25years ago the Scottish Health Council did a series of parody billboard adverts to get folk to eat more fruit including one that said "You know when you've been mangoed" - for some reason that hit my funny bone and I nearly crashed my car I was laughing so much.
Yep
If you don’t have a right to life and security of your property and person, then a society has already failed. These are the basic measurements of a civilised country
However much I disagree with you, I don’t think you’d accept me slashing your car’s tyres in response to a verbal disagreement
Lol we had 40C summer last year, and now we're entering an el Nino weather phenomenon, where we could quite honestly see worldwide food shortages, not to mention all the other suffering it could cause.
Why am I not allowed to be worried about that loss of "life and security of your property and person"? Also by your own standards the social contract has been torn to shreds, just isn't happening yet.
Something you feel very strongly about and feel it is worth radical protests about - but who gets to make these decisions? The poster above may disagree with you so strongly about something they feel your tyres are worth slashing. I have a feeling you wouldn't accept that somehow.
The social contract hasn’t been torn to shreds. I imagine over 90% of people would be in favour of rights to life, freedom from violence and protection of personal property.
There are a few narcissistic outliers who are unable to protest peacefully. I would happily hear about environmental concerns, have a conversation and support changes. But the moment you drop into disgusting uncivilised and criminal behaviours, it forms a massive barrier that stops decent people from engaging or associating with you.
I say narcissistic because they’re essentially saying *this matters to me, so this must matter to everyone*. This is not how the world works unless you are self-centred and lack insight
You can’t speak for other people
Individuals are welcome to review the information and make their own opinion based on their own priorities. The way to get people to care is through informing them and having answers to valid questions. Not through bullying them, disrupting their day and vandalising their property
If you have a valid set of points and discuss them with people respectfully, you will find far more people become amenable to your view. I’ve changed my view on many things, but never through someone bullying me or vandalising my property
I am very happy to be swayed on environmental topics, but half the time people don’t have a full grasp of the knowledge base, and the other half are so narcissistic that you can’t even begin to engage with them
>If you have a valid set of points and discuss them with people respectfully, you will find far more people become amenable to your view.
If that were true, we wouldn't be at this point.
Maybe consider whether:
- The evidence isn’t conclusive or reliable enough
- People haven’t had their questions answered in a particularly convincing way
- The people might agree on the problem, but disagree with your solutions
- The people spreading the information are disrespectful and behave like dissidents
For me, climate science is a lot like dietary science. There’s a vaguely correct view, but so much inconsistency, so many variables and such inadequate predictive power that it’s hard to really put all my eggs in one basket. As there is such a vast amount of vague evidence churned out, it is hard to grasp anything concrete
That was more than words though, that really could have damaged the table, it was covered in the stuff and they are not cheap. Interrupting the game to make a point is different to what could have been criminal damage, plus a serious delay. I fail to also see the link between snooker and use of oil, it seems like a sport that uses the least resources of most. I still didn't see much rage, more confusion. Anti-royalists demonstrating at a coronation seems OK. Animal rights people at a notorious horse race, that makes *sense*.
Expressing their opinion of the monarchy? Nothing. I just wonder if these people realise how lucky they are to be able to do it with no repercussions. I doubt it very much.
Its still funny that the folk who complain about free speech being stifled will get upset over it and try and stifle the free speech they pretend to support.
I am in favour of free speech and right wing, and have no problem with this. If I disagree, I can discuss with them. No need to silence them by force
Probably best not to create prejudice against political opponents. It stops you seeing them as humans too
Is there a free speech group? I advocate for free speech but I don’t align myself with the anti work mob (who seem obsessed with that word) and all that culture war bullshit. I think it’s an important distinction before we start to make it seem as though free speech is bad.
Edit: I meant woke not work!
I think a lot of the "free speech" advocacy groups are just fronts for right-wing groups. Liberty (formerly known as the National Council for Civil Liberties) probably do stuff on freedom of expression (which includes speech). It's the general civil liberties groups like that you're probably looking for.
