent anything awful, in the usual and current symbiosis of extremism, and polarisation from right to left, of modern America.
Anglo Saxon has also, thanks to first the French and more recently the Russians, become a new version of the age old illuminati / elders of Zion / Lizard people conspiracy theory. It already had decent roots in some Middle Eastern (particularly Iranian) beliefs that the English were the true puppet masters holding the reins of world power, but it’s been given a nice mysterious name now that trips off the tongue: Anglo Saxons.
Also has the advantage of being explicitly not antisemitic, so people can use it without fear of evoking Hitler.
I don't think that's quite what it is. The term isn't used to imply a kind of ethnic secret society pulling the strings but is simply a shorthand for the Anglosphere in general and in particular the US and UK. It allows countries like France and Russia to link historical rivalries with England to discontent with the contemporary world order.
It’s not identical, but then nor are other variations on the theme like Israel being behind everything, or China bugging all our iPhones, or bill gates controlling us through vaccinations. Or the CIA being behind all pro democracy protests. It’s part of that family. A simple way of pointing the finger at one conspiratorial elite behind everything. Hence the Anglo Saxons blowing up the Kerch bridge and NS2.
OK, so I managed to see most of the helicopters and the Red Arrows from my bedroom window in Ilford, but at a distance! Had to zoom in with my camera! FWIW:
2 Apaches and a Lynx
3 Chinooks and a Eurocopter(?)
Red Arrows
Puma with the Chinooks, I think.
Yes, I think you're right!
I was in the middle of my schooling when the first Pumas were delivered in to the RAF in 1971, so they're almost old enough to be in the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight part of the flypast, rather than the current service element!
No, it was a fantastic show of the UK to the World, and one of the largest gatherings of Heads of State in decades.
Everyone who was there, will tell their children and grandchildren that they were there.
I spent most of it on a plane, first time I’d ever paid for internet access on a plane, and it was all that everyone else on the plane was talking about.
Republicans will take what they want from the event, and monarchists will do the same. I never saw any of it, but my guess is it went off well, and was widely supported. Was it as popular as his mum's? Dunno, but probably not. I don't feel like I've missed out, my kids have definitely not been interested in it (all mid 20s, all Republicans and all Labour voters). After today, I'll probably never think about it again in any great depth.
I never saw any of it, I am a monarchist only in the sense that I think a directly elected head of state would let even bigger arseholes in. I suspect there is a lot like me
Actually the only element of the ceremony it mentions in connection with the coronation of Edgar is the anointing. And as we all know that is much older - "Zadok the priest [etc]".
An article tainted with Woke bullshit
“During the early medieval period (also known anachronistically as the Anglo-Saxon era),”
American historians have decided “Anglo-Saxon” is white supremacist. They can fuck off. It’s our history, not theirs
Have they? I thought the problem with Anglo-Saxon was that it was pretty localised to dear old blighty, and it is the term "dark ages" that has historians clutching their pearls and reaching for neologisms like "early mediaeval".
There's two issues.
There is an issue in the U.S., where various troglodyte Trumpians have started using phrases like "proud Anglo-Saxon", even if they're more commonly actually something else, and parts of the American left have thus now decided that this can now always only represent anything awful, in the usual and current symbiosis of extremism, and polarisation from right to left, of modern America.
Anglo Saxon has also, thanks to first the French and more recently the Russians, become a new version of the age old illuminati / elders of Zion / Lizard people conspiracy theory. It already had decent roots in some Middle Eastern (particularly Iranian) beliefs that the English were the true puppet masters holding the reins of world power, but it’s been given a nice mysterious name now that trips off the tongue: Anglo Saxons.
Also has the advantage of being explicitly not antisemitic, so people can use it without fear of evoking Hitler.
I don't think that's quite what it is. The term isn't used to imply a kind of ethnic secret society pulling the strings but is simply a shorthand for the Anglosphere in general and in particular the US and UK. It allows countries like France and Russia to link historical rivalries with England to discontent with the contemporary world order.
It’s not identical, but then nor are other variations on the theme like Israel being behind everything, or
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
I think there’s a distinction in the word civil. XR are definitely infringing on your personal liberties. I think only a government or official authority can restrict “civil liberties” as those have a more specific meaning associated with public life and the role of authority vs the individual.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
No, it was a fantastic show of the UK to the World, and one of the largest gatherings of Heads of State in decades.
Everyone who was there, will tell their children and grandchildren that they were there.
I spent most of it on a plane, first time I’d ever paid for internet access on a plane, and it was all that everyone else on the plane was talking about.
Republicans will take what they want from the event, and monarchists will do the same. I never saw any of it, but my guess is it went off well, and was widely supported. Was it as popular as his mum's? Dunno, but probably not. I don't feel like I've missed out, my kids have definitely not been interested in it (all mid 20s, all Republicans and all Labour voters). After today, I'll probably never think about it again in any great depth.
