UK Politics Thread part II

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Moonlight

Scotland's dear leader.

Know your limits.

[Skybird]

Great show, as usual. Nobody does these things like the Brits. But is it enough to ride the high waves these times bring?

[Jimbuna]

Not a patch on his mother but having said that....GOD SAVE THE KING

[Skybird]

Really just visually: I cnanot help it, I think the crown looks too huge for Charles' head, it looked much more natural and fitting on the head of the (young) Queen.

Maybe he can still exchange it, it was only used once.

[Catfish]

I have seen this 'gold state coach' twice in England.
It belongs into a museum. Like the passengers

[Skybird]

Surprisingly, because the costs of the monarchy are always cited by its opponents as an argument against it, the British monarchy is one of the "cheapest" (no pun intended) in Europe. The graph shows the cost of the monarchy in Euros per inhabitant of the country.


A fraction of a cinema ticket, and the show is much better.

[Jimbuna]

The truth always finds a way to get to the surface and Labour would be very wise not to allow this type of blackmail to succeed....at any price.

The SNP would demand the power for another independence vote as the price for supporting Labour in a hung parliament.

Senior figures in the SNP think they could hold the balance of power in the next parliament.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65503990

[Moonlight]

Starmer is Boasting of a General Election win.

Starmer is spouting his mouth off as usual, he knows that the local election results were not enough to get the Labour Party into power, even with the help of the LibDems or god forbid, the SNP. It's always the same thing with these bloody nutters, they have their eyes on the prize and forget about that last hurdle they have to jump to actually win the race.

The Tories and everyone else were expecting this massive clapback from the public to happen, Fishy Rishi and his cronies know that if they don't fix this mess that they themselves have created, it might mean an hung parliament at the least, or they might have to share power with another party. Sharing power comes with it's own risks too, everyone will remember what happened to Nick Clegg and the LibDems in the 2015 General Election and, that will send a shudder of fear down the collective spines of a party who props up a bigger party, be it the LibDems or the SNP.

Does Starmer not remember what happened to Neil Kinnock when he was boasting of a Labour victory back in 1992?, I made a boatload of cash betting on the Tories that year, no one liked a braggard then and, it's still the same now, bloody idiot.

[Jimbuna]

Protesters who tried to wreck the King's Coronation should emigrate to Europe, Lee Anderson declared last night.

The Conservative Party deputy chairman condemned "wet wipes" who refuse to "be proud of our fantastic country".

His comments came after hundreds of anti-monarchy activists gathered in central London on Saturday, chanting slogans including "down with the Crown" and "get a real job".

Dozens of demonstrators were arrested for public order offences.

Mr Anderson told the Daily Express last night: "Despite the Left-wing chatter that no one supports our great monarchy any more, thousands of well-wishers lined the Mall and gathered around the TV to witness the crowning of our new King and Queen.

"So I say to that small group of wet wipes who won't sing the national anthem, who won't hold their heads up high and be proud of our fantastic country, and who think living under King Charles is a world-ending dealbreaker, you are very welcome to take you and your pals to the EU Republic where you can live under another unelected head of state: Queen Ursula [a reference to European Commission president Ursula von de Leyen]."

[mapuc]

^ I disagree-You can still love your country and not love the King/Queen

I love my countries and I'm a republican-I respect that a majority of the Danes and the Swedes is royalist, but if there ever should come a referendum about the future of our Queen and King I would vote NO(if the question is: Shall we have a Monarch ?)

Furthermore I thought that you had free speech/expression. Which mean that they shall have the right to have this opinion.

Despite I'm a Republican I love the Danish Queen-She is so free in her performance-Some years ago a reporter said if it wasn't best for her to skip smoking-Her reply: Mind your own business(Something like that)

Markus

[Skybird]

Free speech does not give you the right to burst into other people's living room, switch off the TV in fornt of which the family had assembled, and then hold a speech to them which they must listen to. Free speech means you have the right to make sure you legally and morally own a situation where you then can hold a speech or voice your opinion or have a debate, may it be you write a book, write an essay in a newspaper column, or rent a hall, invite people and then have a debate with them. Free speech also means the society allows people reasonable opportunities to make use of their right for free speech. But bursting into somebody's party and lamenting on how very much you like it not, is not practicing the right of free speech, but is the abuse of it. And bad manners, btw.