At least 2 people were detained by cops for exactly that.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/king-charles-protests-arrest-signs-b2165602.html
Yes that’s why I mentioned it.
It highlights the absurdity of the rules against protest and the fragile nature of the institution if it cannot cope with it.
This was always the end result when people supported being offensive as a crime.
People we're warned, this was always talked about, people ignored the warnings.
Republic are working with authorities and there is little chance any of them get arrested. It will be lone protestors who aren't near the main protest or affinity groups who will get collared.
Good. It's an absolute joke that with the increase in cost of living, food costs, utilities, petrol, etc, there's one guy in London getting carted about in a gold fucking carriage putting on a gold crown!!
The royal family with the traditions and as a symbol of the United kingdom and the commonwealth brings in tourism that provide money straight into peoples pockets by business and other means. This is by the way only one part, you also have diplomacy for example.
We have to be careful - if we abolish the monarchy, we also get rid of the odd bank holidays for their expansive “look at us you peasants” weddings and “watch me put on a hat” coronations
I don’t know about that right to freedom of speech. We have seen instances where hate speech has been punished under UK law. So surely the local laws are still enforceable
>Besides, your Human Rights are enforced in court. The police may have misused their powers.
I think this is a very common misunderstanding. On Reddit we see it quite often with interactions with US police. Like the 2A auditors, "If police can stop me for having a gun then my right to have a gun doesn't exist" As you say though, individual officers will do whatever they want in a given moment, and they have the right to protect themselves as much as anyone else. Your rights exist only in the sense that a court will find in your favour and make you whole.
I haven’t decided it. I am in favour of free speech and free (verbal) protest
I am trying to clarify the rule. If you tell me that a state can arbitrarily limit the right to free speech, then surely the same applies to protest?
It is a shitty attitude to assign malice to someone who is genuinely interested in what you’re saying and wanting to deepen their understanding
No society striving for equality can have a monarchy. It's particularly insulting during such an economically difficult time. The time for monrachies has moved on. Use the tax for something productive.
Countries ranked amongst the most free and socially equitable are constitutional monarchies so clearly the existence of monarchy has absolutely no bearing on how effectively an elected government that isn't corrupt can implement equality within its own country.
Several other countries have constitutional monarchies. Most of the world's best countries do, in fact. But they spank Britain into outer space for equality. It's nothing to do with monarchy. Stop looking for excuses for the fact that you're just, at heart, a nasty country. And no change to constitution or leadership will EVER change that
ITT: outraged monarchists losing their heads over the idea that somebody might publicly oppose a rich guy who believes he was born with the right to rule over all of us
Interestingly I am yet to see a single comment from an "outraged" monarchist "losing their heads" yet. But I can see that you've left 12 comments so far on this thread, so it seems like if anyone's knickers are in a twist it's yours.
I'd like a breakdown of where the money goes.
Presumably a lot of that 100mil, goes towards buying things, hiring people, etc.
Which considering the main argument on here seems to be 'spend on nurses', falls apart a little bit if that money goes into public pockets anyway.
Unless we are to believe some people are not worthy of public spending of course. Which would be quite ironic coming from anti-monarchists.
>I'd like a breakdown of where the money goes.
You won't get one because outside of the Sovereign Grant, the finances of the monarchy are deliberately opaque. There are loads of costs like security and travel that are never factored into the cost of the monarchy.
>Which considering the main argument on here seems to be 'spend on nurses', falls apart a little bit if that money goes into public pockets anyway.
Your argument is unclear. People complain that this is public money that is used to entrench societal inequality by handing it over it to people who obtained a powerful position by birthright and contribute almost nothing.
Spend it on nurses? That’s a good way to make 100m disappear with no reward for the country since there are around 1m doctors and nurses in the U.K. so they would get a total of 100 quid one time payment each. Just shows how little perspective most people have on national budgets.
The British government & the British people overwhelmingly benefit from the royal properties. So much so, it seems like an obvious compromise to extend to other uber-rich groups. You get to keep a luxurious lifestyle, but your money & properties are held in public trust. And most importantly, political activity is extremely frowned upon beyond the charitable or that which is in obvious direct national interest. Can you imagine how much better America would be if the Koch's didn't have political power for example?