QEII’s coronation happened at a time of much greater deference to the monarchy and I don’t think this was ever going to be as popular or supported. I suspect most who watched it did so out of a sense of curiosity, having not seen a coronation before. That was certainly the main driver as to why I sat through all 4 hours of it. Not sure I’d bother if we get another one in fairly short order (the man is in his mid 70s after all).
But I did find it interesting and powerful. Archaic too, but in a royal Disneyland kind of way. Good for the tourists.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with
Of course another way of doing it is saying "the public have a right to deal with protestors as they see fit and it will be legal will also work" nothing attracts people to a cause than a few martyrs. A lesson from christians
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
I guess I think of it in the same way as strikes, which are also a thing that is legal and which can be bloody inconvenient to the general public. I think they're both worth keeping, within some (fairly loose) boundaries.
I note lots of public displeasure with the coronation. “Boring” “Goddy” and “Wet” seem to dominate the word cloud. Sad to see. I suspect civil unrest is likely, probably quite soon.
Meanwhile in Cardiff - 100s attend 'not my king' march while only around 20 attend 'official coronation screening' in Cardiff Castle. And special postbox has been redecorated.
Why would you watch it outside in the bad weather when you can watch it for home?
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
I guess I think of it in the same way as strikes, which are also a thing that is legal and which can be bloody inconvenient to the general public. I think they're both worth keeping, within some (fairly loose) boundaries.
I was active in the stop the city marches in 83 and 84, we inconvenienced a shit load of people that had nothing to do with it. What did we achieve absolutely sweet fuck all. Our only effect was to make a load of people with shitty lives have even shittier lives for a few days. I personally don't call it a win. The same can be said about xr and jso and insulate britian. Their only effect is to make those with already shitty lives have an even worse time with out changing a damn thing. Protestors are just virtue signalling shits
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
So edgy. Did you flick V signs at children waving union flags too?
What a stupid idea. I assume you did!!
Sadly not, I was busy watching a unique event which mixed amazing musicians and singers delivering the highest quality renditions of brilliantly talented composers’s works. Professionals from around the world of every creed and colour at the top of their game performing to a global audience.
I watched a Hindu son of immigrants as PM read from the bible whilst leaders of all faiths contributed to proceedings.
I also saw leaders from around the world share a space with people who do charitable work and give to society.
Then I watched feats of coordination and organisation by the military of this country and other countries add to an amazing spectacle that showed this country at its best whilst cocking a snook at the very British weather. All watched by people along the Mall from all walks of life having a fantastic day out.
But maybe you were right and it was just a bit rubbish?
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
What often isn’t discussed is the right to protest and/or the right to disruptive protest.
Some years ago, I was discussing the tactic of kettling with some of the professional protest types. Their view that it was evil, wrong, immoral etc, not because of some fundamental rights.
But because it blocked their ability to stage a *disruptive* protest.
“She had prepared for the moment though, drawing on her training as a Royal Navy reservist to ensure that she could hold it aloft for the whole ceremony. “[I] will be carrying the Sword of State, which is the heaviest sword, so I’ve been doing some press-ups to train for that," she told The Times Red Box podcast prior to the event. The Sword represents the King's authority, she explained. "It was one of two swords made for Charles II and only one survives.”
After deciding to be out of the country for the 2012 olympics because of “all the traffic and disruption” and then badly regretting it I made a vow never to take a bah humbug attitude to big national or global events again.
I think Nick Cave’s blog this week about attending the coronation sums it up. If you’re curious about the world, you take a look. Same reason I’ll almost certainly visit the Stalin museum in Gori when I’m in Georgia this summer.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
After deciding to be out of the country for the 2012 olympics because of “all the traffic and disruption” and then badly regretting it I made a vow never to take a bah humbug attitude to big national or global events again.
I think Nick Cave’s blog this week about attending the coronation sums it up. If you’re curious about the world, you take a look. Same reason I’ll almost certainly visit the Stalin museum in Gori when I’m in Georgia this summer.
I'm curious about the world, and intend to spend my retirement exploring it. The coronation? I genuinely had something more important that needed doing. To be fair, I'd have done something else anyway, it's just not my gig.
No, it was a fantastic show of the UK to the World, and one of the largest gatherings of Heads of State in decades.
Everyone who was there, will tell their children and grandchildren that they were there.
I spent most of it on a plane, first time I’d ever paid for internet access on a plane, and it was all that everyone else on the plane was talking about.
Republicans will take what they want from the event, and monarchists will do the same. I never saw any of it, but my guess is it went off well, and was widely supported. Was it as popular as his mum's? Dunno, but probably not. I don't feel like I've missed out, my kids have definitely not been interested in it (all mid 20s, all Republicans and all Labour voters). After today, I'll probably never think about it again in any great depth.
I thought the ceremonial stuff was great, although I found it slightly jarring that there was quite so much God stuff in it, and especially the stuff about the Protestant Succession, which while I know the historical context just sounded a bit odd in 2023. My kids did not care about it at all, though. And I spoke to my neighbour, a WWC woman in her eighties who you might think would have been following it avidly but who told me she'd turned it off because it was boring. So I suppose you can't generalise. A very solid ceremony though as far as I was concerned. Lovely visuals, beautiful music and a nice blend of old and new. Exactly what the monarchy is for.