A coronations is not a frequently repeated event, and no matter how you and me think about it, for many Brits it was and is something special, and quite some of them will keep dear memories of it for the rest of their lives.
It is rotten behaviour to spoil it for these people. All the more so because the monarchy costs surprisingly little in Britain, but still has an enormous impact as a national cause of identification, and is a foreign diplomatic tool of quite some value. It is simply a matter of etiquette and manners.


Free speech does not mean you have the right to force the other to listen to you if he does not want to. Free speech means the mutal understanding to talk and listen in turns in a dialogue when a mutual interest exists, and when the situation is appropriate. The situation on coronation day was anything but appropriate - which was part of the calculation of the protesters. They knew it. In other words many of them not only wanted to protest, but wanted to provoke. And spoil it for many others. Sorry people - wrong time, wrong place. Not this day.



BTW, I doubt they caught all protester across all the country, my impression was that they collected them in the imminent vicinity of the path the royal trek would pass, and locations of according interest.


Next time a foreign head of state visits another nations capital, you maybe will see that protesters inside a certain security zone are not tolerated, too. I recall what almost Eastern-Block-style show they set up when George Bush jr visited Germany. Residents were not even allowed to show their head at the windows of their own homes. Bush raced down empty streets and alleys, it looked like a ghost town.

[mapuc]

I thought that was given when I wrote free speech/expression THAT you have a responsibility in this rights and you are not allowed to mock another person for his or her belief.

I did not see these protesters mocking Charles the third-They were demonstrating against the royal stuff(forgot what it is called)
(not from the clip I saw)

Heck I saw as much as I could of the Coronation myself.
It was beautiful. I even saw part of the concert yesterday.

Markus

[Moonlight]

Where I live in this 50 bungalow complex, they had a large TV screen setup in our community room, beer, wine, and food was freely available to all residents, they even sent me a large plateful of food with plenty of tea to wash it down with, bless em, from what I heard, the day was a huge success.

As a republican I kept well away from it, I would never have gone in to the community room and spoilt that day for those who wanted to watch the spectacle with their friends. That's the trouble with the younger element these days, most of them have no respect or manners for anything, and that, I'm afraid to say is the fault of their bloody parents.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Free speech does not give you the right to burst into other people's living room, switch off the TV in fornt of which the family had assembled, and then hold a speech to them which they must listen to. Free speech means you have the right to make sure you legally and morally own a situation where you then can hold a speech or voice your opinion or have a debate, may it be you write a book, write an essay in a newspaper column, or rent a hall, invite people and then have a debate with them. Free speech also means the society allows people reasonable opportunities to make use of their right for free speech. But bursting into somebody's party and lamenting on how very much you like it not, is not practicing the right of free speech, but is the abuse of it. And bad manners, btw.

A coronations is not a frequently repeated event, and no matter how you and me think about it, for many Brits it was and is something special, and quite some of them will keep dear memories of it for the rest of their lives.
It is rotten behaviour to spoil it for these people. All the more so because the monarchy costs surprisingly little in Britain, but still has an enormous impact as a national cause of identification, and is a foreign diplomatic tool of quite some value. It is simply a matter of etiquette and manners.


Free speech does not mean you have the right to force the other to listen to you if he does not want to. Free speech means the mutal understanding to talk and listen in turns in a dialogue when a mutual interest exists, and when the situation is appropriate. The situation on coronation day was anything but appropriate - which was part of the calculation of the protesters. They knew it. In other words many of them not only wanted to protest, but wanted to provoke. And spoil it for many others. Sorry people - wrong time, wrong place. Not this day.



BTW, I doubt they caught all protester across all the country, my impression was that they collected them in the imminent vicinity of the path the royal trek would pass, and locations of according interest.


Next time a foreign head of state visits another nations capital, you maybe will see that protesters inside a certain security zone are not tolerated, too. I recall what almost Eastern-Block-style show they set up when George Bush jr visited Germany. Residents were not even allowed to show their head at the windows of their own homes. Bush raced down empty streets and alleys, it looked like a ghost town.

Very well put

[Gorpet]

Why was there no Ukraine Refugees allowed? When their First Lady attended, So they could cheer? For British and Ukraine solidarity.Why could they not be there to cheer for their first lady and show support for. Olena Zelenska ? oK i get it it's The Kings Day but democracy demands representation.