Anti-royal protesters are being arrested in the U.K. as 'Not My King' tag grows
text.npr.org
text.npr.org
Personally I've found it borderline sickening.
If there was a curtain that could have slipped, we all knew what would be behind it: a bunch of cherry-nosed coffin-dodgers with old-school-tie chums ensconced in the machinery of state, parliament, the military, whatever.
Sure. Fine. Yadda yadda, blah blah. The "deep state" dancing hand-in-hand with the old school elites. Yuck. Disgusting but hardly a clear and present danger.
But to see this machinery spring rustily, creakily into action has been truly eye-opening. Hitherto unknown people wearing ritualistic outfits have marched into public spaces in several cities, and declared that a member of the elite has been replaced, the continuum is unbroken. And this has been broadcast 24/7 by pretty much all media in the UK and in other countries. Elected representatives from all political parties have fallen into line.
It is not okay to ritualistically march a bunch of military-state personnel into multiple public spaces across the country, under the protection of the police and with the consent of multiple international media outlets, and expect public passivity and capitulation.
And yet, that's what has happened. And it keeps happening.
It's bizarre in the extreme, and we really should not be okay with this.
The main thing you seem to criticise is the ritual itself, which to me seems pretty normal, albeit grandiose.
If you dislike monarchies because of their power transition methods, I'd love to hear that reasoning.
When there is ambiguity in who holds power, there is conflict, instability, bloodshed, etc. This is why countries used to throw enormous festivals celebrating the birth of a monarch's first-born son — it means the succession plan has become entirely unambiguous, and stability has been ensured for years to come.
The public proclamations of the accession of Charles to King have included representatives of the state, military, police, and church. They have been made in public spaces. The mildest of protestations have resulted in arrests (albeit very few, and by seemingly confused police officers).
For me, the issues here are around obeisance and imposition. Apparently it's fine and "normal" for some elite [1] class of people to march into public spaces and make declarations that cannot be challenged.
The ornate outfits and ceremony are there to indicate a few things, the most obvious being that you are not one of them. In the strange post-modern Western world, pompous ceremonies come across as quaint and fun, another one of those bizarre things that the upper classes apparently get up to, silly them, aren't they funny hahaha. But it's not quaint, it's a public declaration that a tiny number of the ultra-priveleged still call the shots.
Bizarrely it seems that we lap it up. The message is almost subliminal now: you're there and we're here, and that's the way it's going to stay.
[1] I know the word elite is a dog-whistle but have you seen these dudes?? A more florid flaunting of elitism is hard to imagine.
I'm not sure how you can characterize this as some creeky system that's just showing its face now lol it's built into so much of your government, multiple times a year, including one extremely high profile case (the prorogation) only a few months ago.
Honestly, be grateful. I watch parliament for some sort of fucked up cathartic release because even the worst of your MPs have a base moral compass that would dwarf almost anyone in the US government. Just the fact that Johnson's party initiated the no-confidence is incredible, I can't imagine that happening in the US - 15% of a party turning against their party representative? Impossible here.
If the cost is some silly ceremony that is increasingly irrelevant every year, pay that cost.
is it though? The UK isn't the only country that has removed its leader in a no-confidence vote. Republics do it regularly just fine. The relationship to the monarchy you have to explain to me, British people don't receive their moral compass from the crown, although the barrage of Netflix shows on that family may create that image in the mind of people who romanticize Britain.
That said, I think you've misunderstood my post entirely.
a) If you think this system is just now creaking into life, I frankly don't know how. Again, major news very recently with Black Rod stomping in and various MPs protesting.
b) It's not that big of a deal relatively speaking. The monarchy is very clearly increasingly irrelevant, as it has been for some time. Obviously abolish that shit, but the initial post is a bit dramatic.
c) You should compare parliament to cspan sometime - our illiterate representatives don't even bother to show up.
Obviously the UK has plenty of issues, it's an interesting system to watch. Removing the monarchy might be a good step forward, obviously you should all do that. But it's not some 'creeking' 'deep state' system, it's very front and center, and it's really not your biggest problem by a longshot.
The older I get, the more I agree.
Nothing much really changed per se after Democracy. Bureaucracy still remains the largest and still a unelected branch of the government. You still can't interfere with anything to do with Armed Forces and Judiciary, and they too are unelected. Only thing the public got was a way to elect the (prime-)minister(s). But even the merits of this are up for a debate, Democracy doesn't work well if your masses are not empowered to make good decisions, or they have all the empowerment or they just can't make right decisions for themselves.
Ask yourself this, why would anybody want to be elected? To serve the people? People do anything because its personally profitable to them, that begs the question, do they even have your best interests in their decisions and work?
Regardless a huge range of decisions remain outside the control and scope of the common masses.
Also beyond all this, these are political definitions, just like boundaries they expand and contract every century or so, this is with any country. So you really have to ask at the end of the day, what are you fighting for?
Yes, something very important changes, which is a rejection of the fundamental premise that some people are inherently superior and deserve to rule because of it. I wonder if the fact that the UK is still so strongly class segregated is a cause or effect of still having a monarchy?
"what are you fighting for"
Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks who think they have the right to rule because they are better than everyone else.
>>Not tolerating a bunch of elitist, parasitic pricks who think they have the right to rule because they are better than everyone else.
Democracy just offers you a choice to pick among a range of elitist pricks. Note in monarchy too, the prime minister is more or less a person of merit. The monarchy just maintains a veto, that's all the difference there is.
The remainder of the structure is just the same both in democracy and monarchy.
At least none claim be be of "Royal Blood" and their children don't automatically become ruler. A monarchy legitimized class based thinking in a very fundamental way, which I think is very bad for society.
"The monarchy just maintains a veto"
Please, monarchies are just nepotism on steroids. They had to make up the concept of "Royal blood" or "THe divine right of kings" to justify why one person should have so much power and be so unaccountable.
There justification for being in power is "I'm inherently better than you, and all my descendants will always be better than yours forever"
All the wealth the royal family hordes could help with that. Those "Royal" palaces could be converted to museums or hotels and earn money instead of costing money.
To be a monarchist is to accept the claim of inherent superiority by self-professed "Royalty".
Hehe :) Yeah fair. The accession of Charles has been on another scale though. It's national and public, rather than in a palace.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/queens-conse...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-...
"Queen’s consent is a procedural rule, internal to the workings of parliament and of unclear origins, which requires the monarch’s consent to be obtained for certain types of legislation – before they can be presented for final approval by either house of parliament."
Also note that the Crown appoints new members to the House of Lords. This includes the supreme court of Great Britain, all members of which trace their seat to a Crown appointment at some past time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords
"Prime Minister Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey advised the King to overwhelm opposition to the bill in the House of Lords by creating about 80 new pro-Reform peers."
Every appointed member of the house of lords and the supreme court is appointed on the advice of the prime minister and cabinet.
"We now know there has been a persistent practice of applying those criteria so broadly that significant amounts of legislation regulating otherwise quite ordinary activities have required consent. The Queen pays tax, so (for example) finance laws require consent. The Queen is an employer, so (for example) child support and pensions laws require consent. And so on. Quite superficial connections to the interests of the crown are sufficient to trigger the Queen’s involvement.
"Even less information has been available on the substance of the process once triggered. All correspondence containing requests for consent, replies and the documentation of any related discussions have always been shrouded in absolute privacy. The only clue to their existence is the routine formulaic confirmation in parliament whenever consent has been given, which reveals nothing about the process through which that consent was secured. So it has been impossible to ascertain whether this is an essentially symbolic process, comparable with royal assent and perhaps justifiable as symbolically acknowledging the Queen as a formal part of the legislature; or whether it provided (or had the potential to be used as) a genuine opportunity for the Queen to veto legislation or influence policy.
"But it is now clear this process is far from merely symbolic. The documents uncovered by the Guardian provide remarkable evidence that this process accords the Queen’s advisers a genuine opportunity to negotiate with the government over changes in proposed laws, that they do sometimes secure such changes before giving consent, and that they are even prepared to threaten to withhold consent to secure their policy preferences."
[0]: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/decision-of-the-supreme...
"Since 1999, however, no further reform has taken place. The Wakeham Commission proposed introducing a 20% elected element to the Lords, but this plan was widely criticised. A parliamentary Joint Committee was established in 2001 to resolve the issue, but it reached no conclusion and instead gave Parliament seven options to choose from (fully appointed, 20% elected, 40% elected, 50% elected, 60% elected, 80% elected, and fully elected). In a confusing series of votes in February 2003, all of these options were defeated, although the 80% elected option fell by just three votes in the Commons. Socialist MPs favouring outright abolition voted against all the options."
I'm not a royalist or British but I would be more concerned about the financial subsidy and the ruling party's deference to the monarchy than the theoretical possibility of them witholding consent. It isn't much of a negotiation if one side can immediately win though right? The prime minister can just threaten to go public that he can't obtain consent and the monarch has to back down immediately.
It's just a courtesy to save face for the Monarchy.
Except the monarch is a billionaire with power over even more money and public opinion and elected representatives are rightfully afraid of the monarchy's well funded and well oiled propaganda machine being turned against them.
If the UK abolished the monarchy, tourism attractions like Westminster and the Crown Jewels would still exist
It's peanuts in the scheme of things. The royal family aren't even that rich amongst the billion class in the US.
yes
> government can magic up 150 billion
that is also a tremendous amount which the next British generations will labour decades to pay off, just so today's pensioners can heat their homes to the 25C they are used to, and still have their ski outings in Zermatt.
It is a tremendous amount indeed, but i don't know why you think it's only pensioners and skiers who would benefit from not having to choose between food and energy.
It is important to distinguish the "Crown" (essentially the monarchy-as-government) and the queens' family and hangers-on...
But prison might not be in it for him, that I agree. Or some very special prison.
If it's a racial slur, please stop repeating it.
Note that for the royal family, the ceremony and waste of resources is the point. The UK monarchs have generational wealth, but more power from celebrity than from law. The pomp, theatrics, ritual, and press keeps them relevant to the public. In return, they maintain the history and legacy of the UK: palaces, museums, and castles are maintained on the royal purse, but often open for tours to the public.
This perpetrates the idea that UK would stop having history & landmarks without the royal blessing. Other countries, with rich histories & tourist landmarks, survived the transition away from monarchy just fine.
Personally, I like it as a humiliating reminder of the contradictions of liberalism and the ruling class.
I think part of it is that culturally the British monarchy is the most relevant in the English speaking world, so it’s just considered a bigger deal than if the Swedish monarch died. It gets TV time even in other countries. But yes, it does also expose a huge amount of excess and brings to light a lot of lesser known aspects of the monarchy.
Sure, it's a bloody violent history of kings and empires that got them there but the same could be said for much of the modern world. Is America going to hand back ALL land to Native Americans? Will individual tribes hand land back over to the tribes to originally inherited it before historical conquests? Etc. It's a more complex issue than first appears with history so long that it's almost impossible to track who is owed what.
Hmm. Charles will be paying zero inheritance tax on his multi-million inheritance.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles...
Whether that's fair or not/applicable in the modern world is totally a discussion to be had by the public. Though perhaps the monarchy being so up-front and visible contributes to this.
Meanwhile companies sit in Ireland/Malta/Switzerland/etc and go on tax dodge binges and the public don't bat an eye. People seem to have a very short memory/modern world is so complicated we have to resort to apathy to handle it; remember the Panama papers? Was anything _really_ done about those?
For starters :)
But I agree with your sentiment.