After deciding to be out of the country for the 2012 olympics because of “all the traffic and disruption” and then badly regretting it I made a vow never to take a bah humbug attitude to big national or global events again.
I think Nick Cave’s blog this week about attending the coronation sums it up. If you’re curious about the world, you take a look. Same reason I’ll almost certainly visit the Stalin museum in Gori when I’m in Georgia this summer.
I'm curious about the world, and intend to spend my retirement exploring it. The coronation? I genuinely had something more important that needed doing. To be fair, I'd have done something else anyway, it's just not my gig.
Being curious about the world does not mean you should be curious about everything someone else finds interesting. Just because TimS finds the coronation fascinating doesn't mean you should. I find Chichen itza fascinating I don't claim anyone not interested in it is not curious about the world or its history
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
Yeah sorry, wasn’t clear on Iran. I meant it as an example of a violent protest that broke the law that still didn’t get anywhere.
Many people’s lives are shit in myriad ways - I don’t think being held up on the way to work is a significant contribution to that.
After deciding to be out of the country for the 2012 olympics because of “all the traffic and disruption” and then badly regretting it I made a vow never to take a bah humbug attitude to big national or global events again.
I think Nick Cave’s blog this week about attending the coronation sums it up. If you’re curious about the world, you take a look. Same reason I’ll almost certainly visit the Stalin museum in Gori when I’m in Georgia this summer.
The other thought I had about the Coronation was what a strange and slightly mysterious country we are, with so many historical connections to so many parts of the world and a history stretching back into the mists of time. I liked that aspect of it a lot. Again, I think this is what is good about the monarchy.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
No, it was a fantastic show of the UK to the World, and one of the largest gatherings of Heads of State in decades.
Everyone who was there, will tell their children and grandchildren that they were there.
I spent most of it on a plane, first time I’d ever paid for internet access on a plane, and it was all that everyone else on the plane was talking about.
Republicans will take what they want from the event, and monarchists will do the same. I never saw any of it, but my guess is it went off well, and was widely supported. Was it as popular as his mum's? Dunno, but probably not. I don't feel like I've missed out, my kids have definitely not been interested in it (all mid 20s, all Republicans and all Labour voters). After today, I'll probably never think about it again in any great depth.
I thought the ceremonial stuff was great, although I found it slightly jarring that there was quite so much God stuff in it, and especially the stuff about the Protestant Succession, which while I know the historical context just sounded a bit odd in 2023. My kids did not care about it at all, though. And I spoke to my neighbour, a WWC woman in her eighties who you might think would have been following it avidly but who told me she'd turned it off because it was boring. So I suppose you can't generalise. A very solid ceremony though as far as I was concerned. Lovely visuals, beautiful music and a nice blend of old and new. Exactly what the monarchy is for.
Weirdly my highlight was the 3 cheers for the king from the troops. Rarely will you ever hear such a loud and passionate 3 cheers - it was quite remarkable and I don’t think such a thing would happen for a president as there will always be a political barrier to a non-political commander in chief getting such an ingrained devotion as the British military will put to the king/queen. *
* yes I know soldiers fight for the man to their left and the man to their right not the monarch when the chips are down.
After deciding to be out of the country for the 2012 olympics because of “all the traffic and disruption” and then badly regretting it I made a vow never to take a bah humbug attitude to big national or global events again.
I think Nick Cave’s blog this week about attending the coronation sums it up. If you’re curious about the world, you take a look. Same reason I’ll almost certainly visit the Stalin museum in Gori when I’m in Georgia this summer.
I'm curious about the world, and intend to spend my retirement exploring it. The coronation? I genuinely had something more important that needed doing. To be fair, I'd have done something else anyway, it's just not my gig.
I must say that the few moments I saw were crushingly dull
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
Yeah sorry, wasn’t clear on Iran. I meant it as an example of a violent protest that broke the law that still didn’t get anywhere.
Many people’s lives are shit in myriad ways - I don’t think being held up on the way to work is a significant contribution to that.
Really you dont think being held up to work is a significant contribution....that suggests you are an idiot. Many get paid by the hour....being delayed on the way to work and turning up an hour late means they don't get that days work because the firm called someone else in or get paid for the hour they missed. These are generally people living paycheck to paycheck and suddenly missing a couple of hours to a full days pay that week
Who could have failed to be impressed by the appearance of the St Augustine bible which he brought from Rome 1425 years ago?
That was absolutely gobsmackingly magnificent. If I were to choose one thing from the day that would. Then ZA-DOCK the PRIEST Rejoice, Rejoice, Rejoice
That said, one underrated moment was Chas in his cassock just before he was anointed. There was a hell of a lot of history in that. The King humble before the Lord as he prepared to accept his sacred role.