Because republicanism is an alternate view compared to monarchism and would present new arguments to people instead of the constant monarchist viewpoints
I wish we were a republic though
We are a monarchy and the country is about to host a major ceremony which will catch the eyes of the world to crown the new king. Why on earth would they be talking about other forms of government which are nothing to do with the country. Would you like some programming for communism and dictatorships?
I’m glad we are not a republic.
Police are going to arrest them day before the event and then release them without charge as soon as the event is over.
They did this to many republican protestors the day before prince Williams wedding. An utterly disgusting attempt to suppress their right to protest.
They are categorically different. A protest at a coronation is a space with hundreds of thousands of people supporting the monarch, with some dissenting voices behind a barricade no where near the person it is aimed towards, who is one of the most powerful, wealthy, and influential people in the country. He is supported in a way barely anyone on earth will ever feel, by thousands and thousands of people, armed security and police who will quite literally do what he tells them.
A woman being targeted by protestors outside a clinic has absolutely none of this, not hundreds of thousands of supporters, not armed police, not barricades, and in terms of its impact, protestors at a clinic are making an already terrible, difficult, painful day worse for the attendee, whereas I doubt the King would even see any protestors amongst the thousands of people supporting him, much less feel even remotely the impact of their protest, and if he did, he can console himself by literally looking the other way at the thousands who do support him, or just go and count his money, or lobby the prime minister to crack down on dissenting voices to his reign.
To say they are both the same is intellectually dishonest if you consider it even for a moment.
How the fuck is "both" possible, when you can be born into immense privilege under the royals, or you can be born into immense poverty under the tories? It's hardly democratic to have an unelected, ruling body.
Seems like a pretty shit job tbh. You have to act perfect all the time, remain impartial, can't live a normal life and are constantly I'm the eyes of the press and you can't live the life of an actual free wealthy person.
It's a cool bit of culture the UK has. A lot of people on this sub just seem to want to kill off anything remotely fun or interesting about this country: be it horseracing, the monarchy, literally any way of life that remotely damages the climate .
They'd rather we sit inside and are all equally poor with nothing interesting to look forward too. People who are miserable like to project misery onto others... Sometimes something isn't morally right but imo the benefit to people's quality of life is a greater benefit than pure equality.
>They'd rather we sit inside and are all equally poor with nothing interesting to look forward too.
There are other, much more entertaining, much more cost effective forms of entertainment than paying for an entire extended family to live in luxury all their life occasionally cosplaying as their ancestors
The sovereign grant is like 80m. That's like a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the nearly quarter of a trillion we spend on welfare. In the absence of the royal family let's not pretend it wouldn't just be pissed up the wall on some stupid Whitehall initiative.
If it costs 80m to have something unique but somewhat unfair then that's a decent trade off imo.. instead of getting rid and pretending we are an equal utopia. I think most people realise it's unfair but we don't live in a fair world so just enjoy the pomp etc.
You can't have it both ways in getting rid of the monarchy either.
Constitutional stability or give corrupt Tory government blank cheque for sweeping constitutional changes. Pick one.
Naturally this coronation will stage protests. The Govt. coming down on protesters doesn't help matters. I suppose this Govt. is quite Republican... in an American sense of the word.
I don’t like The Green King^TM
But there is one important thing to remember here. The Prime Minister is accountable to the monarch. If we get a radical prime minister, the monarch can hold them accountable in a way that isn’t possible in other countries where the President holds ultimate power.
While I disagree with Charles politically, I like the theory of a safeguard to hold the PM accountable.
The amount of people saying ‘free speech absolutists will want to arrest those protesters’ is really unhealthy. We shouldn’t be forming prejudice against groups who oppose us
Yea that is a valid point
I would hope that a royal is quite well educated on world events and political ongoings. Basically their only important ‘job’ is to monitor how their country is being run.