People's excuse for being lazy illiterates online is, "FU grammer nazi its only online so hu carez"
EVERYONE should care. People learn by READING. And where does most reading take place now, sadly? ONLINE. So people propagating ignorance and lashing out against those who promote literacy ARE the problem.
It's sad to see that on a site like this. It indicates decline.
To be frank, it seems the onus is on you to explain your position. My explanation here and in other comments seems fairly clear: I find bald-faced elitism supported by the state, church, government and opposition, police, and media to be worrying. You may say that's just my "opinion", but I have explained my position.
Rewording: this “keeps happening” because it’s written into the constitution of the UK. If it didn’t happen, it would be more concerning, because the people wouldn’t have voted on such a big change to how the country works.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
That said, it would be very interesting if such a veto was attempted and it went to court, we’d get to see more constitutional clarification in action!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched;[2] the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law.
You cannot point me to a document that is the constitution. Words like uncodified or "unwritten arrangements" just create a semantic whack-a-mole, furthering the point that no written constitution exists.
Honestly, a country can have a universally recognized and respected written constitution without "everyone agree[ing] on it." See United States of America, Constitution Of.
It makes the constitution some abstract thing, rather than a very factual set of rules, which you want the constitution to be.
You misunderstand what a constitution is. It's not a document, which is an inanimate thing that cannot actually do anything. Rather, it's a set of customs and principles that are respected and followed. The latter is what actually matters, the UK has it, and it takes precedence over any written document (e.g. the constitution of North Korea "guarantees" free speech rights, but the customs and principles of the North Korean government voids that).
A constitution only matters if there are measures that punish violators. In the UK the monarch doesn't want to speak up if the government violates what is commonly seen as constitutional, and parliament is partisan so the government can do what it wants.
IIRC, that's how an unwritten constitution is changed: someone does something without serious challenge, or some new thing that's demanded becomes so entrenched that there would be serious challenge to change it.
If all the opponents of "the recent proroguement of parliament" could manage is "tutting," they made the action constitutional by their inaction.
Not exactly. If there's enforcement, it will be done by other actors in the system will cooperate to enforce those "customs and principles." There's no appealing to some higher authority for enforcement (and especially not criminal law, which would be a lower authority).
Why extra power do you think something gets from being written down?
North Korea has a written constitution. Does does that make it better in practice than the UK’s?
To avoid this kind of problem, it is a good idea to have representatives of the people write it down. And yes, it will never be perfect, and it will get outdated over time, etc. etc.
Still better than millions of different mental interpretations.
Also does not change the fact that the people can request a change in the constitution, for example via protests.
The US has two issues as far as I can tell: one, (small) constitution amendment should be a normal, regular process, but because it has not been done, now it has become some sort of sacrilege to some, at the very least a “very big deal” to most. Second, the political landscape is so polarized, one aisle will say “no” before the other aisle has uttered the first word. You can’t legislate anything in such a situation.
But it should be lived. At the very least, old language should be refreshed. And yes, it will cause a lot of debate, but that’s good, that’s what democracies live from, reasonable debates – rather than “no” and “I hate you lot”.
What does ‘right to bear arms’ precisely means? Nobody knows.
> Still better than millions of different mental interpretations.
There are millions of different mental interpretations of the US written constitution.
Can you give some examples of parts of the UK constitution that are debated as much?
If you don’t write it down, no debate, no consensus, everyone believes what suits his life style best.
I am not saying writing it down is foolproof. “Write down a piece of document and don’t touch it for 200 years” is definitely not a good idea, it should be updated regularly.
But if given the choice today of writing down or continue verbally, I wouldn’t definitely attempt to write it down, including a clear process for the document to be regularly edited and updated.
> a clear process for the document to be regularly edited and updated
Sounds like you’re thinking of law or code rather than a constitution?
Multiple persons above refer to “constitution” as being a set of “beliefs”, “values” and “traditions”, I was pointing out that this is not a good solution in my view.
"What happened before" in the UK has for thousands of years favoured (to put it mildly) the incumbent powers-that-be.
Seems like a convenient way to perpetuate inequality.
I don’t get what you’re finding confusing. For example the Accession ceremony we just had - why was it like that? Because that’s how it happened last time - that’s what precedence is.
Why does writing it down make it more equal?
The argument is circular: "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!"
That's just daft, it doesn't leave any opportunity for change.
You suggest:
> The UK constitution is based on precedence.
It's clear from the discussion here that even the existence of a constitution in the UK is debatable, let alone it's contents.
It's been pointed out here that precise meaning in written constitutions can still be debated. This is a very weak argument against writing a constitution; instead it's a strong argument for public debate of how a constitution should be interpreted, and possibly updated.
Basing anything exclusively and wholly on what has gone before guarantees anachronism and a failure to adapt.
Basing an unwritten constitution on the say-so of monarchs and their bloody disputes with revolutionaries over centuries is patently bananas. It would be laughable if it didn't have real consequences (various of which have been pointed out in the contents here).
Why not write it down?
Imagine running a project like this.
Dev: "Boss, remind me why we're developing an Android app in MATLAB?"
Boss: "We've always used MATLAB."
Dev: "I don't think this will work, could we try Python instead?"
Dev gets bundled into a police van
Literally how is that any different to ‘Why do these things? Because it says so on this piece of paper!’
And as has been said a few times - precedence and literally ‘written down’ are not mutually exclusive - you’re after a red herring by obsessing on the ‘unwritten’ part.
Most legal systems use precedence - the US uses judicial precedence to interpret the constitution - because the written one isn’t usable without it!
More correctly, I believe 'unwritten' is not accurate, since as you point out precedent can be set e.g. in the courts or parliament, and these precendents are written in judgements and Acts. So a more accurate term would be uncodified rather than unwritten, meaning there is no single constitution but an ever-changing collection of precedents. (This isn't to accuse you of inaccuracy - everyone in this thread has used the same inaccurate terms, including me.)
There are pros and cons to a codified constitution. We see some cons in the USA, where the Constitution has become sacred, and changes to it are extremely difficult to achieve. That's a shame, and an artefact of its importance within the partisan politics of the USA. Most other nations have a codified constitution and don't seem to have this issue - at least, not to such a paralysing degree.
Another con is so-called wiki-constitutionalism [0] i.e. the attrition of the utility of the constitution by continually amending it to strengthen and expand the role of government.
One pro of a codified constitution would be to clarify the customs surrounding existing precendents, especially the consequences attendent with flouting them. See proroguement [1]
> > "Why do these things? Because we've always done them!"
> Literally how is that any different to ‘Why do these things? Because it says so on this piece of paper!’
My larger point was about admitting the possibility of change. If an authority figure says "we do X because we've always done it" then we need a way to challenge that. Personally, I'd prefer that to be written and codified, and open to change. You're quite right to point out that legal precedent provides a way to do this in law, and democracy ostensibly enables that. The thread was about protestors being arrested at ceremonial events; my concern was about silencing the questioning of the status quo and authority, and the deferential manner in which public representatives and protectors have fallen in line. Protest is central to change. Arresting protestors at the recent events is a bad look - it smacks of protecting incumbent power. Quelling protest is something that has historically been done on the say-so of authority figures. I'd prefer that to be consigned to the past.
My smaller (?) point was about monarchic ceremony. Personally I find it extremely distasteful for people [2] in archaic uniform to march into cities across the Commonwealth at the behest of tradition. It's not mere "cosplay" (as someone else here described it), it's emblematic of incumbent power, and a harking back to more authoritarian times.
As for my 'obsessing', I didn't introduce the 'written down' bit, and it feels to me that you're the one obsessing over the status quo. Perhaps we're looking past each other. I see no reason to continue with a non-codified constitution. Apparently you do. We've tried to explain to each other, but clearly we're not getting through. Oh well, we tried!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-constitutionalism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_contr...
[2] Including representatives of state, church, and military throughout the Commonwealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_accession_of_C...
(Edited for formatting and clarity.)
Seriously. I am not taking sides here. I have visited the UK as a tourist and on business a zillion times over the last four decades. And yet, I am not qualified to voice opinion as to the realities of living there. From the outside, as someone visiting from the US, for lack of a better term, it feels like home. Comfortable. Orderly. A place where anyone can live and, should they be inclined to, excel.
I don't understand people who live in the US, hate the US and don't move elsewhere. It isn't like the world is closed to relocation. It happens all the time. My own family emigrated to the US when I was almost a baby precisely for this reason. My grandparents fled from genocide, that's more of a forced migration.
The point is: If it is so bad. If it is revolting. Find your paradise, sell your possessions, book a flight and leave.
The alternative is to seek to change it by engaging in politics (which is a revolting thought pretty much anywhere in the world) or violence (which some seem to think is a way to make things better, which is as weird as can be).
I am not saying this in a spirit of confrontation or even criticism at all. As the son of immigrants who decided "enough is enough", I am grateful for the very hard decision my parents made.
It is because I understand this that I am perplexed by people who hate where they live and choose to stick around living in misery. Relinquishing your life to a sunk costs fallacy scenario isn't a formula for success. Go find your paradise. The world is a very large blue marble with lots of wonderful places you can call home and be happy.
Maybe it’s because the OP overall likes the country but wants it to be better? Not everyone even has the option of voting with their feet, and for many others though they could, it means leaving behind a lifetime of friends and family for a less familiar setting. By your logic why do we even vote or have opinions on things when we could physically remove ourselves from them?
People who read comments and make-up shit the post didn't actually say. At all.
I was expressing a general idea; one that was not at all addressed at the OP. Just a thought, inspired by reading a comment. I even went out of my way to clarify this much with:
"I am not saying this in a spirit of confrontation or even criticism at all."
It was about that and a lot more if anyone bothered to engage with me rather than the opposite. There's much depth in the concept. I'll discuss this at the end of this comment.
To address @opportune's post specifically:
> people who argue with others preferences on the internet
I was not arguing with anyone. That was made abundantly clear.
It was not an attack aimed at the OP.
It was not critical of the OP.
In fact, the example I give is:
"I don't understand people who live in the US, hate the US and don't move elsewhere."
The OP is in the UK. I don't even suggest the OP should move out of the UK, at all. Why this need to fabricate a story where one does not exist?
> I don’t understand people who read and reply to posts they hate.
Show me where I said I hated any post on this entire thread.
You can't. Because that's a fantasy.
> By your logic why do we even vote or have opinions on things when we could physically remove ourselves from them?
Another fantasy.
In fact, I very much said that: "The alternative is to seek to change it by engaging in politics".
The fact that politics is revolting (is anyone going to argue with that?) does not mean one cannot seek change through voting, at all.
> By your logic why do we even vote or have opinions on things when we could physically remove ourselves from them?
These things are completely unrelated.
I'll show you just how unrelated they are: A good friend of mine is a UK citizen who lived in the US for many decades, became a US citizen, didn't like the direction the country was on and moved his entire family to New Zealand.
He votes on every single US election, because he is a US citizen.
You can move elsewhere and still engage in voting to affect change. You can do that while enjoying a different environment.
Over the decades I have met lots of people who, for a variety of reasons, are miserable where they live. Not just in the US. Without fail, those who go-on to have a happy life are those who make the decision to change their circumstances.
For example, the aforementioned UK citizen ending-up in New Zealand after decades of living in the US. I know US citizens who did the same and moved to Costa Rica. Another family left Australia for Singapore. Ecuador for Los Angeles. Argentina for Spain. Peru for Miami. Various spots in the Middle East for the US, Europe and Latin America. I know loads of people who left California for Arizona (sometimes you don't have to go another country). Etc.