Who could have failed to be impressed by the appearance of the St Augustine bible which he brought from Rome 1425 years ago?
That was absolutely gobsmackingly magnificent. If I were to choose one thing from the day that would. Then ZA-DOCK the PRIEST Rejoice, Rejoice, Rejoice
That said, one underrated moment was Chas in his cassock just before he was anointed. There was a hell of a lot of history in that. The King humble before the Lord as he prepared to accept his sacred role.
Handel's ability to hit exactly the right note with Zadok is awe-inspiring.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
What often isn’t discussed is the right to protest and/or the right to disruptive protest.
Some years ago, I was discussing the tactic of kettling with some of the professional protest types. Their view that it was evil, wrong, immoral etc, not because of some fundamental rights.
But because it blocked their ability to stage a *disruptive* protest.
Kettling is okay in my view.
Otoh I remember a climate protest ( might have been called climate camp?) where a bunch of people set up tents on Liverpool Street, blocking it for a few hours. The police cleared it by just walking in a line in riot gear down the street, arm in arm. They trampled all the tents, some with people still inside. That went over the line of state violence in my view (although I can see why they felt there was no other option).
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
Yeah sorry, wasn’t clear on Iran. I meant it as an example of a violent protest that broke the law that still didn’t get anywhere.
Many people’s lives are shit in myriad ways - I don’t think being held up on the way to work is a significant contribution to that.
Really you dont think being held up to work is a significant contribution....that suggests you are an idiot. Many get paid by the hour....being delayed on the way to work and turning up an hour late means they don't get that days work because the firm called someone else in or get paid for the hour they missed. These are generally people living paycheck to paycheck and suddenly missing a couple of hours to a full days pay that week
Yet another wholly unnecessary Bank Holiday is even worse for that
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
Yeah sorry, wasn’t clear on Iran. I meant it as an example of a violent protest that broke the law that still didn’t get anywhere.
Many people’s lives are shit in myriad ways - I don’t think being held up on the way to work is a significant contribution to that.
Really you dont think being held up to work is a significant contribution....that suggests you are an idiot. Many get paid by the hour....being delayed on the way to work and turning up an hour late means they don't get that days work because the firm called someone else in or get paid for the hour they missed. These are generally people living paycheck to paycheck and suddenly missing a couple of hours to a full days pay that week
Yet another wholly unnecessary Bank Holiday is even worse for that
You think people who work paid by the hour as cleaners etc get bank holidays...how amusing
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
Yeah sorry, wasn’t clear on Iran. I meant it as an example of a violent protest that broke the law that still didn’t get anywhere.
Many people’s lives are shit in myriad ways - I don’t think being held up on the way to work is a significant contribution to that.
Really you dont think being held up to work is a significant contribution....that suggests you are an idiot. Many get paid by the hour....being delayed on the way to work and turning up an hour late means they don't get that days work because the firm called someone else in or get paid for the hour they missed. These are generally people living paycheck to paycheck and suddenly missing a couple of hours to a full days pay that week
Yet another wholly unnecessary Bank Holiday is even worse for that
You think people who work paid by the hour as cleaners etc get bank holidays...how amusing
They do if they work for the government. Schools have cleaners. And teaching assistants. And dinner ladies. So do banks and government buildings. They are all shut. Very amusing for them I'm sure.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
Yeah sorry, wasn’t clear on Iran. I meant it as an example of a violent protest that broke the law that still didn’t get anywhere.
Many people’s lives are shit in myriad ways - I don’t think being held up on the way to work is a significant contribution to that.
Really you dont think being held up to work is a significant contribution....that suggests you are an idiot. Many get paid by the hour....being delayed on the way to work and turning up an hour late means they don't get that days work because the firm called someone else in or get paid for the hour they missed. These are generally people living paycheck to paycheck and suddenly missing a couple of hours to a full days pay that week
Yet another wholly unnecessary Bank Holiday is even worse for that
It probably goes against the grain, but you should look at the Telegraph's supplement today which eulogises your nom de plume, showing Erling Haaland has a mountain to climb to emulate his goal-scoring achievements.
Who could have failed to be impressed by the appearance of the St Augustine bible which he brought from Rome 1425 years ago?
That was absolutely gobsmackingly magnificent. If I were to choose one thing from the day that would. Then ZA-DOCK the PRIEST Rejoice, Rejoice, Rejoice
That said, one underrated moment was Chas in his cassock just before he was anointed. There was a hell of a lot of history in that. The King humble before the Lord as he prepared to accept his sacred role.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
Yeah sorry, wasn’t clear on Iran. I meant it as an example of a violent protest that broke the law that still didn’t get anywhere.
Many people’s lives are shit in myriad ways - I don’t think being held up on the way to work is a significant contribution to that.