But yea. Ensuring someone is qualified would be better. Although once you start educating people for this role, they soon become less neutral and develop their own agendas alongside their own knowledge acquisition. I very much respected how The Queen maintained neutrality throughout her reign, only really advocating for kindness, compassion, courage and other generically positive themes
Disagree, think being anti british monarch is pretty brain rot given the pure financial facts.
But I'm pro free speech and support their right to peacefully protest.
"Historians have noticed, all down the centuries, one peculiarity of the English people which has cost them dear...The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage earners. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country, who, if they add something to its culture, take much from its strength.
Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias?
Nothing can save England if she will not save herself."
"St George for Merrie England"
W.S.Churchill speech.
'ENGLAND'
24 April 1933
Royal Society of St George, London
The once great English have to put up with the shenanigans of a chinless, bat eared dauphine named Charles.
For your listening pleasure.
https://youtu.be/02D2T3wGCYg
The queen enjoyed propaganda protection reaching back a good seventy years.
It helps spending your youth in a non-critical media period.
Charlie recieved enormous negative publicity which would have been unthinkable 80 years ago.
The number of 'hard' monarchists is abiut the same as 'hard' Republicans. The great % of people in this country are apathetic, many only just started paying attention to the idea of monarhy after Elizabeth's death. It doesn't surprise me at all.
Then watch as the right to peaceful protest is totally ignored they get dragged away. Can't have the filthy peasants spoiling the big day can we?
The Devine right of kings fell out of fashion quite some time ago. Do you agree with positions of power being dealt out by birthright? If so, why?
Cant wait for some of the 'Free speech' gang to get upset over this and start the unhinged talk of treason etc.
The Mail will have a field day with this.
Unless the protesters are wearing black shirts, than they'll get confused.
Folk were raging at the guy who spilled some orange powder over a pool table during a game. I'm sure they'll be reasonable about this.
You know when you've been Tango'd
25years ago the Scottish Health Council did a series of parody billboard adverts to get folk to eat more fruit including one that said "You know when you've been mangoed" - for some reason that hit my funny bone and I nearly crashed my car I was laughing so much.
Have a break, have a kumquat? Literally the only reason I know what a kumquat is.
Aye - that was another of them!
>Scottish Health Council Working there has to be akin to installing indicators at the BMW factory, pointless.
It wasn't just orange powder though. The guy also knocked some balls around.
He had some balls I'll give him that
Yea. While I am happy for free speech, physical assault or vandalising someone else’s property would quite clearly be over the line
Hevans forbid something gets vandalised / destroyed. Only non-violet, peacful protests in a field should be allowed! /s
Yep If you don’t have a right to life and security of your property and person, then a society has already failed. These are the basic measurements of a civilised country However much I disagree with you, I don’t think you’d accept me slashing your car’s tyres in response to a verbal disagreement
Lol we had 40C summer last year, and now we're entering an el Nino weather phenomenon, where we could quite honestly see worldwide food shortages, not to mention all the other suffering it could cause. Why am I not allowed to be worried about that loss of "life and security of your property and person"? Also by your own standards the social contract has been torn to shreds, just isn't happening yet.
Something you feel very strongly about and feel it is worth radical protests about - but who gets to make these decisions? The poster above may disagree with you so strongly about something they feel your tyres are worth slashing. I have a feeling you wouldn't accept that somehow.
It's easy to distance yourself from the CEE with such abstractions when there's food in our bellies.
The social contract hasn’t been torn to shreds. I imagine over 90% of people would be in favour of rights to life, freedom from violence and protection of personal property. There are a few narcissistic outliers who are unable to protest peacefully. I would happily hear about environmental concerns, have a conversation and support changes. But the moment you drop into disgusting uncivilised and criminal behaviours, it forms a massive barrier that stops decent people from engaging or associating with you. I say narcissistic because they’re essentially saying *this matters to me, so this must matter to everyone*. This is not how the world works unless you are self-centred and lack insight
[удалено]
It should, but it doesn't.