It is false to say people can't move due to financial or family links. Sure, it's hard, yet the history of immigrants tells a very different story. My parents left everything behind --parents, siblings, friends, profession, etc.-- to move to the US. They came with nothing and barely spoke the language. And yet, they managed, lived a happy life and made something of themselves. Yes, it's hard. No, it is not impossible.
Philosophically speaking, this is about an expression of freedom like not other.
This applies to jobs as well. How many people do you know who are miserable at work and never do a thing about it? I have known more than a few over the decades. They have nothing good to say about their company, and yet, endure misery for years.
Denying your contribution to a society or business is probably the most powerful expression of freedom one can possibly exercise.
If a society or company isn't serving you, why continue to contribute in any way? Go become a part of one whos values you share. The first entity loses one of the most valuable assets anyone can have; people interested in being a part of it in various ways.
My post was about freedom and the most powerful way to express it.
Not to go too far, just a couple of weeks ago I fired one of our clients. This account was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to us. And yet, I had to vote with my feet. This client was miserable to work with. Nobody at the office enjoyed working with them. So, we walked. Was it hard? Of course. Impossible? Nope. Done deal. We feel 100% better about our work and will soon have a better client who will likely appreciate our contribution to their mission. And, in turn, we are going to feel great about working with them.
You (plural, not addressing anyone in particular) might want to consider the idea that a better life could exist elsewhere. There is no need to suffer through decades of grief. You are free. And, yes, this means you are free to vote with your feet. Their loss, not yours.
Don't put-up with shit you don't want to live with, at work or where you happen to live.
You don't have to.
You are free.
Part of doing this is being really loud and annoying about problems
Exactly how feasible do you think that suggestion is? What’s your guess on the budget you’d need for legal fees alone? (Using EU freedom of movement laws is cheating.)
My grandparents emigrated with absolutely nothing to their names. My parents emigrated US with very little. It isn't easy. At all. It also isn't impossible.
Hate is a very strong word. What about people who love the place they live in, but have a few things which they would like to chane?
It is perfectly conceivable that someone would love their life in the UK yet thinks that there should be no exceptions written into the law about the business of a particular family.
Then they don't hate where they live. Right?
You are right, it is a matter of degrees. That's why I chose a strong word. If someone has reached that level, they can exist in anguish or choose to go elsewhere.
As I mentioned in other comments, this applies to a job one might hate just as well.
In the end it is about freedom.
You're still emotionally attached to a few people around you, who might not be so eager to migrate. Migration is often messy, and incurs on financial, temporal, and emotional costs. Adaptation itself also incurs on the same costs, as you learn that your native land's "common sense" is "crazy talk" in your new land and vice versa. There's a real risk that the locals of your new place actually hate you.
And nothing prevents you from hating that new place too, and if you hate it as much as your older place you spent a lot of your money, time, and emotions on nothing. You know that you have incomplete information about the new place. No paradise survives experience.
Furthermore: people are fairly verbose on what they hate, and often their complains about a specific aspect of that place might give you an impression that they hate everything there, or at least hate it enough to be better off elsewhere.
I don't. My parent did it with nearly nothing. So did my grandparents before them. It isn't easy. Yet it is not impossible.
> why should they leave rather than fight hard for change?
It's a matter of degrees, right? I know people who hate the US to the bone and yet, they still live here. That's the kind of thing I don't understand. And, in the case of the couple of people I have in mind, money isn't problem at all.
Also, if you notice, I did mention the option to stay and fight for change is still there.
The question is one of what someone might want to have their life focus be about. I have to tell you that as you get older you tend to appreciate the idea of moving towards less drama and complexity in life. Why live life in a fever of anguish and dissatisfaction when other options might exist.
Also note that, philosophically speaking, my comment extends to situations related to working at a job or for a company one might not enjoy. One can stay and fight for change or just go. It's one of the most powerful expressions of freedom I can think of. They lose. You win. And someone (a nation or company) who might appreciate what you have to offer benefits from your decision.
In the end, it's about being free.
I suspect every right and freedom each of us enjoy in our respective countries is the result of people unhappy with their country seeking to better it. In the UK we even had a civil war over the monarchy centuries ago! Why didn't Cromwell just leave??
Also it completely ignores that people have family, dependents, friends, history that they may not wish to abandon.
For some additional context, in the UK, "why don't you leave" is a particularly toxic argument often directed exclusively at ethnic minorities - including those who were born here, or are eg third generation Brits. You'll typically find it paired with calls to "go back where you came from".
You have a overly-romanticised vision of the UK based on a few visits, which I'm afraid doesn't quite match the reality.
So perhaps dial it in?
Of course. I say this much. Over a dozen visits, yet mostly as a tourist and one business (which means you don't get to see anything because you are in meetings and conferences all the time).
That's the nature of tourism, right? It's the fantasy of where we visit vs. the reality of it.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the philosophical core of my comment is more about freedom than anything else. It isn't aimed at the UK at all. In fact, the example I gave is about the US.
We can apply this to working a job or company one dislikes. The highest expression of freedom is to leave and find a job one might enjoy and a company that appreciates what one might contribute.
It's about freedom. One can choose to stay and endure, hoping things change. That, too, is freedom.
> Why didn't Cromwell just leave??
Matters of history at that level are far more complex than the idea of mere peasants like us seeking a better life and better outcomes by choosing the playing field --whether that means career, employer or where we live.
As I mentioned in another comment, as you get older you tend to move away from complexity and stress in your life. When one it in their 20's it is easy to think about being a revolutionary. Later in life those ideas tend to lose their shine very quickly. The only people who live in that kind of mayhem are, for the most part, the politicians who get to directly benefit from driving masses of young people into resonance with ideology and movements that benefit them --often at the expense of everyone else.
BTW, thanks for the insight into "why don't you leave" in the UK. I think that is somewhat universal. I know there are idiots in the US who use that kind of language. I hope it is obvious that isn't what I was saying or implying at all.
I am talking about exercising the freedom to choose who will benefit from your contributions to society or your work. This isn't about nations. There are places in the US I would not live in because I know I would be miserable. A simple example, I am an atheist. I don't think I would be happy in some of the more intensely religious areas of this country. I don't have a problem with those who are religious, just not my thing and I prefer not to have it in my face all day, every day.
It's about freedom.
You speak like that hundred years long continuum is not a major accomplishment in state craft. This is remarkable stability and resistance against a popular Tribune of the plebs. Remember that the last US President was asked “Will you really really peacefully transition power?”
However I could be misinterpreting the comment.
"The queen has no real power." OK, then why have her?
"Monarchy provides stability in case of... something." Ah, so she does have power!
The real pageantry/cosplay is how we're supposed to pretend a hereditary leader, ceremonial or otherwise but also given that we're discussing people being arrested definitely actually otherwise, isn't totally fucked up.
From wikipedia: "The royal prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements."
This isn't as black and white as you are proposing, there is nuance.
> it's not like the king of england has any real power
This is a widely-held belief.
The crown rarely if ever exerts such powers, and on that rare occasion it does so on the advice of the parliment.
Technically such a power exists, but calling it "real" is silly.
Look at the countries of the Commonwealth. The crown appoints a governor general based on the recommendation of the prime minister. This person acts in a ceremonial capacity, and on behalf of the crown. The handful of times a GG has actually acted have been within the interests of the country, have had little to no input from the crown, and are decades apart.
Gotta keep those plebs in their place right.
> You speak like that hundred years long continuum is not a major accomplishment in state craft.
The accession of Charles is a major accomplishment, but hardly of "state craft". It's an accomplishment of inherited power backed by incumbent powers-that-be.
Unless you mean the ceremonial aspects are "state craft"? In which case I'd say they're certainly large, complex, and dangerous (terrorist risks etc), but more administration than state craft.
> This is remarkable stability and resistance against a popular Tribune of the plebs.
Not sure I follow. Do you mean resistance against elected representatives? It certainly is remarkable. It's not exactly modern, though, is it?
> Remember that the last US President was asked “Will you really really peacefully transition power?”
Elizabeth hung on until death. Hard to retain power beyond that (although many have tried). It was discussed ad nauseam that she could have stepped down long ago, that the monarchy could have reformed further. I guess reframing the question you quote, and asking Elizabeth or Charles, it might become "will you consider transitioning all your inherited authority to more modern, democratic processes?" But - like Trump, only to a far greater extent - there are thousands of people whose livelihoods and reputations derive from working with the incumbent powers.
The one and only time I visited London I just happened to wander by Buckingham Palace on the opening day of Parliament, so all the royals were coming out.
The part that floored me was all the pop and show of the uniforms, bayonets and those massive black fluffy hat things with the chin strap.
I've never been to the UK or Russia before, but I felt 100% like I was watching a Russian show of pop and flair, not a British one.
It dawned on me then that in many ways, they're indistinguishable.
As for your specific points, are you being facetious? They seem deliberately outrageous, but... oh dear...
The UK military routinely recruits minors: https://www.refworld.org/docid/498805c2c.html
The Opium Wars: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
Prince beat dogs (sorry, couldn't find anything about kicking them): https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/british-press-sco...
Get outside and spend some time in nature why don't you?
As for what I expect to happen, as I've said elsewhere here: a conversation, and not unquestioning deferential acceptance of centuries-old privilege.
UK is understandable. Why other countries, even supposedly "hostile" nations, constantly, year after year shove this British royal crap down our throat (and we barely ever hear about other so-called royal families but they do exist) is an interesting question. "People want it" is the usual excuse like advertising is the usual pretext/excuse for surveillance capitalism. And who are these "people" who are clamoring to know every tiny details of this not so noble family? The lumpen masses? The media usually doesn't give an F about what they "want", except on this topic. [They comprehensively saturate the information space, from highbrow journals all the way to tabloid sheets. There is no other topic like this.] Very interesting.
For years now I have trained my eyes to immediately look away from any headline that mentions a Brit royal family member. They are like the Kardashians. A completely 'who cares and why should I care' informational nuisance.
Of course it's weird and strange and old fashioned, the entirety of the UK is built from the foundations on such things. Your love for brick over modern steel and glass, the countless centuries of history embedded into almost every location.
If this wasn't the case then I wouldn't have learnt so much as to why my life in New Zealand was so different to my one here.
But who knows, maybe people here really are ready to forgo all that, but from what I have seen so far I don't think so. Hell even the religious differences (NZ, it's not a huge part of our lives) are stark.
Support for the monarchy is associated with older age groups [1]. Perhaps as time passes, those who are opposed or ambivalent will be in the majority. Maybe 40-50 years from now? I hope that William will try to get ahead of this, and persuade his father to lay the groundwork for the UK's monarchy to drift towards a different model. I obviously doubt he'll be in favour of abandoning the gravy train altogether.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-m...
Edit: Not sure about the people of the UK choosing for things to be "this way" by beheading Charles I. That was ostensibly a choice for constitutional monarchy instead of absolute, but developed into abolition of the monarchy. It was followed by the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II, and I'm not sure that was much of a "choice" by the people either.
I think from KCIII onwards things will start to change as it becomes apparent that he and his descendants aren't really representative of the "the good old days".
You get used to falling in line with whatever going on, cause you're not getting to the traffic light before the corner-shop, if you fight it.
It's not "deep state" in the UK, it's the peak of the class system (or anglican faith). People aspire to go up these ranks, and having the royal family guide it all, directly or as a counterbalance.
