Forum menu
Or we could just follow the Bolshevik approach?
Or we could just follow the Bolshevik approach?
Сделаем это товарищ.
I am listening to Radio 4 this morning and when they do the "Royal" reporting it's absolutely a cult.
Yesterday they were telling everyone it was going to be a 30 hour wait to pass the Queens coffin, as it is it's 6 - 8 hrs, what will they do do if by Sunday there are no queues?
I am listening to Radio 4 this morning and when they do the “Royal” reporting it’s absolutely a cult.
Well then, let's abolish the licence fee, there's a good starting point to breaking a cult, its primary comms means.
Well then, let’s abolish the licence fee,
Like everything worthwhile in the far right Tory UK, it's being deliberately broken, so they can say get rid.
The BBC is going to get a backlash over this coverage and probably from people that would usually support it.
The ERG nut jobs have played a blinder.
We are ****ed.
and what is wrong with inequality ?
I think some people should perhaps take a step back from this thread, and take some time to reflect quietly on how recent events are affecting them. Because lashing out by saying stupid things isn’t really going to add anything to the discussion.
No defending the chip shop owner but that sounds like a fairly terrifying bit of mob mentality going on there!
We’re seeing just how much ‘freedom of speech’ people really have, what with people being arrested for such, and having their businesses and properties attacked. This is quite disturbing.
This is quite disturbing.
Every one is free to behave how they want, if you act like a dick (and by any measure, opening a bottle of champagne to celebrate that some-one has died is acting like a dick) then other people might take offence. Rather than being disturbing, it seems to me that he could have foreseen that his actions may have consequences?
I think people talking about Police states, and not being able to say what they want are being more than a little melodramatic. We've had a pretty healthy debate in this country about the monarchy and it's place for literally centuries now, and I don't doubt that some folks have strong feelings either way. Holding a placard up while folks are mourning, or opening champagne are both petty acts that got their 15 minutes, exactly - I'd imagine, what the folks who did them wanted.
Maybe the handful on here who don’t quite get it need to just open their hearts a little?
Molgrips
It’s not that. She was just a celebrity I didn’t follow, so whilst I thought she was a nice enough old lady I just don’t care that much. It’s not out of spite or resentment, I just have no deep feelings either way.
That's a fair perspective.. but who are we meant to open our hearts up to?
It's not like I know or am ever likely to meet anyone who is immediate family or was a close friend.
You and I are far far more likely to meet someone who's hospital appointment / GP has been cancelled... or someone who's ability to pay the bills has been affected .. essentially for a celebrity they didn't follow.
Some places have been/will be closed the entire 10 days... "out of sympathy" or similar words yet I haven't seen any of them say "but our staff will be receiving full pay".... or sympathy for their staff. On the other hand for anyone getting a free bank holiday.. sure - who turns down a days free pay?
Moreover it is the pressure and coercion being exerted on those for whom she was at most a minor celebrity in whom they have no interest. The obvious STW being the BC "don't ride bikes"... our local riders group being anyone fancy the bike park Monday turning into "they shouldn't be allowed to open" (by a serving member of the military) as if those of us said "Yeah sounds good" were actually doing something wrong or a group ride last Saturday someone who wasn't even going saying we should have 2 minutes silence before the ride??
MSP
I have an idea to really gauge the support for royalty, based on the German church tax. We can have a voluntary extra 1% royal tax based on income, we could even skew it in their favour by making enrolment automatic so that republicans have to opt out.
If they really are so popular that should provide the budget for the country to be even more royal, while those that don’t support them can at least be pleased that they are not forced to financially support their privilege.
That's actually a very pragmatic approach. It may miss the actual underlying issues but it will draw attention to the fact "it doesn't have to be this way".
Or maybe we could have a 1% tax to fund setting up a republic and see how popular it is.
Or maybe we could have a 1% tax to fund setting up a republic and see how popular it is.
A republic would be funded by removing and confiscating the Royal sources of income so no need.
(and by any measure, opening a bottle of champagne to celebrate that some-one has died is acting like a dick)
Tell that to the Thatcher haters 😉
Every one is free to behave how they want, if you act like a dick (and by any measure, opening a bottle of champagne to celebrate that some-one has died is acting like a dick) then other people might take offence. Rather than being disturbing, it seems to me that he could have foreseen that his actions may have consequences?