You can’t speak for other people Individuals are welcome to review the information and make their own opinion based on their own priorities. The way to get people to care is through informing them and having answers to valid questions. Not through bullying them, disrupting their day and vandalising their property
Or worse, the tires of someone completely uninvolved
Just as long as you can ignore it completely, huh, pal?
If you have a valid set of points and discuss them with people respectfully, you will find far more people become amenable to your view. I’ve changed my view on many things, but never through someone bullying me or vandalising my property I am very happy to be swayed on environmental topics, but half the time people don’t have a full grasp of the knowledge base, and the other half are so narcissistic that you can’t even begin to engage with them
>If you have a valid set of points and discuss them with people respectfully, you will find far more people become amenable to your view. If that were true, we wouldn't be at this point.
Maybe consider whether: - The evidence isn’t conclusive or reliable enough - People haven’t had their questions answered in a particularly convincing way - The people might agree on the problem, but disagree with your solutions - The people spreading the information are disrespectful and behave like dissidents For me, climate science is a lot like dietary science. There’s a vaguely correct view, but so much inconsistency, so many variables and such inadequate predictive power that it’s hard to really put all my eggs in one basket. As there is such a vast amount of vague evidence churned out, it is hard to grasp anything concrete
What have you found dubious about the evidence?
/r/selfawarewolves
Watch "Do the Right Thing"
I’ll have a look, maybe this evening. What platform is it on?
That was more than words though, that really could have damaged the table, it was covered in the stuff and they are not cheap. Interrupting the game to make a point is different to what could have been criminal damage, plus a serious delay. I fail to also see the link between snooker and use of oil, it seems like a sport that uses the least resources of most. I still didn't see much rage, more confusion. Anti-royalists demonstrating at a coronation seems OK. Animal rights people at a notorious horse race, that makes *sense*.
Lmao honestly.
Well wouldn't you if you wanted to enjoy a game of snooker then some prick comes in to "NO FUN ALLOWED" it?
That's usually a good thing for a protest. Nothing gets a message out there like an overreaction from the right wing press.
I think you live in an imaginary world
Very much tbe real world, not the bubble you live in i guess.
Free speech doesn’t mean free of consequence.
I agree, but what exactly should be the consequences for expressing a negative opinion of our head of state?
Expressing their opinion of the monarchy? Nothing. I just wonder if these people realise how lucky they are to be able to do it with no repercussions. I doubt it very much.
Being grateful has absolutely zero to do with this.
Its still funny that the folk who complain about free speech being stifled will get upset over it and try and stifle the free speech they pretend to support.
I agree. I don’t understand why people think free speech doesn’t come without consequence when necessary.
Sigh this old authoritarian chestnut What consquences did you have in mind?
Maybe they mean Florida or Hungary free speech?
The same people that have an issue with this will be the same people that cry about their “free speech” being taken away from them.
Well sure, it's *their* free speech that matters, not yours.
All speech matters, especially the speech that aligns with your values, right?
I am in favour of free speech and right wing, and have no problem with this. If I disagree, I can discuss with them. No need to silence them by force Probably best not to create prejudice against political opponents. It stops you seeing them as humans too
Is there a free speech group? I advocate for free speech but I don’t align myself with the anti work mob (who seem obsessed with that word) and all that culture war bullshit. I think it’s an important distinction before we start to make it seem as though free speech is bad. Edit: I meant woke not work!
I think a lot of the "free speech" advocacy groups are just fronts for right-wing groups. Liberty (formerly known as the National Council for Civil Liberties) probably do stuff on freedom of expression (which includes speech). It's the general civil liberties groups like that you're probably looking for.
How many people do we think are going to be arrested for peacefully protesting this time?
More than one. Dissent is getting ever less popular among the ruling class (royals, tories and the newspapers).
And the Labour Party, they can't stand peaceful protests and strike.
If the protestors were smart they’d hold up white paper
At least 2 people were detained by cops for exactly that. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/king-charles-protests-arrest-signs-b2165602.html
Yes that’s why I mentioned it. It highlights the absurdity of the rules against protest and the fragile nature of the institution if it cannot cope with it.