It's no less or more weird than people stopping to watch the new Pope get elected or George Clooney and Julia Roberts try and go for a quite coffee on some sleepy sunday morning, just to be surrounded by people who should have better things to do than gawp at hollywood stars.
The government has been a constitutional monarchy for centuries, this has happened dozens of times before (with more & less bloodshed), and is well known, expected, it is completely legal, and the operation was well publicized.
You’re welcome to not like it, but acting incredulous shows how little you know about the UK.
Whether UK and Commonwealth citizens across the globe really want ceremonal proclamations of accession or not is moot -- they don't get a choice. This is the point. It's a bizarre anachronism that serves as a reminder of the class system, and our places within it.
Not sure what the problem is with a decidedly popular multi century tradition? I'm okay with this even if you don't like it. The British people could always vote the them out if they actually wanted to.
As for voting to remove the monarchy, in theory yes that's possible but would require some sort of referendum. Unlikely for a long time :) And as you point out, not currently likely to be popular.
As for what's wrong with an unelected elite family of multi-millionaires who are protected by the police, military, church, and all other state machinery... plenty has been written elsewhere :)
It seems odd to me that the monarchy could be viewed as merely "tradition", and a benign one at that. I guess this view has been aided by the way Elizabeth kept a steady hand on the wheel and expressed only the most anodyne opinions in public. I confess I am intrigued to see how Charles manages.
They are being arrested for being rude about it.
Was the fella on radio 4 who stated to the entire nation that ‘King Charles and his family should be put in a council house and that the Monarchy should be abolished’ arrested? No.
If you are going to attend a funeral, any funeral, be it the Queen’s or anyone else’s and hurl abuse or hold up signs with obscenities, you will be arrested.
There were arrests in which the arrestee has been unarrested, when the police made a mistake. Like the fella who stated that ‘we didn’t vote for him’ when King Charles was pronounced King.
You can, quite legally, protest the Monarchy. Being a dick about it and trying to upset people mourning will however be considered a breach of the peace or some other public order offence.
> They are being arrested for being rude about it.
Got it. Arrested for poor taste.
Hard to see the justification for that in a democracy?
People were arrested at Margaret Thatchers funeral for the same thing.
It’s not rocket science. You’re not allowed to do that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Laws_l...
Because that case doesn't strike down the state laws preventing protests in close proximity. It just ruled that the private citizen can't get lots of money for emotional distress caused by a protest.
Even in the US I would think protesting a funeral to be in extremely poor taste, no matter the target. What’s that Latin phrase about the recently dead?
Wait, what? Pretty sure dogs don't have the anatomical capability to do a nazi salute. At best they can just lift a leg up, but is that really a nazi salute?
Father Ted is Irish as in Republic of Ireland as in not UKoGB - we share a very, very strange border. Having said that, Father Ted was turned down by RTE for being too Irish and was eventually financed by the BBC! Thankfully it eventually aired because it is absolutely belting.
The cast and creators were Irish though.
If that falls under the rule you're describing, doesn't that render it impossible to protest a ceremony, as long as it happens after a funeral? It seems you're defining away the protest of hereditary succession as unacceptably rude?
The coronation is months away, he was protesting the ascension at the Queen's funeral procession. That does not avoid disparagement of the Queen.
I certainly don't think he should be arrested but he's clearly boneheaded. He'll have plenty of time to protest both the ascension and the coronation, of someone who is a much softer target that the Queen, especially considering she's just died.
PR own goal if ever there was one. Even Extinction Rebellion have had the good sense to postpone their demos. Is there anyone but the Western Baptist Church who thinks it's a good idea to protest at funerals?
They say if you support free speech you'll end up defending vile people, and it's true, he shouldn't be arrested, he should be allowed to say what he said, but he is vile and it was stupid.
Symon Hill was arrested for protesting at the regional proclamation in Oxford: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/21275817.photo-gallery-pro...
Where did you get the impression that this was a funeral procession?
Which means it was still not a coronation, it also wasn't a funeral procession, I still think he's boneheaded but not as much as before or nearly as much as the ones in Edinburgh, and none of them should've been arrested (maybe perhaps the one that shouted at Prince Andrew, but definitely not the others).
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she:
(a) uses threatening (or abusive) words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening (or abusive)"
It is worth noting that a long-running tradition in the UK is that if a policeman disagrees with a piece of legislation and the opportunity arises to challenge it favourably in court, he arrests somebody under the legislation in question in what may be favourable but reasonable circumstances (favourable to the defendant) in order to circumscribe the limitations of the act in question. As a consequence, in many ways, I therefore think that this may also be a challenge by police officers to the validity of the conservative government's latest legislation that aims to ban "disruptive" protests, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was largely modified to deal with the (IMO effective) protests of the Insulate Britain campaign who recently brought major motorways to a crawl. It is a deeply divisive and very authoritarian bill, and would cover this situation. Specifically, it provides that:
"[...] police forces are allowed to place restrictions on protests they believe would otherwise constitute an existing offence of public nuisance, including imposing starting and finishing times and noise limits, and be able to consider actions by one individual as protests under provisions of the Act. Protestors disobeying such instructions from the police may be committing a criminal offence."
As recognised by the police, positing the possibility of transitioning to a republic (from a constitutional monarchy) is almost certainly a clear-cut case of a legitimate piece of protest, and so if someone _did_ protest accordingly _without_ being rude and disruptive I think this would be a perfect opportunity for the courts to throw out the charge.
Edit: Further bits of fun law – "public nuisance" is both a tort and a very old legal concept, recommended effectively for removal and updating from the criminal statutes by the Law Commission in 2015 [2]. It is described quite formally in many words (c.f. [2]) but more usefully defined by the fact that it
typically consists either of an environmental nuisance, such as carrying on
works producing excessive noise or smells, or of offensive or dangerous behaviour
in public, such as noisy parties and hanging from bridges.
It also includes obstructing the public highway, though now this is also a statutory offence.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police,_Crime,_Sentencing_and_...
[2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Protests should be allowed, but it's not an absolute god given right - if you're being a dick, destroying public property, advocating violence or hate - then no, you shouldn't be allowed to protest. I know in America you let even neo nazis march your streets and boast how that's "freedom" but that's not freedom - that's blindly following certain ideology(freedom to do anything AT ALL costs) without any consideration as to what that does to your society.
> Protests should be allowed
They are.
> destroying public property
Is illegal and you can be arrested for it.
> advocating violence or hate
Is illegal and you can be arrested for it.
You just can’t be arrested for “being rude”. You have to commit a crime.
Protesting does not mean you’re immune to prosecution for non-free-speech crimes. What happened with the BLM riots was simply governments deciding, for one reason or another, not to stop the crimes being committed.
> Is illegal and you can be arrested for it.
This is untrue. Immediate, direct, actionable threats are illegal, saying "I/we/you need to go hunt down and murder X now" can be construed as an actionable threat.
Extolling the virtues of murder and opining about how nice it would be if someone finally hunted down and killed X is legal free speech.
You can talk about how X needs to die all you want, but if you start making immediate, direct, actionable threats towards X, that crosses territory from free speech to illegal threats.
Various circuit courts have different tests for what constitutes a true threat versus legal free speech, some of which can be found here[1].
For example, here's the 2nd Circuit's opinion:
> a true threat is “on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.”
[1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats
I generally like the right to protest, but i dont want 100% free for all.
What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest. For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face?
The fact that all state power eventually comes down to men with guns.
>What happens when the other side starts shooting at you? Do you think the guns still help you safely protest.
You either get out of there or you shoot back, that's really not a hard question. And to your second question yes, especially if the other side is shooting or threatening to shoot. Safer if you have guns as well than only they have guns. And just look at Kyle Rittenhouse, he would have been dead if he hadn't been armed. The third person he shot straight up said that he would have shot Kyle if Kyle hadn't vaporized his bicep first.
>For that matter, what use is a gun if someone from behind cover throws a molotov at your face?
Once again it makes you safer, because they can't risk throwing molotovs at you from out in the open. Your being armed helps you control when and from where they could possibly attack you with molotovs or whatever.
My personal experience of backpacking around the world was replete with lectures from 25-year-old European women about the US's issues. They were of such poor quality that I mostly just smiled and shrugged it off, knowing that it'd be a waste of my vacation to try and explain to them the nuances of cultural difference. But I had the delightful catharsis of schooling a particularly-obnoxious British girl on her country's role as the primary contender for history's greatest supervillain (unsurprisingly, her grasp of history and politics was.... poor).
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voti...
Or how about how everyone knows the political affiliations of supreme court judges? In a normal country judges are apolitical.
There's a bunch of reasons why the US is considered a flawed democracy, with the score going down every year, in the Democracy Index.
If shitting in the street were legal would you complain when people passed a law to stop your bad behaviour?
This isn't a case of protestors being repeatedly ignored - the public discussion about the monarchy is unfolding in most media outlets right now and other forms of protest are still quite available.
Additionally, while I think this is extremely unhealthy mentally, there was a not insignificant proportion of Britain that felt they had a personal relationship with the queen even if they never met her for tea.
But in fairness to the police there seems to be a mass fervour at the moment and they may actually be doing the hecklers a service by taking them away for their own safety...
The word hurling in the context of insults or obscenities means vocalizing them in a very audible fashion. The article states that the woman at St Giles was not audibly protesting but rather holding a sign. Given that she was quietly expressing her opinion, tasteful or not, it seems she could have been quietly removed without being arrested.
>"In widely seen photos, a woman holding a sign reading "Abolish monarchy" and "F*** imperialism" was arrested on Sunday at St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh, where the queen's body is to lie at rest until Tuesday.
Further the object of their protest was the institution and neither the mourners or the deceased.
The other two people mentioned in the article who were vocal, were outside on public streets and not in a Church. The article states they were near parade barricades. Again the object of their protest was the institution and it was being done on public streets. Surely you are allowed to express your discontent about an institution on a public street. That's not rocket science.
>"And in London, a woman was led away by four uniformed officers on Monday after holding up a sign reading "Not my king" — which has become a trending hashtag — near Westminster Hall."
Again we have a woman who was holding up a sign on a public street "near Westminster Hall."
These tired strawmen need to stop. Anti-royalists are being arrested for expressing anti-royal views in inconvenient places, not "hurling obscenities at a funeral".
Is there some democracy somewhere which doesn't have a public nuisance/breaching the peace style law?
It is only by convention that he doesn't, that will only last until you get a bad king/queen and thr right opportunity.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
Just get that fixed as well, that's not a great thing to have around.
Expressing your belief is an action. Speaking, writing, etc. are all actions. Belief without action doesn't exist
If that thief gets arrested, is it just because it is poor taste? No.
Same thing with hurling obscenities at a funeral.
If not, why did you respond with this to a question about is it morally right to protest at a funeral?
Is Putin coming?
In case I'm misunderstood, I don't feel strongly either way about the British royalty, but I'm OK with allowing a significant proportion of the population being left alone to get on with what ceremony they want to do, given that they want to do it.
Even more so if the public is the one paying for the funeral in the first place. You're definitely allowed to be rude at a funeral you're footing the bill for.
Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything you want wherever you want. I can't just walk into the Oval Office and start hurling obscenities at the President, and attempting to do so is likely to get me shot by the Secret Service.
For trespassing. This example has nothing to do with speech.
> Similar reports emerged Monday, including one case involving a man who was seen being forcibly removed from a parade barrier after shouting at the royal procession leading to the cathedral. He was reportedly heckling Prince Andrew.