I think people talking about Police states, and not being able to say what they want are being more than a little melodramatic. We’ve had a pretty healthy debate in this country about the monarchy and it’s place for literally centuries now, and I don’t doubt that some folks have strong feelings either way. Holding a placard up while folks are mourning, or opening champagne are both petty acts that got their 15 minutes, exactly – I’d imagine, what the folks who did them wanted.
Yeah, sorry, but that's nonsense.
The right have been bitching and moaning about free speech for ages now without really understanding what they are talking about.
Stifling free speech means that the state either arrests you for expressing your opinion or allows others to commit illegal acts against you without consequences because you have expressed an opinion.
If people wanted to call the people holding up signs a dick then that's fine. If people want to not shop at your chip shop and leave 1 star reviews or say mean things about you on the internet that's fine. If they assault you or break windows they should be arrested which is not what is happening. Instead the victim is being arrested.
So yeah, free speech is definitely being stifled in the actual meaning of the term rather than the way right wing tossers normally use the term.
As much as it pains me, I agree with @BruceWee.
People always get this twisted. Likewise with privately owned spaces like Social Media platform/forums/etc, they can shut you up as they see fit. You've most likely agreed to it in the T&C's you didn't read.
what will they do do if by Sunday there are no queues?
Exepect LONGER queues at the weekend. No queues in Windsor during the week, right down the high street past the castle at the weekend.
If people wanted to call the people holding up signs a dick then that’s fine. If people want to not shop at your chip shop and leave 1 star reviews or say mean things about you on the internet that’s fine. If they assault you or break windows they should be arrested which is not what is happening. Instead the victim is being arrested.
On further reflection it is actually quite scary how the incident developed, especially if there AREN'T repercussions for the mob.
Doesn't reflect well on the village really, makes me wonder how the locals are going to react to a CX race being held there the day before the funeral 😬
To be fair, the brave commoners of Muir of Ord were probably defending the honour of their local dignitary, the Earl of Inverness:
Oops, apologies, that was simply some dignitaries associated with the actual Earl of Inverness:
Oh come on we all have our foibles! Andrew representing the country shows us at our best.
As much as it pains me, I agree with @BruceWee.
I didn't realise me being agreeable was so painful 🙂
dazh - love it 😂
Also another who agrees with Brucewee
Monday is international talk like a pirate day. That’d perk up proceedings
Every one is free to behave how they want, if you act like a dick (and by any measure, opening a bottle of champagne to celebrate that some-one has died is acting like a dick) then other people might take offence
The problem with that is, that there is no way of assessing dickishness; it’s simply a matter of personal opinion. One might think that someone claiming some absurd ‘divine right’ to rule is the very pinnacle of dickishness. And one might indeed have a fair point, seeing as how there would be no way for the dick to actually prove this.
And here we are.
Enjoying the surreal spectacle of seeing this incredible queue, from afar. Truly one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever seen.
Monday is international talk like a pirate day.
E Arrrrr II
dannyh - welcome back in your new configuration as...configuration.
Have you dropped your most recent alter ego of gardentiger?
Reading this thread makes me realise I really don't understand anything about all this. The Queen is dead and I thought there would be two groups, people who are sad and people who aren't. I probably should have expected strong opinions, but it has gone full STW.
Humph.
I think people talking about Police states, and not being able to say what they want are being more than a little melodramatic
How do you think fascist dictatorships start? You are aware that you now have less rights concerning ‘freedom of speech’ etc, than you did just a few years ago? And that our rights and freedoms are being eroded, not expanding (as you’d expect in a progressive democracy)?
‘They came for X and I didn’t speak up, for I am not X…’
Have you dropped your most recent alter ego of gardentiger?
Gardentiger wasn't dannyh's most recent alter ego, that was super_12.
They're opening all the 'spoons in central London from 8am(yes hes a grabbing bastard), that mixed with a load of patriots and pirates could be a heady cocktail. Ricky from the Kaiser Chiefs called this one...
ernie - thanks for the update; are you on danny watch?
Tricky little bugger I think; for clarity, I'm using that phrase as a 'term of endearment' without any other imprecations.
The question you, ernie, have avoided is...what do you know about the 'Lynch for PM' t-shirts from Red Molotov?
I think we should know - a la Private Eye.
Lordy. My wife has discovered ’Grievewatch’ on Twitter. 😲
https://twitter.com/grievewatch/status/1569798117436051457?s=46&t=9GR4N5uI2-w8QYc5Wrev7Q
are you on danny watch?