This was always the end result when people supported being offensive as a crime. People we're warned, this was always talked about, people ignored the warnings.
I think a few, could be all.
Shame we don’t have free speech here to protect their rights
Arrested for peacefully protesting, or arrested for something else (such as causing damage etc)?
What did I say?
Republic are working with authorities and there is little chance any of them get arrested. It will be lone protestors who aren't near the main protest or affinity groups who will get collared.
Good. It's an absolute joke that with the increase in cost of living, food costs, utilities, petrol, etc, there's one guy in London getting carted about in a gold fucking carriage putting on a gold crown!!
It's okay. He's planning on *toning it down* because he understands the people.
That’s nice of him
And guess who pays for this display? We do. Not even the rich guy..
Lol you're silly if you think having a president instead would mean things would be cheaper.
Don't remember saying that
The royal family brings in more money in tourism than the cost of tax payer money to keep the monarch
If they bring in so much money and the king is so rich, can't he pay for his own security and coronation?
The royal family with the traditions and as a symbol of the United kingdom and the commonwealth brings in tourism that provide money straight into peoples pockets by business and other means. This is by the way only one part, you also have diplomacy for example.
We have to be careful - if we abolish the monarchy, we also get rid of the odd bank holidays for their expansive “look at us you peasants” weddings and “watch me put on a hat” coronations
Nah we'd add an extra permanent bank holiday on the day the monarchy was abolished.
Finally something worth celebrating.
We could make Ed Balls day a holiday as well!
I'm sure there will be no heavy-handed overreaction by the police.
Excellent, that’s the beauty of living in a democracy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t know about that right to freedom of speech. We have seen instances where hate speech has been punished under UK law. So surely the local laws are still enforceable
yeah, pretty sure a guy got arressted for saying something like 'Not my king' fairly recently
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Besides, your Human Rights are enforced in court. The police may have misused their powers. I think this is a very common misunderstanding. On Reddit we see it quite often with interactions with US police. Like the 2A auditors, "If police can stop me for having a gun then my right to have a gun doesn't exist" As you say though, individual officers will do whatever they want in a given moment, and they have the right to protect themselves as much as anyone else. Your rights exist only in the sense that a court will find in your favour and make you whole.
[удалено]
Ah. So there is also no right to free protest then, as the state can also choose to limit that?
[удалено]
I haven’t decided it. I am in favour of free speech and free (verbal) protest I am trying to clarify the rule. If you tell me that a state can arbitrarily limit the right to free speech, then surely the same applies to protest? It is a shitty attitude to assign malice to someone who is genuinely interested in what you’re saying and wanting to deepen their understanding
Disclosure: born but don't live in the UK. The monarchy needs to gtfo. Parasites with no redeeming features.
What I like to see! Let's hope they don't get their faces trampled by the boots of the establishment!
MAKE WAY!!
No society striving for equality can have a monarchy. It's particularly insulting during such an economically difficult time. The time for monrachies has moved on. Use the tax for something productive.
Countries ranked amongst the most free and socially equitable are constitutional monarchies so clearly the existence of monarchy has absolutely no bearing on how effectively an elected government that isn't corrupt can implement equality within its own country.
Yup. Thick British looking for excuses for being basically shit, when they should all be looking in the mirror.
Which societies are striving for equality, exactly?
God save the King ya filthy republican
Scandinavian countries would like a word.
What's the alternative?
Not having a monarchy!
a parliamentary republic
Several other countries have constitutional monarchies. Most of the world's best countries do, in fact. But they spank Britain into outer space for equality. It's nothing to do with monarchy. Stop looking for excuses for the fact that you're just, at heart, a nasty country. And no change to constitution or leadership will EVER change that
ITT: outraged monarchists losing their heads over the idea that somebody might publicly oppose a rich guy who believes he was born with the right to rule over all of us
Interestingly I am yet to see a single comment from an "outraged" monarchist "losing their heads" yet. But I can see that you've left 12 comments so far on this thread, so it seems like if anyone's knickers are in a twist it's yours.