This comparison just has nothing to do with speech at all. It’s categorically different. You’d get arrested for breaking into the Oval Office even if you remained silent the whole time.
Private funeral? Ok. State funeral that is essentially a big spectacle? Definitely not.
And yet at the same time one of the biggest movies in the cinema was a Nazi spoof comedy with jokes in far poorer taste. But the movie producers have money.
The rules are different for regular plebs, that's as simple as that. And the lesson is that everyone should know their place.
A random guy making a nazi salute for a joke and uploading it on youtube is more like documentary evidence of a crime, not an art form. There is a reason promoting nazi salutes is a crime in most of Europe, and it really doesn't matter he did it as a joke - it's simply not a laughing matter. Yes to American ears it might sound weird - that there is a topic that cannot even be joked about or you risk getting arrested. I don't really have a reply for that, other than the fact that it feels right to me, given the attrocities comitted by Nazis against our people - I think doing a nazi salute publicly(and I count uploading videos on youtube as "public"), even as a joke, is not acceptable at all.
Sure, this is a difference in norms (and law) that I'm intentionally taking for granted, and trying to further understand. If equally-applied, it's a little more comprehensible to me (eg Germany requiring massive game studios to censor Nazi symbolism in WW2 games).
But I have a much stronger revulsion reaction to the idea that the govt should be in the business of deciding whose expression is "actually" art, and inconsistently allowing well-connected creators latitude that nobodies aren't privy to. I don't doubt that there are many people find the Nazi pug funnier than the Father Ted joke (and vice versa); the idea that the latter is uniquely acceptable because a _British govt agency_ decided it was funny is astonishing to me.
Not what happened though.
The really funny thing is that poor pleb is branded a "fascist", while the powerful people who came after him are considered brave and valiant freedom fighters for doing so. I mean it would be funny if it wasn't terrifying and Orwellian.
I don't think anyone has this kind of mindset - at least I certainly don't. Anyone should be arrested for joking with nazi salutes, no matter if they are rich or poor. Not sure why you think that corporations get away with it - is there any corporation out there that uploads "joke" nazi salutes to youtube and gets away with it? If you mean films specifically, then films get approval of the British Film Comission which judges anything submited based on artistic merit. We can disagree with its rulings, but it's not like a corporation has "the right to do whatever it likes" as you put it. Quite the opposite in fact.
>>The really funny thing is that poor pleb is branded a "fascist"
I don't find this funny at all, glorifying nazi imagery(and yes, "joke" nazi salutes achieve exactly that) is no laughing matter.
>>while the powerful people who came after him are considered brave and valiant freedom fighters for doing so
You mean....the police?
I think people here just don't get it - making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies. The horrors of WW2 are still too fresh and the pain too great to allow it - we have made these laws to make sure that nazis don't come back, and anything associated with them is banned. You might think "well what sort of harm does a single youtube video do, the guy was clearly joking". And yeah, it's obvious to you and me - but to some, that will be a "funny" thing to repeat. After all, they are only joking, they don't mean it really, it's fine, right? No, it's not, and unfortunately it has to be stomped out as early as possible. Again, I understand that this might sound alien especially to American readers, but I don't have anything else to say on that matter, other that it feels like the right thing to do, given the topic.
Oh I think they do. They won't admit it when you put it like that of course, many probably don't even admit it to themselves because they simultaneously see themselves also as resistance fighters raging against powerful established interests, on behalf of the oppressed.
> I don't find this funny at all,
I wasn't talking about the content of the joke. I think nazi jokes can be pretty hilarious though, especially the ones where they do mock salutes. Perhaps you just have to appreciate a bit of good old British humor to feel that way, though.
> glorifying nazi imagery(and yes, "joke" nazi salutes achieve exactly that) is no laughing matter.
I believe you probably genuinely think a pug doing a salute is glorifying nazis, that nobody else could reasonably disagree, and that society needs to be protected from this and stamping it out by locking up commoners who dare to defy the state edicts.
> You mean....the police?
The police, the prosecutors, the judges, the legislators. Sure.
> I think people here just don't get it - making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies.
At least when it comes to the UK, I don't think so. The British are known for doing comedies of the war and nazis almost from the start. They have had a very long tradition of joking about nazis including mocking their salutes, as well as giving their rich and ruling class a double standard about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddWNMSUbcGI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb5zUG9UzFE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWjCkcAmzDc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWIyVRNAxCg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f--KSEkC8Ik
https://www.thenews.com.pk/assets/uploads/updates/2020-10-06...
This one's even a recent German comedy featuring Hitler himself doing a nazi salute!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUZi67BmY_M
So no I think you're wrong, it's revisionist to say that satirizing nazis including and mocking their salutes was some big offensive taboo.
I think the society needs to be protected from trivialization of Nazi gestures and symbology, not from pugs on youtube specifically. I know you are trying to reduce it to absolute absurdity so my argument can be easily dismissed, but I'm sure you can also see how it wouldn't be appropriate to have a short Tik Tok video of someone making a Nazi salute and then saying "it's just a joke, everyone relax". No one got hurt, they only did it for the views, but it still wouldn't be ok - not because we want to live in a society of oppresion and censorship, but because using a nazi salute as a joke in itself without any context(context like in all the examples you posted) is poor taste at best. Can we at least agree on that?
>> it's revisionist to say that satirizing nazis including and mocking their salutes was some big offensive taboo.
I also live in the UK, and I think we are arguing about two separate things. One is mocking nazis in art and media - there you are absolutely correct, there is a history there and it is generally allowed.
What I'm pointing out is that I don't believe European societies accept Nazi salutes as jokes pretty much anywhere outside of art/comedy/standup context. Go to a party in the UK and start marching with your hand raised up straight, if anyone complains say "it's a joke bro" - see how fast you get kicked out. My bet is very very very fast.
That's my entire feeling about this - that a random short YT clip of nazi salutes is the equivalent of that "it's a joke bro" mentality. It's not allowed not because we love oppression, it's not allowed because it trivializes something that has left such deep scars on our societies.
No, I don't agree with anything you said in that paragraph. As I said, the mindset is alien to me. My attitude is not one of subservience to the government and I don't look to the ruling class as my savior, protector, my better, wiser, or even inherently good.
And taste is entirely on the tongue of the beholder.
> I also live in the UK, and I think we are arguing about two separate things.
I don't think so. You said "making Nazi salutes even as a joke is not acceptable in European societies", which is wrong as I provided evidence for. nazi salutes as a joke is in fact acceptable even in Germany -- at least when it is the rich and powerful doing it. If you are revising your position now, don't paint it like we were just arguing past one another.
> What I'm pointing out is that I don't believe European societies accept Nazi salutes as jokes pretty much anywhere outside of art/comedy/standup context.
What you are also pointing out is that you believe it's okay for rich and powerful people and corporations to make said jokes and anoint themselves "deciders" about who may make jokes and who should be punished for making jokes.
Teaching a pug to do nazi salutes is a joke. Really. Handwringing about the raw horrors of the war or the threat of the reich rising again if this is allowed just isn't credible. It's the same fearmongering and denouncements and threats that the powerful have always used to silence the people and justify their oppression.
The nazis did not rise because Germans were permitted to make tasteless jokes. They rose because Germans were able to be convinced that their fellow citizens posed a grave threat to them, and that they needed the government to protect them and save their society by oppressing this menace.
You absolutely do, and spend several paragraphs justifying it, I'm terribly embarrassed on your behalf that I had to read that.
1. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2006-04-20-060420... - the government didn't directly step in in this case but the protestors were effectively silenced by way to crowds of decent folks with loud motorcycles.
However, the UK is a kingdom in various important ways, and this was the funeral of the head of state and the head of the official state religion.
People want a figurehead. If you elect the figurehead they have political power (because of democratic legitimacy) and that's bad. Monarchy is better for this purpose.
The US governance model is unsound, it's been around for only a relatively brief period and it's crumbling. France's setup is better, but if there had been some way to not execute the King of France I think they'd be doing just fine with some guy in a fancy hat living in one of their palaces and somebody to represent France as an idea who isn't connected to a political executive.
France deposed its last two kings and its last emperor without executing them so I think we can safely assume than no actually no one wants a king there.
Henri, compte de Chambord (the inflexible idiot, proud descendant of a line of either inflexible or too flexible idiots), is thus considered as the French Washington - without him the Republic wouldn't have been possible.
No, that’s only Tiers and the other idiots of the French right who had already dishonoured France during the the semaine sanglante and was only elected by the part of France which wasn’t occupied by Prussia. The left was republican but the commune had temporary weakened it. There was no way a return to monarchy would have hold. The population wasn’t really in favour of it which is why the third kept going.
Their disagreement amongst the right went much further than the flag anyway. No one agreed about who should rule and under which constitution.
Not sure the US is crumbling, there are some alarming elements but then we've always had our fair share of dummies over here. Somehow we've stumbled our way into a pretty powerful position, but of course as the UK can attest, global power can evaporate quite quickly. Hypothetically, if we undergo a Rome style transition from representative government to empire, does that count as stable?
> in London, a woman was led away by four uniformed officers on Monday after holding up a sign reading "Not my king" — which has become a trending hashtag — near Westminster Hall.
If you count that as rude, you're essentially counting any dissent as rude, no?
Edit: there's an even better example, of a man who was nowhere near any funerary rites, calling out "who elected him" at the proclamation of Charles' ascension.
https://twitter.com/paulpowlesland/status/156935177260655002...
Or, more precisely, he was going around with this blank sign, asking officers whether he would be arrested if he were to write that on the blank paper, according to the account here:
https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/man-said-warned-risked-arre...
Which is substantially worse.
Rudeness is so subjective and context sensitive that it really shouldn't form the basis for arrests
Why did you post that comment?
(The jail sentence was suspended, but that’s hardly the point. Any criminal conviction, even a fine, carries the ultimate threat of jail, or, if you resist arrest, even death — all this, for a joke).
I've lived on these shores (South Somerset) for 52 years now and I have made the most awful jokes about some things as anyone probably has here. However, there is a point beyond which I won't go - causing deliberate hurt.
I don't know about the particular case that you refer to or actually skirt around - citation needed please.
A joke does not cause hurt beyond a slight nick with a possible small amount of blood loss. Beyond that it is not a joke and is an insult.
Funny how that works.
specifically, why would we bring to account those responsible for the actual fire anytime soon? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/21/as-the-grenf...
I'm just saying that it's not worse than direct censorship.
It does not seem like having a "fuck imperialism" sign should ever get you arrested in a country that is supposedly one of the closest allies of the US.
Hmmmm... /s?
Okay, fair point – I missed the fact that SA is also currently a somewhat key US ally.
But you know what I mean, hopefully. The UK has typically been close enough socially and politically that the term "Special Relationship" has its own Wikipedia page [1].
----------------------------------------
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121322520/a-black-protester-...
But the principle of freedom of speech seems generally more accepted, which is why Brittany Martin's case would be recognized by most Americans here for the racist outrage that it is. On the other hand, you have UK people elsewhere in the thread shrugging "yeah, that's a law" [1]), which is what was surprising to me.
----------------------------------------
[1] An example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32817744
Of course, unless, by ‘principle’ you mean ‘only under certain conditions, sometimes, for some things to be said, by some people, to some specific set of people, YMMV’, in which case I fail to see the difference to the UK (or Saudi Arabia, for that matter). You also have that complete principle of freedom to praise the prince in SA.