Really you dont think being held up to work is a significant contribution....that suggests you are an idiot. Many get paid by the hour....being delayed on the way to work and turning up an hour late means they don't get that days work because the firm called someone else in or get paid for the hour they missed. These are generally people living paycheck to paycheck and suddenly missing a couple of hours to a full days pay that week
Yet another wholly unnecessary Bank Holiday is even worse for that
You think people who work paid by the hour as cleaners etc get bank holidays...how amusing
They do if they work for the government. Schools have cleaners. And teaching assistants. And dinner ladies. So do banks and government buildings. They are all shut. Very amusing for them I'm sure.
Well a lot of hourly paid people actually don't work for the governement surprisingly and only get paid for the actual hours they are there
No, it was a fantastic show of the UK to the World, and one of the largest gatherings of Heads of State in decades.
Everyone who was there, will tell their children and grandchildren that they were there.
I spent most of it on a plane, first time I’d ever paid for internet access on a plane, and it was all that everyone else on the plane was talking about.
Republicans will take what they want from the event, and monarchists will do the same. I never saw any of it, but my guess is it went off well, and was widely supported. Was it as popular as his mum's? Dunno, but probably not. I don't feel like I've missed out, my kids have definitely not been interested in it (all mid 20s, all Republicans and all Labour voters). After today, I'll probably never think about it again in any great depth.
I thought the ceremonial stuff was great, although I found it slightly jarring that there was quite so much God stuff in it, and especially the stuff about the Protestant Succession, which while I know the historical context just sounded a bit odd in 2023. My kids did not care about it at all, though. And I spoke to my neighbour, a WWC woman in her eighties who you might think would have been following it avidly but who told me she'd turned it off because it was boring. So I suppose you can't generalise. A very solid ceremony though as far as I was concerned. Lovely visuals, beautiful music and a nice blend of old and new. Exactly what the monarchy is for.
Weirdly my highlight was the 3 cheers for the king from the troops. Rarely will you ever hear such a loud and passionate 3 cheers - it was quite remarkable and I don’t think such a thing would happen for a president as there will always be a political barrier to a non-political commander in chief getting such an ingrained devotion as the British military will put to the king/queen. *
* yes I know soldiers fight for the man to their left and the man to their right not the monarch when the chips are down.
"ingrained devotion as the British military will put to the king/queen"
Happens spontaneously in NAAFIs across the country you know. Trooper Jones leaps up and offers 3 cheers for the King and their mates jump to their feet, a proud tear in their solid working class eyes.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
Yeah sorry, wasn’t clear on Iran. I meant it as an example of a violent protest that broke the law that still didn’t get anywhere.
Many people’s lives are shit in myriad ways - I don’t think being held up on the way to work is a significant contribution to that.
Really you dont think being held up to work is a significant contribution....that suggests you are an idiot. Many get paid by the hour....being delayed on the way to work and turning up an hour late means they don't get that days work because the firm called someone else in or get paid for the hour they missed. These are generally people living paycheck to paycheck and suddenly missing a couple of hours to a full days pay that week
No need for the insults.
The shittiness you are describing has very, very little to do with any exceptional XR protest or whatever and much more to do with the insane way in which we have allowed capitalism to develop.
Protestors do not bear the responsibility for that. If it wasn’t an XR protest it’d be something else making them late for work, and likely much more often.
No, it was a fantastic show of the UK to the World, and one of the largest gatherings of Heads of State in decades.
Everyone who was there, will tell their children and grandchildren that they were there.
I spent most of it on a plane, first time I’d ever paid for internet access on a plane, and it was all that everyone else on the plane was talking about.
Republicans will take what they want from the event, and monarchists will do the same. I never saw any of it, but my guess is it went off well, and was widely supported. Was it as popular as his mum's? Dunno, but probably not. I don't feel like I've missed out, my kids have definitely not been interested in it (all mid 20s, all Republicans and all Labour voters). After today, I'll probably never think about it again in any great depth.
I thought the ceremonial stuff was great, although I found it slightly jarring that there was quite so much God stuff in it, and especially the stuff about the Protestant Succession, which while I know the historical context just sounded a bit odd in 2023. My kids did not care about it at all, though. And I spoke to my neighbour, a WWC woman in her eighties who you might think would have been following it avidly but who told me she'd turned it off because it was boring. So I suppose you can't generalise. A very solid ceremony though as far as I was concerned. Lovely visuals, beautiful music and a nice blend of old and new. Exactly what the monarchy is for.
Weirdly my highlight was the 3 cheers for the king from the troops. Rarely will you ever hear such a loud and passionate 3 cheers - it was quite remarkable and I don’t think such a thing would happen for a president as there will always be a political barrier to a non-political commander in chief getting such an ingrained devotion as the British military will put to the king/queen. *
* yes I know soldiers fight for the man to their left and the man to their right not the monarch when the chips are down.
"ingrained devotion as the British military will put to the king/queen"
Happens spontaneously in NAAFIs across the country you know. Trooper Jones leaps up and offers 3 cheers for the King and their mates jump to their feet, a proud tear in their solid working class eyes.
Quite right too - they get given a whole shilling by the monarch, they are grateful and devoted.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
Yeah sorry, wasn’t clear on Iran. I meant it as an example of a violent protest that broke the law that still didn’t get anywhere.