Not really but "spot danny" is a fun and easy to play game, super_12 didn't last that long and was last seen about 3 or 4 weeks ago. I have no idea about configuration I haven't really paid attention to what he has posted.
stcolin
Reading this thread makes me realise I really don’t understand anything about all this. The Queen is dead and I thought there would be two groups, people who are sad and people who aren’t. I probably should have expected strong opinions, but it has gone full STW.
I don't think that's specific to STW.... and (even as a Republican I'd have agreed with you) ..
As a republican I'm sad as we missed the opportunity for a peaceful abolition whilst swapping a "not as bad as she could have been" for a "someone who shouldn't be given power" and his "someone shouldn't be allowed near young girls" deputy but I don't think that's the thing making you realise "I really don’t understand anything about all this".
So PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG .. but I think what is so bizarre is actually that not specific to STW I'd have expected some people to be sad and some not really care and those who were sad to be sad .. those who don't care to get on with stuff... but what seems to be happening is..
A whole load of people who don't care virtue signalling and a bunch of people who do care then jumping in/on and feeling like they have some right to criticise (often in quite extreme terms) those that don't care and tell them what they can and can't think, feel, do?
I mean before this all started I'd totally expect a riding mate who's serving military to be sad and if he had the day off to get a train to London even. Had he invited me along I'd have politely said "not my thing mate" ... now he's telling the other riding mates what they can and can't do and how it's unacceptable for a bike park to open Monday.
Personally I'll be a bit upset when say David Attenborough dies... someone I feel made a far more significant and emotional part of MY life and someone I'd consider a "national treasure"... but I'm not going to be telling people they should be upset, not ride bikes or have the right to go to work or see a GP etc.
This'll be the last big one, Charles willare a balls of it cos he cant keep his gob shut and that'll be that. Wills powers will be restricted to appearing on tea towels and opening leisure centres. Job jobbed.
and our country without royalty and our royal history would be absolutely screwed.
the majority of people who come to visit and holidayin the uk come because of the royal connection, nothing more.
Absolutely hilarious that you have been brain washed to such an extent that you come out with desperate and deluded flat earther fanny like this.
I've never met someone who has come to the UK because/to see the royals!
I’ve never met someone who has come to the UK because/to see the royals!
Its desperate drivel in a futile attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Remove the scroungers and all their stolen palaces/land etc will still be there for tourists to view.
It could serve as a great reminder to future generations about how deluded and warped this country used to be. i.e. holding one family up as some sort of gods, as if they've cured the country of cancer and illness and are solely responsible for holding society together, when the reality is they've done the grand total of F all. Except take take take and position themselves above the law so they can do as they please ala that rancid tumour on the arse of society randy andy.
Well done to the protesters in Cardiff today.
Despite the media bombardment and hostility of police/state - a few dissenting voices making themselves heard.
Nice to see theres been a bit of a backlash over freedom issues, which seem to have come to the fore over a couple of 'breach of the peace' arrests by police who apparently don't know the law they're supposed to be upholding.
I would hope in those previous incidents the officers themselves would face disciplinary action, as its a civil rights issue and they stomped all over it.
We cant and shouldn't ever just let that go unanswered.
K
Full MemberI’ve never met someone who has come to the UK because/to see the royals!
France has more royal tourism than we have! And they have much better access to the royal tourist attractions since there's never any royals in 'em.
On “this is not the time”… the attempts to use this period of mourning for political ends are now in full swing…
https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1570924455463120896?s=21
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1570959146396299264?s=21
Give it back then!
https://twitter.com/michaelsheen/status/1570825183048470541?t=b4n9eZ_Dqu4RTYjRh3bZkw&s=08
Thanks.
An interesting (but windy) history lesson.
This has to be one of the daftest stories associated with the Queen's death I've seen so far:
And daft on two levels. Firstly that an airport in a staunchly republican country which accepts international flights should be named after a foreign monarch - because she once went there about 90 years ago.
And secondly that the new name will be : "Le Touquet-Paris-Plage Elizabeth II", a ridiculously long mouthful for the tiny airport. What's wrong with "Le Touquet" airport which presumably is what everyone is currently, and will continue, calling it?