Digging far away, only the US tried to ban alcohol consumption, an angle only islamic countries are also interested in as far as I know. Looking back only a few weeks ago, abortion protection has been abolished nation wide. To only take super salient points.
1. Not all of the arrests have been made at a "funeral" 2. It wasn't a funeral 3. If you're going to have a very public precession, parading a body through the streets with all the obedients lapping it up, surely you have to have a level of tolerance for dissenting voices? I imagine the disruption this event caused on Edinburgh was pretty large...
There's wall to wall coverage of this event happening worldwide right now, we need room for the dissenting voices too. Otherwise it's just outright sycophancy
Well... that's what the monarchy practice is all about. God-like status for some god-forsaken reason. Blind sycophancy.
Better to direct that impulse towards a dignified institution that does nothing but attract tourists and occasionally signal society’s values than towards something that tries to have efficient and lethal decision-making power.
Surely we should resist our less productive qualities, like sycophancy. Not try to channel it to some "worthy cause".
I don’t see how your view isn’t personally exhausting. And I don’t see what’s so bad about trying to channel our less productive qualities to better ends than letting them run wild and wishing they didn’t exist.
And if we must channel some unavoidable desires then must it be to adore people who won life's lottery? (Or must we heap praise upon someone who appears to have done little to move the needle forward?)
Solving this problem requires solving coordination problems. Solving coordination problems requires creating a sense of community where people are motivated to act beyond their self interest. Collective motivation at that level requires symbolism and ceremony tapping into the deepest familial affections of the human heart.
The royal family will beat you at that game. You might choose to play a different one.
Citation needed.
> The royal family will beat you at that game. You might choose to play a different one.
Monarchs are born into unearned power, wealth, and privilege. They are the last people I'd consider successful at coordinating humanity for the better. Great Britain's own history is drenched in enough innocent blood. Whatever gains originated there appear largely attributable to luck and or non-royal endeavors.
Others will do otherwise.
You might kick one demon out of the house and get seven in return.
How?
> Might as well channel all those destructive qualities into adoring and obeying those born into wealth and prestige.
We've more or less gotten rid of royalty, and now we have celebrities shamelessly shilling just about anything - what an improvement! I would prefer neither, but I don't think that's ever going to happen without people being forced to take responsibility for themselves.
I agree with you on the monarchy, and I'm an atheist as well, and I still can't help but read your comment as divisive and distracting from your earlier argument for a sarcastic barb at the bible.
You haven't even argued against the metaphor at all, you've only stated you think the bible is illogical. For what it's worth there are secular equivalents of this sort of risk analysis metaphor; the bird in the hand, a stitch in time, one today is worth two tomorrows, etc.
To the procession or the monarchy? If you say the procession, sure. If you're talking about dissenting voices against the monarchy, I think that can be done without disrupting a memorial service.
A large portion of the life of the royal family is public, even funded by the taxpayer, so to me it makes sense to allow for opposing viewpoints to be heard. Perhaps you can argue that a memorial service isn't the most appropriate time (though, I don't really subscribe to this viewpoint given just how much this memorial is rammed down our throats) to protest, I do think its where its likely to generate the most coverage. There is never going to be a more appropriate time to get people to listen
Edit: Just to clarify the point further - Not all of the arrests being discussed were made in Edinburgh (where the procession took place). Its debatable how much impact a person holding a blank sign in Oxford has on the events in Edinburgh (though I would wager its infinitesimally small). Equally, holding a sign with a swearword on it doesn't really "disrupt" in any meaningful sense either. A lot of people defend the police action on the grounds that it "may" have lead to violence via provocation and the person was arrested for "their own safety", but in that case why follow through with the charge? Rather than "de-arresting" (whatever that means) afterwards
Edit: evidently people are confused. Here it is from the horse’s mouth: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m...
In the sense that that arrangement could be reversed without massive upcry, a constitutional crisis, and the dissolution of the monarchy? Not realistically. The government has de facto control of the Estate, and the monarchy receives a de facto taxpayer-funded income (plus their private ownership through other property.)
Take a look at "the official web site of the British Royal Family. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present." [1]
That website has a webpage devoted to the "Royal Finances" [2] that says, "There are three sources of funding for The Queen, or officials of the Royal Household acting on Her Majesty’s behalf, in both a public and private capacity. These are: the Sovereign Grant, the Privy Purse and The Queen’s personal wealth and income."
"The Sovereign Grant: This is the amount of money provided by Government to the Royal Household in support of The Queen’s official duties, including the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces: Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, Clarence House, Marlborough House Mews, the residential and office areas of Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle and the buildings in the Home and Great Parks at Windsor, and Hampton Court Mews and Paddocks."
Ultimately the origins of most property is tied up in violence, not just that of the royal family.
To respond only to your financial arguments: there are different ways of looking at the costs and benefits of the UK royals.
Firstly, taxation:
“the monarchy cost the taxpayer £102.4m”. Last tax year HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) “collected £716.0 billion in taxes”[0].
Let’s assume the “cost of living crisis” affects 10 million people. £100 million given to them would mean an extra 10 quid per person per annum. A worthwhile difference, but hardly solving the problem. There’s way more pounds of flesh or fat to cut elsewhere in the budget.
Secondly: costs and waste are easy to see, but gains are often not seen. Does the UK earn more from the royals than the royals cost?
“[The royals] contributed an estimated $2.7 billion annually to the U.K. economy prepandemic. The impact the royal family has on the U.K. economy is mostly through tourism, but Haigh notes there are other financial benefits, such as free media coverage of Britain (which was an estimated $400 million in 2017). There are also many valuable royal warrants granted by the monarch—essentially a stamp of approval on high-end consumer products like Barbour jackets and Johnnie Walker whisky. [snip] The economic advantages for companies and institutions in the royal family’s orbit far exceed the $550 million cost associated with the family’s massive operating expenses, according to Haigh.”[-1].
Of course, there are non-monetary costs and gains of the monarchy that are much harder to value.
Pure ownership in dollars “How The Royal Family’s $28 Billion Money Machine Really Works”[-1³] can be compared against the wealth of other dynastic wealth families. It doesn’t make the top 10 in the world[π]. And probably not #1 in the UK[§] with the first royal family showing at #12 (although there are non-$ benefits such as status of being royalty, and non-$ costs/risks).
Even in New Zealand we are all paying a few dollars a year for costs related to the monarchy[1].
[-1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielshapiro/2021/03/10/inside-...
[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmrc-tax-and-nics-r...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_New_Zealand
[π] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/052416/top-10...
[§] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sunday-times-rich-list
Edits: added details.
But the reason I did so was to underline the point that the public have a right to attend, whatever their point of view, since its likely that a % of the cost for the proceedings will fall on the taxpayer
I merely did some googling because I was sceptical! Disclaimer: I am not a royal apologist: born and live in the “colonies”, and I am not a fan of the remaining encumbrances that New Zealand has with any royalty.
This point is being made all over the thread and seems disingenuous. The extremely public memorial service for the reigning monarch is a deeply political event. If this was some private service being protested, even if it was the royal family, the point would stand. But this is not that. Not only is the transfer of power to the heir at the moment of death a huge part of the monarchy by design, the memorial service itself is used to affirm that same system in an extremely public and official way. If people can't protest that because it's a "memorial service" then when can they protest the monarchy? I'm sure protesting it when the queen was ill would also be in poor taste. And apparently protesting the new king right now as he is being declared king is also not possible. What's left?
If they want to avoid making a change, they use this to put us off. The objections seem so plausible. But I’ve learned to use it to gauge when they have no intention of ever listening to us.
Very similar to your monarchy in many respects.
To be fair, when you consider that the Queen lived for 96 years and there hasn't been an event like this since 1953, the cost spread out over that much time really isn't that much.
Long live the King!! (to keep costs down)
Did you miss the whole Platinum Jubilee celebration two months ago for the Queen? [1] The scope of that was also over the top and costs 10's of millions of pounds. There was also the Saphire Jubilee 5 years ago, the Diamond Jubilee in 2012, the Golden Jubilee in 2002, there's at least a few others as well.
What are the Crown Estate assets worth? How many billions? And the public are not only expected to foot the bill for this over the top pageantry but they are supposed to do so with unwavering fealty? And at a time when the average person is worried about skyrocketing inflation and energy costs?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum_Jubilee_of_Elizabeth_...
See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-a...
"In exchange for this public support, The Queen surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government. Over the last ten years, the revenue paid to the Exchequer is £3 billion for public spending."
Basically by allowing the monarchy a fund to be used to carry out their public (and private) duties, the surplus of royal holdings revenue goes into public spending. I don't know the exact numbers but the situation is a LOT more complex than "the taxpayer pays for the monarchs, reeee".
See: https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-57559653
and
Here are some of the key figures from the royal accounts for 2020-2021:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-29/how-much-...
The RF owns the Crown Estate. Of this estate the UK government sits on/uses part of that estate. Therefore they're essentially paying "rent" for what they're using.
However it used to be that the RF received all of the income from the Crown Estate. The SG was an agreement that they would forgo taking all of the income and only a portion of it; the rest goes to public spending.
Hell, they even had to invoke a provision to make up the amount should it fall: "A decrease in the Crown Estate's rental income during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the first use of the provision that prevents the value of the Sovereign Grant from falling, with the Treasury committing to make up the shortfall.".
It's a weird system for sure. The treasury pays out rent for all Royal Holdings that are being used by the goverment/public. Then 15%~ of that rent (plus income from other parts of the holdings) is available to the RF as a part of the SG. The rest goes back to the public.
There is a valid point made that security isn't included in these costs/returns, though. But at the end of the day, it's because the RF owns huge swathes of land and businesses, etc that they are paid. Sure they could be stripped of them but that sets a precedent.
This isn't a private funeral. Hell it's not even a funeral, it's a procession and a tax payer funded public event as well. I can _maybe_ get asking the person with the "fuck imperialism" sign to not use a sign with "fuck" on it (Don't mind myself but I know plenty of old folk will) but there's absolutely nothing wrong with someone declaring "Not my King".
On the plus side we now have viral examples of how Tory policies have in fact stepped on freedom of speech, contrary to their claims.
What exactly is an "obedient"? Are you really deploying a disparaging tag on people who are mourning? That seems a bit crass to me.
"we need room for the dissenting voices too" - I saw on C4 (UK TV channel) this evening, some people in Scotland describing their disaffection with the Monarchy. That's fine and quite right.
I also find the sheer amount of coverage a bit overwhelming but in the end no one knows what is appropriate - it's not happened before like this - and let's face it, if you were running a TV channel or radio or whatever, you would probably err on the side of caution too unless you were decidedly commercially stupid!
No one really knows what is appropriate. A lot of the ceremonies are only now being televised.
I have to say that, whilst the sheer bulk of 'er Maj programmes is starting to feel a little excessive, I understand why. Some of them are pretty good too.
We will pop out of the other side of this event and the world will continue to turn but we must remember that a King and his bros and moes (sorry!) and their kids and grandkids and great-grandkids have lost a pretty decent human. As have we all.
They are an odd lot and they are our odd lot. If it helps, I understand that they are a net gain financially via tourism alone. Not sure how that is costed but I suspect it is probably true.
It's fine to imply you prefer a republic instead or perhaps something else but why not be positive about your preferred solution instead of sniping at the current situation.
What exactly do you want?
Yeah, its a crass term I will agree with you there. The public has come out in droves to support the royal family and respect the ongoing proceedings and a small number have vocally voiced their opposition to the situation and are being condemned for doing so. So, I used this charged term rather cheaply to paint with broad strokes the kind of person I imagine to lap up this unique moment.