Many people’s lives are shit in myriad ways - I don’t think being held up on the way to work is a significant contribution to that.
Really you dont think being held up to work is a significant contribution....that suggests you are an idiot. Many get paid by the hour....being delayed on the way to work and turning up an hour late means they don't get that days work because the firm called someone else in or get paid for the hour they missed. These are generally people living paycheck to paycheck and suddenly missing a couple of hours to a full days pay that week
No need for the insults.
The shittiness you are describing has very, very little to do with any exceptional XR protest or whatever and much more to do with the insane way in which we have allowed capitalism to develop.
Protestors do not bear the responsibility for that. If it wasn’t an XR protest it’d be something else making them late for work, and likely much more often.
No it really wouldn't and xr anyway do exactly the opposite with their protests. I am pretty green I don't drive, I dont fly and the more xr protests the more I spit on green policies because I assume that all green policies are motivated by the addle pated fuckwits that infest xr
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
Yeah sorry, wasn’t clear on Iran. I meant it as an example of a violent protest that broke the law that still didn’t get anywhere.
Many people’s lives are shit in myriad ways - I don’t think being held up on the way to work is a significant contribution to that.
Really you dont think being held up to work is a significant contribution....that suggests you are an idiot. Many get paid by the hour....being delayed on the way to work and turning up an hour late means they don't get that days work because the firm called someone else in or get paid for the hour they missed. These are generally people living paycheck to paycheck and suddenly missing a couple of hours to a full days pay that week
Yet another wholly unnecessary Bank Holiday is even worse for that
You think people who work paid by the hour as cleaners etc get bank holidays...how amusing
They do if they work for the government. Schools have cleaners. And teaching assistants. And dinner ladies. So do banks and government buildings. They are all shut. Very amusing for them I'm sure.
Well a lot of hourly paid people actually don't work for the governement surprisingly and only get paid for the actual hours they are there
Which is precisely my point. A heck of a lot of minimum wage hourly paid people do work for places which are forcibly shut on Monday. Three times this month they'll lose a day's pay. The vast majority don't have the option of making up the extra hours either. You seem to be under the illusion that those who do work for the government do get paid when they aren't there. They don't.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
What often isn’t discussed is the right to protest and/or the right to disruptive protest.
Some years ago, I was discussing the tactic of kettling with some of the professional protest types. Their view that it was evil, wrong, immoral etc, not because of some fundamental rights.
But because it blocked their ability to stage a *disruptive* protest.
Kettling is okay in my view.
Otoh I remember a climate protest ( might have been called climate camp?) where a bunch of people set up tents on Liverpool Street, blocking it for a few hours. The police cleared it by just walking in a line in riot gear down the street, arm in arm. They trampled all the tents, some with people still inside. That went over the line of state violence in my view (although I can see why they felt there was no other option).
I caused some confusion in the conversation by asking if the Police didn’t have a right to disruptive, law breaking protest as well…
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
I think you’re agreeing with him on Iran.
To my mind there are 2 possible definitions of success from disruptive or unorthodox protests. Either they change something directly (eg poll tax riots, gilet jaunes forcing a u-turn on petrol prices, recent Georgian and Israeli protests) or they raise awareness of something that had been ignored, which I’d certainly the aim of XR and just stop oil, and also of the protesters at the grand national recently. Whether they succeed or not is hard to say. I’d argue the most successful in terms of awareness raising were probably Insulate Britain.
Who could have failed to be impressed by the appearance of the St Augustine bible which he brought from Rome 1425 years ago?
That was absolutely gobsmackingly magnificent. If I were to choose one thing from the day that would. Then ZA-DOCK the PRIEST Rejoice, Rejoice, Rejoice
That said, one underrated moment was Chas in his cassock just before he was anointed. There was a hell of a lot of history in that. The King humble before the Lord as he prepared to accept his sacred role.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Yes, it’s a fine line in a democracy.
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Definitely agree with your last paragraph - the downside to UK collectively (someone disrupting the spectacle or, worse, attempting to harm the king outweighs the rights of protesters in my view)
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
The iran protests changed what?
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
I think you’re agreeing with him on Iran.
To my mind there are 2 possible definitions of success from disruptive or unorthodox protests. Either they change something directly (eg poll tax riots, gilet jaunes forcing a u-turn on petrol prices, recent Georgian and Israeli protests) or they raise awareness of something that had been ignored, which I’d certainly the aim of XR and just stop oil, and also of the protesters at the grand national recently. Whether they succeed or not is hard to say. I’d argue the most successful in terms of awareness raising were probably Insulate Britain.
I think most people would say insulate britain, xr , jso etc have actually turned them against green causes
I see Harry has done a runner back to the States. He's made a bit of a tit of himself over this coronation.
Far be it from me to stick up for the attention seeker, but it is his son’s birthday. A bit off from the powers that be to pick today.