I assume that it is in reality a commercial decision to bolster the image of what was once the third busiest airport in France. But I don't know if that cancels the daftness of the idea, or indeed how acceptable it is to use a recently dead foreign monarch for cheap publicity in a vague attempt to pretend that they would personally endorse the enterprise.
The renaming makes sense as it used to be the dirty weekend spot for the English 20's & 30's smart set. An attempt to get the English well to do to return.
Well I dunno. Some people I know tried to get an airport renamed ‘Nelson Mandela International’ back in the 80’s. Sadly the powers that be decided that they would keep the name ‘London Heathrow’ for some reason.
Probably an inside joke on the unlawful killing of Diana (and Jamal Khashoggi's cousin, Dodi)
A real sense of perspective from Lindsay Hoyle this morning 😂
https://twitter.com/zero_4/status/1571420076385136640?s=21&t=r5W2rNi7ooeO_XmS_M2mUg
I guess many of us knew that Hoyle was useless and complete idiot but now he has surpassed himself.
Lindsay Hoyle
I'm finding it hard to portray just how much I despise some of my fellow humans.
I guess many of us knew that Hoyle was useless and complete idiot but now he has surpassed himself.
He isn't just a complete idiot he also Speaker of the House of Commons, a role which is essential to UK politics and carries with it the responsibility to oversee the smooth running of the legislature.
The fact that a politician who is capable of making this indisputably crass idiotic comment has been elevated to such a high position speaks volumes with regards to the quality of UK politicians.
In recent decades UK politicians have increasingly been seen by the public as discredited and hopelessly self-serving. Respect for politicans must surely be at an all-time low and the latest comment by the Speaker can only feed into that narrative.
Is it any wonder therefore that so many people recoil in horror at the thought of a politician being given the role of Head of State?
If western parliamentary democracy was all that it is cracked out to be and it worked in the way it is suppose to work then you might reasonably expect politicians to be among the most well-loved and respected people in the public's eyes, certainly from those who voted for them. Instead they appear to be among the most hated. Something is clearly broken.
A real sense of perspective from Lindsay Hoyle this morning
Jeez, I'm fairly pro Royal by STW standards, but Hoyle has surpassed his own low standards there
I still dont know what we need a head of state for. Don't get it at all
I still dont know what we need a head of state for. Don’t get it at all
In theory, it's a check on political power.
But as the UK doesn't have a constitution, there's nothing for them to do.
Other than to be incredibly wealthy, wear hats and occasionally open things.
Just read up on the Duke of Edinburgh title. Let's get rid of that one too, given how made up it is.
Phil the Dane/Greek got it after it had lain dormant for 50years and the third time it had been created.
I am not going to defend Hoyle because it was an idiotic thing to say but I think it might be fair to say that tomorrow will possibly represent the greatest gathering of world leaders in history. Although if he meant that he should have said so.
I believe that 500 world leaders are expected to attend tomorrow's funeral which must surely exceed anything that even the United Nations has managed to stage.
Obviously it is mostly down to modern 21st century transport - a hundred years ago the logistics wouldn't have allowed it.
Which of course must be hugely tempting for any terrorist organisation which wants to stage a spectacular attack. Or a Bond villain with a Death Ray orbiting in Outer Space.
believe that 500 world leaders are expected to attend tomorrow’s funeral which must surely exceed anything that even the United Nations has managed to stage.
Given there are only 195 countries in the world and since aren’t invited I’m struggling to see how you get to 200 let alone 500. Do some countries have multiple leaders?
Plenty of past heads of state will be invited, won’t they? People who had dealings with the Queen while in their roles. Then add in all the politicians who lead or led the governments of their countries, but aren’t or weren’t heads of state.
I still dont know what we need a head of state for. Don’t get it at all
I think the basic idea is you have someone politically neutral, which means when he or she turns up to console flooding victims or welcome the leader of China, it's not seen as an endorsement of either the current government's policies regarding disaster support, or what the PM really thinks about a nominally socialist but actually capitalistic dictatorship.
Of course it doesn't really work in practice with a monarchy, as they inevitably represent a (small "c") conservative viewpoint, which is naturally Tory.
In theory, it’s a check on political power.
But as the UK doesn’t have a constitution, there’s nothing for them to do.
Other than to be incredibly wealthy, wear hats and occasionally open things.