> I saw on C4 (UK TV channel) this evening, some people in Scotland describing their disaffection with the Monarchy. That's fine and quite right.
Here I also agree with you that its nice to hear that C4 was airing voices of people with dissenting perspectives, but I don't necessarily think it should be confined to the TV or the internet as the "appropriate place" to air such views. I think going out and publicly protesting it is much more impactful
> What exactly do you want?
For people to realise that this isn't just a private occasion for immediate family to pay their respects to the recently departed. That the Royal family, for better or worse, has and continues to play a significant role in the ongoing story of this country and in having such a prominent and public position should be tolerant (even understanding?) of those who oppose, rather than to have it simply be quashed and scrubbed away
I'm not too sure yet what on earth is going on here. It is unprecedented and I think the media are quite scarred by what happened when Diana died and the subsequent events. I remember those days quite well.
I think that we are still learning how to grieve as a nation. I lost my mum 25 odd years back (about a year after Diana passed away) and have buried quite a lot of family since and come to terms with some of the seamier sides of life. It is the way of things but I don't think that Britain, let alone any other country has worked out how to deal with death properly.
It sometimes looks quite bizarre but I think that the UK has the basics laid for a pretty good mechanism for dealing with grief. It will work itself out somehow.
That said, I understand that not everyone is a fan of the royals and would prefer a republic. For now, why not recognise a loss of a person who has been here for 90+ years and tomorrow we'll debate the future.
If that "pretty decent human" saw you were on fire, she wouldn't have deigned to put you out with her piss, and neither would any of her "odd lot." She wasn't your doddering, sweet old grandma, she was literally draped in blood-jewels stolen from two subjugated and enslaved continents.
Scotland in particular has a long running loathing of the monarchy, so any superheated response is not remotely surprising.
Anyone obsequious enough to happily sing "God Save the Queen\King" and tolerate being ruled by elitists assholes called Royalty in 2022
Thanks to the Internet, there is ample room for all kinds of voices.
Conversely Whilst considered in egregiously poor taste, burlish crass and offensive protests are generally permitted in the USA provided they are performed on public property. a prime example is the Westboro Baptist Church, a cavalcade of questionably religious zealots who protest everything from LGBTQ funerals to the funerals of war veterans. They shout, scream, and generally send mourners into distress and misery for the duration of their service.
and they'd win
I think it's a really complicated question.
Lastly, while we're on this topic - why hasn't the US seized the wealth of the 100 most wealthy individuals unilaterally - that money would be of immense amount of benefit to the country so why do we let wealth accrue?
He wasn’t good at making decisions.
When King George died, his stamp collection went to his widow, who kept it until her death at 102.
There’s probably personal property like that scattered throughout the family tree.
Also The Queen has a hell of a lot of hidden wealth.
Am I allowed to be rude to a cashier because I pay them?
Do you not see what (non-monetary) price public figures pay for their role?
If prince Andrew gets to parade around in public give the peasants some leeway as well
A woman who held an “abolish monarchy” sign at a proclamation ceremony for King Charles III in Edinburgh has now been charged with a criminal offence.
That's not a funeral, nor was her political statement rude.
A better example is the man calling out "who elected him" to the proclamation of Charles III, at a ceremony that had as little as possible to do with funerary rites while still dealing with her son's ascension.
The better example is
Often they're being arrested for their own safety, you only have to look at the example of the chip shop owner in Muir of Ord, who posted a video online and now her chippy has a smashed window.
Do you leave the person with the offensive sign there? I can easily see some "have a go hero" deciding to tear the sign to bits and causing a fight to happen.
Whatever your view on those cases, many of these interactions have happened at proclamations and just in public places, well away from the Queen. One shouldn't be threatened with imprisonment for peacefully airing their personal views.
You defend it all like it's one horrific thing that needs to be stopped, and I find that far more distasteful than anything any of these people have said.
You can not say you support free speech but also support the arrest of someone for a "abolish the monarchy, fuck imperialism" sign, or for saying "who elected him".
Is this China or Russia? This sounds insane to me. Meanwhile, the UK ruling class is free to gut the NHS and bleed the population dry and none of them give a shit. The British sense of "decorum" is pure bullshit.
It’s a shame that the UK doesn’t have robust protections for free speech. In the US, you certainly will not be arrested for this. We have Supreme Court precedent preventing it.
In fairness, we didn't vote for the Prime Minister either.
Where was this fella when we needed him in parliament?
I think UK democracy has a much bigger democratic problem than whether there is a symbolic monarch.
Unlike the monarch, the Prime Minister we didn't vote for is a political activist with serious power and a nasty agenda - including the agenda to reduce freedom to protest and other basic rights of the people.
In fairness to the Queen, as far as I know she never asked that we reduce the people's rights and freedoms, and in fairness to the new King, one of the things he is known for is being a climate and environment activist, which was viewed as kooky a couple of decades ago but looks prescient and relevant to the times now.
There's no obligation to protest everything you disagree with, why would you suggest there is? Furthermore, how do you know they _didnt_ protest the PM? The PM may not have been voted for, but a crucial difference is, unlike the monarchy, the position of PM is not handed down by hereditary lineage.
> including the agenda to reduce freedom to protest and other basic rights of the people.
Don't you think perhaps these two events are related? You chastise someone for protesting, whilst bemoaning the right for protest being eroded. A strange contradiction.
No I didn't, someone else did. HN is not one person posting under hundreds of usernames :-)
The funeral hasn't happened yet, Google tells me it's on September 19, 6 days from now.
Coming from the country that has held Julian Assange in a dungeon for the crime of journalism for years at the behest of the United States, this comes as no surprise. And people wonder why, when UK and other "Western" leaders point at Russia and China and cry about "authoritarianism", people with brains and morality are disgusted with their hypocrisy.
We're truly scratching the bottom of the barrel of pro-censorship arguments here. This is parody-grade stuff. "I am for freedom of speech an all, but this person held a rude sign during a massively public political event. Arrest them and drag them through courts!"
Doesn't take a political science degree to see what's wrong with this law. When cops get to decide what is a justifiably loud protest and what isn't you no longer have the right to protest. Protests are meant to disrupt, if you can't be loud about it then it no longer has its intended effect.
They are meant to convince your fellow citizens of your position.
Being a disruptive $#@t, not only defeats that purpose, it actually causes more people to vote against you.
Moreover, emotionally driven teenagers (or stunted "adults") use these protests as a pubescent venting mechanism to smash business and mistreat adults they encounter, like some narcissistic violent therapy session.
It should absolutely be illegal.
Also impressive the one lady was simply holding a sign. That doesn't sound very noisy to me...
(Unlike politicians, who will be gone in 4 years or so anyway, media outlets are terrified of upsetting the royal family, who are permanent).
I understand that it is popular among the general public because fairytales and costumes and stuff , but i have to shake my head at how some reporters talk seriously about "peaceful transition of power", when there is no power
I don't think [this is] how power works, specially in a monarchy. Peaceful transition means the power base that has given fealty to Mr. X is now accepting Mr. Y. That is the 'transition'.
Because it is gross to worship a useless, elitist parasite like the Queen.
I guess it's not that unusual though to lower the flag for a few days on the death of a foreign leader. Apparently we went 3 days for Shinzo Abe. Nothing for Gorbachev, though. (Maybe it would have been worth it just to annoy Putin.) Not sure when the last time was we went 11 days or more for a non-US figure.
> In 1979, Monty Python's Life of Brian was considered so controversial it was given an X certificate and banned from some British cinemas.
And no, I don’t mean it as a joke
If Britain wants to survive the next 100 years, they need to make some brave decisions. Dissolve monarchy and the class system, get back into EU, and hope Scotland will not declare independence.
Also, USA, wtf, why are you flying the flag at half staff? Did you forget what you fought about in 1776?
(edit: Actually I looked it up and apparently it has flown at half staff for foreign leaders a few times in the past. My bad, knee jerk reaction.)
yeah, i thought that was weird too. It was ordered by Joe Biden, he might actually have forgotten what our ancestors fought about in 1776.
Not having our views represented in parliament whilst having our taxes decreased to bail out the British East India Company.
The American revolution was supported by around 30% of the colonists by the time it started. And that was only after the media-owning elites spent years churning out non-stop pieces trying to promote the perspective. Of course the taxes primarily affected those wealthy elites and they knew a revolution would significantly benefit them
Do you know who John Hancock was? It's often said that this author of the largest signature on the Declaration of Independence was of little to know historical relevance. However I think he's extremely relevant. He represented what the real engine behind the revolution: Rich people that owed a lot of debts to the Brits. In fact if you look through the list you'd find that a huge number of the signers owed debt that they would be freed of, come such a revolution. Alexander Hamilton is now so celebrated precisely because he was one of the very few exceptions to this
Because one half of the Special Relationship had their head of state die? If the Canadian PM were assassinated, would you be up in arms over a half-mast due to the War of 1812?
I am equally frustrated with India doing the same. Though we did it for Shinzo Abe so it's fine I guess
I know the UK has a lot of old money but I can't imagine a way in which this could be "dissolved" peacefully.
Getting rid of their magical fairy kingdom trappings (again) might give the population an impetus to flex some popular sovereignty over their own country. Pair it with the abolition/democratization of the Lords, and they'll finish the revolution that Cromwell spoiled.
Ironically, in the last decade the Lords have a much better track record that the Commons. They applied real scruitiny to the opressive protest bill, the Brexit bill and the bill to deal with unsafe building we discovered in the wake of corporate manslaughter, which was a result of rampant fraud in the construction industry. As a result the lords were threatened with dissolution
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56905882
Up until now, it had been people with, admittedly, rather unpleasant views. Perhaps that is why it had been ignored. But we’re now seeing why ignoring it is dangerous.
This is by design.
Meanwhile it's somehow not disrespectful to replace the Queen within hours.
Something that 0.0001% of the population is doing (protesting)
The ONLY story that makes it on the various news sites (it's eye catching)
Everyone gets a skewed reality that no one likes this new King and has been against the monarchy this entire time.
We had another study a few days ago about how one way to convince people to change their mind is to convince them that everyone else already has. The media is controlling people more than anyone realizes.
From my own (admittedly uneducated on this topic) perspective, British government doesn't make any sense as it looks like a modern republic from a distance but they still have lords, kings, dukes, and other titles of nobility that seem incompatible with that.
Does the King still have the ability to order people around and pass his own laws?
They act as a head of state in the same way that e.g: Germany has a President.
Noble ranks like Duke and Baron are also completely irrelevant to governance.
Lords _are_ relevant, on the other hand. They form the House of Lords, which plays a role as (simplifying) a check on the power of the House of Commons.
Hereditary Lords (i.e. the noble aristocracy in the UK) have almost no political power. The ninety or so still in the House of Lords are elected by fellow members of the House of Lords. The remainder (600+) of the peers are appointed by the party in power in the commons.
English Civil War. Monarchy has been tool parliament ever since.
A Canadian perspective... Did you know that king has to approve all of Canada's laws? So when Canadians elect their government, and that people-elected govt passes a law, that's not good enough to become law. It has to get Royal Assent from the current king/queen. Canadians even pledge allegiance to the 'King and his heirs' - and that includes Andrew the Pedophile - its part of the citizenship oath. Many Canadian will fight tooth and nail to keep this system intact.
Australia got smart and changed the citizenship oath some time ago. As a result, you no longer have to pledge to a pedophile!!