Could have bought his family over with him. His lad will have (hopefully) many, many birthdays, but Chaz only gets one coronation. Instead, they're all playing politics and none come out with credit.
Who could have failed to be impressed by the appearance of the St Augustine bible which he brought from Rome 1425 years ago?
That was absolutely gobsmackingly magnificent. If I were to choose one thing from the day that would. Then ZA-DOCK the PRIEST Rejoice, Rejoice, Rejoice
That said, one underrated moment was Chas in his cassock just before he was anointed. There was a hell of a lot of history in that. The King humble before the Lord as he prepared to accept his sacred role.
Who could have failed to be impressed by the appearance of the St Augustine bible which he brought from Rome 1425 years ago?
That was absolutely gobsmackingly magnificent. If I were to choose one thing from the day that would. Then ZA-DOCK the PRIEST Rejoice, Rejoice, Rejoice
That said, one underrated moment was Chas in his cassock just before he was anointed. There was a hell of a lot of history in that. The King humble before the Lord as he prepared to accept his sacred role.
A question if I may....the governement whether labour , tory or lib dem restricts the right to do something....it is a civil liberty matter.... I agree
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
It’s a good question worth asking.
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer: - restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*. - the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify. - The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result. -
Fair point, and while I am in general in favour of the right to protest. I do draw the line where there right to protest impinges on my rights to do stuff. Really don't give a rats arse how temporary it is.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
What often isn’t discussed is the right to protest and/or the right to disruptive protest.
Some years ago, I was discussing the tactic of kettling with some of the professional protest types. Their view that it was evil, wrong, immoral etc, not because of some fundamental rights.
But because it blocked their ability to stage a *disruptive* protest.
Kettling is okay in my view.
Otoh I remember a climate protest ( might have been called climate camp?) where a bunch of people set up tents on Liverpool Street, blocking it for a few hours. The police cleared it by just walking in a line in riot gear down the street, arm in arm. They trampled all the tents, some with people still inside. That went over the line of state violence in my view (although I can see why they felt there was no other option).
I caused some confusion in the conversation by asking if the Police didn’t have a right to disruptive, law breaking protest as well…
I know you’re being slightly tongue-in-cheek but the obvious answer is that the police represent state power and the protesters don’t!
Who could have failed to be impressed by the appearance of the St Augustine bible which he brought from Rome 1425 years ago?
That was absolutely gobsmackingly magnificent. If I were to choose one thing from the day that would. Then ZA-DOCK the PRIEST Rejoice, Rejoice, Rejoice
That said, one underrated moment was Chas in his cassock just before he was anointed. There was a hell of a lot of history in that. The King humble before the Lord as he prepared to accept his sacred role.
Comments
Scenes from Cardiff - anti and pro-monarchy....makes me proud
Protestors who are probably a small minority of people compared to the electorate restrict the right to do something such as drive down a road....why is that them not restricting civil liberties?
I am all for the right of protest......I really don't give a damn about your right to protest when it interferes with my right to ignore you and deem you ignorant twats with neither a case nor a relevant cause.
Don't those babies have a right to life?
Everyone who was there, will tell their children and grandchildren that they were there.
I spent most of it on a plane, first time I’d ever paid for internet access on a plane, and it was all that everyone else on the plane was talking about.
Our new monarch's hands will shape a confident, forward-looking country
Keir Starmer"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/05/sir-keir-starmer-king-charles-coronation-britain-future/
Also has the advantage of being explicitly not antisemitic, so people can use it without fear of evoking Hitler.
I don't feel like I've missed out, my kids have definitely not been interested in it (all mid 20s, all Republicans and all Labour voters). After today, I'll probably never think about it again in any great depth.
He had plenty of opportunity to try and make a party-political point after the local elections, but chose instead to take the high moral ground in a Conservative newspaper, and focus on the celebration of national identity.
The first sign of him re-opening the Blair playbook?
A few thoughts that might or might not add up to an answer:
- restrictions of other people’s rights through eg road protests are temporary and the exception cf a temporary Covid lockdown not posing the same civil liberties issues as compared to permanently requiring voter ID*.
- the downside of restricting people’s rights through protest has the very significant upside that it provides a way for citizens to challenge state power. States restricting individuals’ rights doesn’t have the same upside so is harder to justify.
- The right to protest is only a meaningful limit on state power if it inconveniences people. That’s not pretty, but is probably necessary.
* I think sometimes XR protests stretch this ‘temporary and exceptional’ criterion and lose legitimacy as a result.
-
This has all been very calculated. Starmer has played a very long and slow tactical game.
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/the-year-a-railway-ran-inside-westminster-abbey-40790/
The problem comes when the protests of recent months have become increasingly disruptive, with the primary intent of the protestors to get on TV and disrupt the event.
Personally, I think that waving placards against the king and the monarchy to be fair, and rushing the horses drawing his carriage to be not fair - with a large grey area in the middle.
One can probably forgive the security services and the police, for erring on the side of caution today. They will all be happy that things passed off without major incident.