As I said earlier. You might want to consider why every country in the world (except Switzerland) has one. Its actually to continue sovereign power no matter what happens to the Government. It might sound like arcane political theory, but what happens when a government loses an election. Why would any of its laws still continue beyond its tenure in office? So you have a head of state which means that the judiciary, the police, the armed forces etc etc still have authority.... because it is conferred upon them by the soveriegn power & not by the government which has a limited lifespan.
I still dont know what we need a head of state for. Don’t get it at all
Really? Well you kept that quiet.
Do some countries have multiple leaders?
Yup. Some will, for example, be sending a king as well as a prime minister.
Why would any of its laws still continue beyond its tenure in office? So you have a head of state which means that the judiciary, the police, the armed forces etc etc still have authority…. because it is conferred upon them by the soveriegn power & not by the government which has a limited lifespan.
In the UK the laws are voted in by Parliament, not by the government. The idea we need a head of state to provide continuity to laws is a nice legal fiction, but nothing more. After all, following your argument - does this mean all the UK's laws are now null and void following the death of the Queen?
Yup. Some will, for example, be sending a king as well as a prime minister.
I think Spain's sending two kings 😀
I am not buying that imnotverygood.
You could easily have the people sovereign as in Scotland or the constitution or the country or create any number of mechanisms to cover that.
Anyway the uk royal famiky are supoosed to gave no political power
Just because most countries have one does not mean its right or necessary.
When you have an elected head of state like the USA that fiction collapses anyway. The USA only has o e oerson doing both head of state and head of government
Of course it doesn’t really work in practice with a monarchy, as they inevitably represent a (small “c”) conservative viewpoint, which is naturally Tory.
Nor does it work often with elected presidents (e.g. Trump or Putin).
It might sound like arcane political theory, but what happens when a government loses an election. Why would any of its laws still continue beyond its tenure in office? So you have a head of state which means that the judiciary, the police, the armed forces etc etc still have authority…. because it is conferred upon them by the soveriegn power & not by the government which has a limited lifespan.
That's such an abstract admin role that it could be done by anything - animal, vegetable or mineral.
The idea that society would collapse if some aristocrat isn't handed mythical powers for a few days is daft.
And you could choose something to fulfil the role that isn't a global symbol of class privilege and inequality.
Maybe a cat. Or more boringly, a civil servant.
In the UK the laws are voted in by Parliament, not by the government.
It depends. And the Tories extended the use of secondary legislation because… well, taking back control in the name of Brexit… and they can do so because they are the Monarch’s government.
[ not saying any of this is good, but the balance between parliament/ government/ monarch is far from clear cut… changes to the law are not all voted on by parliament, for instance ]
It depends. And the Tories extended the use of secondary legislation because… well, taking back control in the name of Brexit… and they can do so because they are the Monarch’s government.
I'm no expert, but as I understood it they have that power because Parliament granted it to them (or hasn't bothered to take it off them). It could just as "easily" take it back.
You could easily have the people sovereign as in Scotland or the constitution or the country or create any number of mechanisms to cover that.
Firstly the Claim of Right does not make the people sovereign in Scotland. Legally, the monarch is still the sovereign power. Scottish legislation still needs Royal Assent.
You don't seen to understand the concept of sovereign power. You still need to have a head of state. Its why the armed forces swear allegience to the monarch & not the government. They represent the state. If not, why does everybody have one.
Trust me on this. My History degree may not have been any great practical use, but I did spend a year studying the history of political philosophy and in as much as I can only vaguely remember part of it, I do know a little bit about the subject. Failing that ask yourself again about the surprising number of Heads of State around the world given you don't see any point to it.
That’s such an abstract admin role that it could be done by anything – animal, vegetable or mineral.
Yes, it could be any political entity. see the rest of the world. Your problem is that once you have a sovereign entity, then it is by definition the ultimate political authority. Your Sovereign is where political power resides. You can't just vote it away if they are unwilling to relinquish that power. You can have a revolution, and destroy the existing political state, or you could ask nicely and the Sovereign may agree to relinquish power, but this is where the theory of our unwritten constitution & people's perception of the State collide. We are not a Democracy. Sovereignty does not lie with the people: It lies with the monarch, or strictly speaking the 'monarch in parliament'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Parliament
We have to have one because wveryone else does is a very poor argument.
There is nothing i can see in what you say that means we need a head of state seoarate from the political leader. The us does not for example.
The issues you raise could equally be filled by an abstract such as a constitution or to the people of to a material object
You can’t just vote it away if they are unwilling to relinquish that power
The US? The head of state is elected