But that's just domestically. The real pragmatic power is actually in foreign affairs and is way overlooked. A single visit of a British monarch to a regime would basically grant instant validity of their status. Imagine if King Charles III visited the Taliban. Obviously that specific situation is extremely unlikely, but I'd argue that Queen Elizabeth has played a really seminal role in keep some pretty fucked up regimes in power
"The jury acquitted Martin of inciting a riot and reached no verdict on whether she threatened officers' lives. Her legal team was "elated" when jurors found her guilty only of breaching the peace, punishable by no more than a $500 fine and 30 days in jail, investigator Tony Kennedy recalled.
State law defines breachers of the peace as any disturbers, "dangerous and disorderly persons" or people who utter "menaces or threatening speeches." But prosecutors presented the charge as a "high and aggravated" crime, which carries up to 10 years imprisonment. "
For better or worse, the monarch is the legitimate sovereign. There is a chain going back almost 1,000 years.[2] Are we, now living, the ones who get to break that? If we are, then we should have a good reason to do so.
A future change where the monarchy effectively ceases to exist is entirely plausible. But any change like that should only happen by agreement. And there is no pressing need for it that I can see.
[1] Take, for example, the Crown Estate. Lands that the sovereign controlled but which were effectively given to the state. A huge transfer of economic power, done bloodlessly and within the laws of the nation. [2] Yes, there was a civil war. But there was also a restoration.
Legitimacy is not a currency; it derives directly from consent. If the “we, now living” no longer consent to a monarch, then the monarch has no legitimacy.
Its mere existence is sufficient reason to end it. The very concept of Kings and Queens is anathema to democracy.
Signing lucrative Netflix contracts, selling "Sussex" branded trinkets, going on Oprah, and bringing out autobiographies (no doubt containing scandal) has no doubt already made them a 7 figure sum.
The god save the queen stuff is kind of traditional and doesn't mean much. "God save the queen / The fascist regime..." (Sex Pistols) is also kind of traditional and quite popular. No one forces you to sing either but the Pistols did much better in the charts.
A lot of non UK folk seem to have some strange ideas about how it works here. The royals haven't had much power for centuries.
At least we get a figurehead who is generally popular vs say electing a Trump/Clinton and having half the population hate them until they get ejected for someone the other half hates.
Having such an incredibly obsequious national anthem focused on a single person means a great deal to me.
"A lot of non UK folk seem to have some strange ideas about how it works here. The royals haven't had much power for centuries."
I understand this, but what baffles and disgusts me is that you act like they still do and are better than you. It just makes my skin crawl.
The fact that people as scummy and Prince Andrew are considered to be Royalty makes this all the worse.
It is completely different. It is far more sycophantic and servile.
And why America declared No Truce with Kings. And why US presidents are not allowed to bow to kings. (Well, weren't until W did.)
People made a lot more fuss about Obama because, you know, "Barack Hussein Obama", etc. Trump was seen doing it too.
But if those three did, then did earlier presidents, and they just weren't documented? Or weren't made a big deal of when they did?
Instead, claiming that Obama and Trump also violating their public trust makes my observation "slanted" is actively dishonest: I said that W did it first, and W did it first. Period.
HW, not W. And maybe others before; HW is just the first I found a reference to. (Also Clinton.)
So it seems to have happened a lot more than I thought...
There are lot successful republic nations.
The goal is prepare UK for the future not for the past
The UK unfortunately doesn't have freedom of speech, it has freedom of expression.
> The woman, 22, was arrested "in connection with a breach of the peace," a Police Scotland spokesperson told NPR, adding that she was formally charged and released, and her case is now pending at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
Just to add, you can also be arrested at speakers corner if you upset enough people there and there is "reasonable cause" that they may become violent, despite you speaking peacefully.
This NPR article is false and clearly doesn't understand the laws of the UK.
Can you help me understand that distinction? With a pretty limited understanding of UK law, my assumption would be that freedom of speech would cover any words but maybe not the specific way they're presented, while freedom of expression would cover even if those words were expressed in less polite way.
Notably:
> The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Add on top of this the new hate crime laws that disallow 'hate speech' (which includes critique) of 'protected classes', and you don't really have the right to complain. The police also record "non-crime hate incidents" on your permanent record (zero due process, zero ability to remove it), and the police will quite literally come to visit you and "correct your thinking" (yes, they actually say this).
Personally, I really want to see freedom of speech implemented. This of course directly conflicts with the traditions we know and love, so it's unclear where we go from here. It seems as though freedom of speech is coming whether it matches our culture or not, and many British people already behave as though they already have it.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part...
In the past, anti-royal protestors used to be hung, drawn, and quartered.
Like sessh. These are people too. Let them have a funeral, you can protest them afterwards.
The public paid for this funeral, and therefor they have every right to participate in it.
They should show some respect, it is a funeral after all. If they wanted a "private funeral" they should pay for one.
This seems obviously false. Try walking into the petagon some time proclaiming "the public paid for this military base and therefor i have every right to participate in it." And see how far that gets you.
Since when? This seems like a misunderstanding of how taxes work. Taxes pay for a lot of things which taxpayers have no right, or even access to.
Then they should grieve in private and at their own expense.
While this isn't at all objective, my feelings on it all started to change when the BBC begun sneaking in pure praise for Charles/monarchy without any balance, having softened us up with the same thing but with the Queen for a few days, knowing no-one would disagree with that. It now feels political.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to pick a side first.
I have no involvement, don't know the facts, haven't followed the discussion. From this thread, I gathered that people are being obnoxious and so they whipped out an ancient law to round them up for. Is selective enforcement good? Probably not. Is it good to stop people from being obnoxious at any funeral? Generally yes. Is the situation GP was posing comparable (random funeral vs. the queen's funeral)? No. Is royalty good? I don't know, I've heard pros (stable face of a country, for foreign relations, without the same person always being in power) and cons (costs).
I'd rather argue about merit and facts than "sides" you're on
...but probably that doesn't fit in a comment anyone is going to read and upvote, so alas.
Sometimes I toy with the idea of having difficult discussions (best example might be nuclear fission energy) in the form of a wiki, where the contents embody the current best known facts, with conclusions logically following from facts. When you change a fact, it cascades and the "thus"es are marked as needing an update. If you don't care for the whole discussion, you can just read the conclusion and find a "because" that you think is wrong somewhere and argue about that. But then, who'd find that enjoyable?
Mostly supportive.
When it comes to government-sponsored situations, free speech is very broad in the United States.
The OP is a good example to point to when people act like the US isn't special for its Constitution.
This is true no matter who is president.
Now, if I were saying this about President Harris, say, when she came to visit Biden's body while it was lying in state, that would be deplorable taste. It would be worse if my sign criticized Biden while his family came to pay their respects. That's pretty extreme levels of being a tasteless jerk. It's not grounds for arrest, though... in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/us/protests-policing-geor...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/29/us-police-br...
"As protesters took to the streets in Indiana on July 6 to decry an alleged hate crime at Lake Monroe, a red Toyota Corolla sped toward them, dragging two protesters along, on the hood and on the side of the car. Both suffered non-life-threatening injuries. A few days later, a 66-year-old white woman was arrested and charged in the incident."
It was a point of pride for many right wingers to threaten to crash their cars into non-violent protestors.
By far my favorite example is the UC Davis pepper spray event. Where sitting sedintary protestors were pepper sprayed by campus police (the school then engaged a PR firm to attempt to wipe evidence from the internet...)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper_spray_incident
An american reporter visits a communist country and asks a person on the street about freedom. He says "America is so free I can stand up on the subway and criticize and say anything about the president, no one would care about it. How is the situation here?" The person replies: "Well I can can stand up on the subway and criticize and say anything about the US president here too, no one would care about it!"
You must have missed the summer of love that we had two years ago, when crowds of protesters were regularly beaten and gassed, and often arrested (Charges would, of course, get dropped, because it's not actually illegal to protest.)
But you are correct, it's possible to protest the British monarchy as much as you want in the US, with next to consequences. :)
Bad taste isn't grounds for arrest in the UK either. In the unlikely event any of these people end up actually in court, they'll be charged with something else, in most cases it seems like public order offences. The same sort of charge you'd get if the cops arrest you drunk outside a bar yelling abuse at people and they decide you won't just sober up and go home with a caution.
Here's what the ACLU were able to have released from the White House (in the Bush era) about what the Secret Service do to prepare before a presidential visit:
"As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site"
It doesn't say they get arrested, but of course if you're not free to go about your business, then does it really matter whether you were "arrested" or not ?
> For this section report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise stricken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed. You need not report convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Be sure to include all incidents whether occurring in the U.S. or abroad.
> 22.1 Have any of the following happened? (If 'Yes' you will be asked to provide details for each offense that pertains to the actions that are identified below.)
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you? (Do not check if all the citations involved traffic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol or drugs)
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official?
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for a crime in any court? (Include all qualifying charges, convictions or sentences in any Federal, state, local, military, or non-U.S. court, even if previously listed on this form).
> - In the last seven (7) years have you been or are you currently on probation or parole?
> - Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges?
It reads in part:
For this section report information regardless of whether the record in your case has been sealed, expunged, or otherwise stricken from the court record, or the charge was dismissed. You need not report convictions under the Federal Controlled Substances Act for which the court issued an expungement order under the authority of 21 U.S.C. 844 or 18 U.S.C. 3607. Be sure to include all incidents whether occurring in the U.S. or abroad.
22.1 Have any of the following happened? (If 'Yes' you will be asked to provide details for each offense that pertains to the actions that are identified below.)
- In the last seven (7) years have you been issued a summons, citation, or ticket to appear in court in a criminal proceeding against you? (Do not check if all the citations involved traffic infractions where the fine was less than $300 and did not include alcohol or drugs)
- In the last seven (7) years have you been arrested by any police officer, sheriff, marshal or any other type of law enforcement official?
- In the last seven (7) years have you been charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for a crime in any court? (Include all qualifying charges, convictions or sentences in any Federal, state, local, military, or non-U.S. court, even if previously listed on this form).
- In the last seven (7) years have you been or are you currently on probation or parole?
- Are you currently on trial or awaiting a trial on criminal charges?
The US has laws against protesting at the funerals of Armed Service members. If you really want to rage against something, why not the thing from your own society, instead of the thing from some other society?
Can you though? I seem to remember someone getting arrested for tweeting some joke about a UK war hero because the joke was in poor taste or something.
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30156923
I'm sure tweeting something "grossly offensive" about the late queen would also be grounds for arrest and prosecution.
Try that at the next ex-President's funeral.
Are you sure? It's not absolutely certain.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1112/funeral-pr...
Not too long ago: (Anti-war protesters arrested and beaten in Russia) https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60641749
And i suspect the US will follow the UK in the upcoming midterm election, 2024 is shaping up to be very interesting too
Democracy is taking a huge hit in the west
At what point "democracy: becomes a facade, an empty ritual?
(And sadly, more an more a justification to go at war)
You're still stuck with a rigid 2-party system and a rather meager choice when it comes to electing a president.
The situation is not that cut and clear.
I had a joke hat that looked like a MAGA hat (red with white text). I never wore it out of the house because at the time I took public transit everywhere and I didn't want to wind up wearing somebody's coffee or be assaulted (sure it probably would have taken awhile but still, not worth the risk). Were that to happen I can just about guarantee the crime would be pursued by the police about as vigorously as a petty theft report. The government probably would have left me alone but how much is that worth when other people will do their dirty work for them?