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.
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
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).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
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?
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.
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.
Personally, I like it as a humiliating reminder of the contradictions of liberalism and the ruling class.
For starters :)
The main thing you seem to criticise is the ritual itself, which to me seems pretty normal, albeit grandiose.
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.
If you dislike monarchies because of their power transition methods, I'd love to hear that reasoning.
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.
Hehe :) Yeah fair. The accession of Charles has been on another scale though. It's national and public, rather than in a palace.
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.
But I agree with your sentiment.
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?”
Gotta keep those plebs in their place right.
However I could be misinterpreting the comment.
> 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.
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."
It's just a courtesy to save face for the Monarchy.
Every appointed member of the house of lords and the supreme court is appointed on the advice of the prime minister and cabinet.
But prison might not be in it for him, that I agree. Or some very special prison.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Part of doing this is being really loud and annoying about problems
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.
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
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?
Well... that's what the monarchy practice is all about. God-like status for some god-forsaken reason. Blind sycophancy.
Thanks to the Internet, there is ample room for all kinds of voices.
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
Is there some democracy somewhere which doesn't have a public nuisance/breaching the peace style law?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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!"
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.
If prince Andrew gets to parade around in public give the peasants some leeway as well
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".
The funeral hasn't happened yet, Google tells me it's on September 19, 6 days from now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also impressive the one lady was simply holding a sign. That doesn't sound very noisy to me...
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.
(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 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.
Because it is gross to worship a useless, elitist parasite like the Queen.
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.)
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?
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
I know the UK has a lot of old money but I can't imagine a way in which this could be "dissolved" peacefully.
I am equally frustrated with India doing the same. Though we did it for Shinzo Abe so it's fine I guess
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.
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?
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
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.
"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.
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.
Its mere existence is sufficient reason to end it. The very concept of Kings and Queens is anathema to democracy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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?
Try that at the next ex-President's funeral.
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. :)
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!"
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?
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
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
You're still stuck with a rigid 2-party system and a rather meager choice when it comes to electing a president.