Simple fact is protest in my view is absolutely pointless, if it ever changed anything they may have an argument. Legal protest even the million or two that marched against the iraq war never changed a single thing. Now protests that are violent and illegal have done so which argues legal protest is pointless so just forbid it all as only protests that are illegal even before the laws were changed ever made a difference...thinking poll tax her. Only example I can actually come up with is poll tax right now
But I did find it interesting and powerful. Archaic too, but in a royal Disneyland kind of way. Good for the tourists.
I watched a Hindu son of immigrants as PM read from the bible whilst leaders of all faiths contributed to proceedings.
I also saw leaders from around the world share a space with people who do charitable work and give to society.
Then I watched feats of coordination and organisation by the military of this country and other countries add to an amazing spectacle that showed this country at its best whilst cocking a snook at the very British weather. All watched by people along the Mall from all walks of life having a fantastic day out.
But maybe you were right and it was just a bit rubbish?
I’m less sure about your stance of getting on TV and disrupting events. I think that is a necessary part of protest, even if we might grind our teeth when it affects us. I’m not so sure. For full disclosure I used to be a climate protestor, enjoyed a few kettles in my time, so may be biased.
But after the Copenhagen climate conference had a very disappointing outcome a few years back a lot of energy
went out of climate protest and climate related stuff dropped out of the news. XR has had a significant role in returning climate change to public discourse in my view.
As for violent protests, I don’t agree that they are more likely to succeed (look at Iran, amongst many, many others)
I think the deciding factor in whether protests are successful is whether the minority of protesters actually voice the opinions of a larger majority AND the government is subject to the will of that majority. The poll tax is probably a good example of this.
Some years ago, I was discussing the tactic of kettling with some of the professional protest types. Their view that it was evil, wrong, immoral etc, not because of some fundamental rights.
But because it blocked their ability to stage a *disruptive* protest.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/05/06/penny-mourdant-outfit-king-coronation/
“Given its 4ft (121cm) length and 8lb (3.5kg) weight, this is no mean feat, as evidenced by her shaking arms, when she handed the historic weapon to King Charles.
“She had prepared for the moment though, drawing on her training as a Royal Navy reservist to ensure that she could hold it aloft for the whole ceremony. “[I] will be carrying the Sword of State, which is the heaviest sword, so I’ve been doing some press-ups to train for that," she told The Times Red Box podcast prior to the event. The Sword represents the King's authority, she explained. "It was one of two swords made for Charles II and only one survives.”
I think Nick Cave’s blog this week about attending the coronation sums it up. If you’re curious about the world, you take a look. Same reason I’ll almost certainly visit the Stalin museum in Gori when I’m in Georgia this summer.
The only protests that have changed things have been those that broke the law. So protestors complaining they can only protest if they break laws rings hollow to me because it says "I want to protest and not actually change things". I too was a protestor in 83 and 84 in the stop the city marches.....we changed nothing we just made small peoples lives shittier
Many people’s lives are shit in myriad ways - I don’t think being held up on the way to work is a significant contribution to that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March
* yes I know soldiers fight for the man to their left and the man to their right not the monarch when the chips are down.
Had I been in England, it would likely have been different, but I wasn't.
And I wasn't getting up at 3am to watch.
That said, one underrated moment was Chas in his cassock just before he was anointed. There was a hell of a lot of history in that. The King humble before the Lord as he prepared to accept his sacred role.
Otoh I remember a climate protest ( might have been called climate camp?) where a bunch of people set up tents on Liverpool Street, blocking it for a few hours. The police cleared it by just walking in a line in riot gear down the street, arm in arm. They trampled all the tents, some with people still inside. That went over the line of state violence in my view (although I can see why they felt there was no other option).
Schools have cleaners. And teaching assistants. And dinner ladies. So do banks and government buildings. They are all shut.
Very amusing for them I'm sure.
Happens spontaneously in NAAFIs across the country you know. Trooper Jones leaps up and offers 3 cheers for the King and their mates jump to their feet, a proud tear in their solid working class eyes.
The shittiness you are describing has very, very little to do with any exceptional XR protest or whatever and much more to do with the insane way in which we have allowed capitalism to develop.
Protestors do not bear the responsibility for that. If it wasn’t an XR protest it’d be something else making them late for work, and likely much more often.
A heck of a lot of minimum wage hourly paid people do work for places which are forcibly shut on Monday.
Three times this month they'll lose a day's pay. The vast majority don't have the option of making up the extra hours either.
You seem to be under the illusion that those who do work for the government do get paid when they aren't there.
They don't.
To my mind there are 2 possible definitions of success from disruptive or unorthodox protests. Either they change something directly (eg poll tax riots, gilet jaunes forcing a u-turn on petrol prices, recent Georgian and Israeli protests) or they raise awareness of something that had been ignored, which I’d certainly the aim of XR and just stop oil, and also of the protesters at the grand national recently. Whether they succeed or not is hard to say. I’d argue the most successful in terms of awareness raising were probably Insulate Britain.