Like sessh. These are people too. Let them have a funeral, you can protest them afterwards.
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?