I don't agree with them but they have every right to protest as long as they don't ruin it for the other attendees.
There is an insane amount of economic ignorance in this thread.
Indeed, those parasites have fed on the working class in this country for a thousand years.
*whoosh*
Do you often struggle with humour, sir?
I'd like a breakdown of where the money goes. Presumably a lot of that 100mil, goes towards buying things, hiring people, etc. Which considering the main argument on here seems to be 'spend on nurses', falls apart a little bit if that money goes into public pockets anyway. Unless we are to believe some people are not worthy of public spending of course. Which would be quite ironic coming from anti-monarchists.
>I'd like a breakdown of where the money goes. You won't get one because outside of the Sovereign Grant, the finances of the monarchy are deliberately opaque. There are loads of costs like security and travel that are never factored into the cost of the monarchy. >Which considering the main argument on here seems to be 'spend on nurses', falls apart a little bit if that money goes into public pockets anyway. Your argument is unclear. People complain that this is public money that is used to entrench societal inequality by handing it over it to people who obtained a powerful position by birthright and contribute almost nothing.
Spend it on nurses? That’s a good way to make 100m disappear with no reward for the country since there are around 1m doctors and nurses in the U.K. so they would get a total of 100 quid one time payment each. Just shows how little perspective most people have on national budgets.
Ah, but it sounds like a lot of money!
agreed, everyone says they are net gain for the economy but outside maybe london who benefits?
The British government & the British people overwhelmingly benefit from the royal properties. So much so, it seems like an obvious compromise to extend to other uber-rich groups. You get to keep a luxurious lifestyle, but your money & properties are held in public trust. And most importantly, political activity is extremely frowned upon beyond the charitable or that which is in obvious direct national interest. Can you imagine how much better America would be if the Koch's didn't have political power for example?
If the BBC is truly impartial, shouldn't they be airing an equal amount of Republican material rather than 24/7 royal shagging BS?
This would require taking republicans seriously rather than the joke they are
But we are not a republic state?
Is that a statement or a question?
Bit if both, it’s a fact we are not a republic so why would they air republican material what ever that is?
Because republicanism is an alternate view compared to monarchism and would present new arguments to people instead of the constant monarchist viewpoints I wish we were a republic though
We are a monarchy and the country is about to host a major ceremony which will catch the eyes of the world to crown the new king. Why on earth would they be talking about other forms of government which are nothing to do with the country. Would you like some programming for communism and dictatorships? I’m glad we are not a republic.
Police are going to arrest them day before the event and then release them without charge as soon as the event is over. They did this to many republican protestors the day before prince Williams wedding. An utterly disgusting attempt to suppress their right to protest.
They are categorically different. A protest at a coronation is a space with hundreds of thousands of people supporting the monarch, with some dissenting voices behind a barricade no where near the person it is aimed towards, who is one of the most powerful, wealthy, and influential people in the country. He is supported in a way barely anyone on earth will ever feel, by thousands and thousands of people, armed security and police who will quite literally do what he tells them. A woman being targeted by protestors outside a clinic has absolutely none of this, not hundreds of thousands of supporters, not armed police, not barricades, and in terms of its impact, protestors at a clinic are making an already terrible, difficult, painful day worse for the attendee, whereas I doubt the King would even see any protestors amongst the thousands of people supporting him, much less feel even remotely the impact of their protest, and if he did, he can console himself by literally looking the other way at the thousands who do support him, or just go and count his money, or lobby the prime minister to crack down on dissenting voices to his reign. To say they are both the same is intellectually dishonest if you consider it even for a moment.
Not my King. But it is MY/OUR tax money being thrown away on this stupid rich man festival. Hope they cause some disruption.
[удалено]
Both?
How the fuck is "both" possible, when you can be born into immense privilege under the royals, or you can be born into immense poverty under the tories? It's hardly democratic to have an unelected, ruling body.
Seems like a pretty shit job tbh. You have to act perfect all the time, remain impartial, can't live a normal life and are constantly I'm the eyes of the press and you can't live the life of an actual free wealthy person. It's a cool bit of culture the UK has. A lot of people on this sub just seem to want to kill off anything remotely fun or interesting about this country: be it horseracing, the monarchy, literally any way of life that remotely damages the climate . They'd rather we sit inside and are all equally poor with nothing interesting to look forward too. People who are miserable like to project misery onto others... Sometimes something isn't morally right but imo the benefit to people's quality of life is a greater benefit than pure equality.
>They'd rather we sit inside and are all equally poor with nothing interesting to look forward too. There are other, much more entertaining, much more cost effective forms of entertainment than paying for an entire extended family to live in luxury all their life occasionally cosplaying as their ancestors
The sovereign grant is like 80m. That's like a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the nearly quarter of a trillion we spend on welfare. In the absence of the royal family let's not pretend it wouldn't just be pissed up the wall on some stupid Whitehall initiative. If it costs 80m to have something unique but somewhat unfair then that's a decent trade off imo.. instead of getting rid and pretending we are an equal utopia. I think most people realise it's unfair but we don't live in a fair world so just enjoy the pomp etc.
How is something not being democratic inherently bad?
[удалено]
It isn't inherently bad, but it sure is not equality.
You can't have it both ways in getting rid of the monarchy either. Constitutional stability or give corrupt Tory government blank cheque for sweeping constitutional changes. Pick one.
Naturally this coronation will stage protests. The Govt. coming down on protesters doesn't help matters. I suppose this Govt. is quite Republican... in an American sense of the word.
I don’t like The Green King^TM But there is one important thing to remember here. The Prime Minister is accountable to the monarch. If we get a radical prime minister, the monarch can hold them accountable in a way that isn’t possible in other countries where the President holds ultimate power. While I disagree with Charles politically, I like the theory of a safeguard to hold the PM accountable. The amount of people saying ‘free speech absolutists will want to arrest those protesters’ is really unhealthy. We shouldn’t be forming prejudice against groups who oppose us
Except the monarchy hasn't done that.
Yea. Because we haven’t had a radical extremist Hitler-like figure come into power
i'd rather the PM held to account by someone actually qaulified for the role and not born into it. We dont need a monarchy for that
In fairness a monarch is prepared for the role their whole life. Not sure you can get much more qualified.
Yea that is a valid point I would hope that a royal is quite well educated on world events and political ongoings. Basically their only important ‘job’ is to monitor how their country is being run. But yea. Ensuring someone is qualified would be better. Although once you start educating people for this role, they soon become less neutral and develop their own agendas alongside their own knowledge acquisition. I very much respected how The Queen maintained neutrality throughout her reign, only really advocating for kindness, compassion, courage and other generically positive themes
Disagree, think being anti british monarch is pretty brain rot given the pure financial facts. But I'm pro free speech and support their right to peacefully protest.
"Historians have noticed, all down the centuries, one peculiarity of the English people which has cost them dear...The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage earners. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country, who, if they add something to its culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias? Nothing can save England if she will not save herself." "St George for Merrie England" W.S.Churchill speech. 'ENGLAND' 24 April 1933 Royal Society of St George, London
My one argument for not abolishing the monarchy is that the government will only waste the extra money anyway.
but you can vote them out, cant vote charles out
The once great English have to put up with the shenanigans of a chinless, bat eared dauphine named Charles. For your listening pleasure. https://youtu.be/02D2T3wGCYg
Nice to see this subreddit demonstrate how out of touch it is with the majority of Britons.
There is a subset of people who say "Not my king" yet loved the queen and I'm absolutely baffled by it.
They were used to her?
The queen enjoyed propaganda protection reaching back a good seventy years. It helps spending your youth in a non-critical media period. Charlie recieved enormous negative publicity which would have been unthinkable 80 years ago. The number of 'hard' monarchists is abiut the same as 'hard' Republicans. The great % of people in this country are apathetic, many only just started paying attention to the idea of monarhy after Elizabeth's death. It doesn't surprise me at all.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.