3 hours ago, Holdit said:

Also starring Alexander Boris der Piffle Johnson passed out beneath the barrier, Braverman in cabin crew uniform and a lettuce in a wig as Liz Truss. 

Thanks, not being British, I wondered who the lettuce was. LOL!

(I only knew the obvious ones like tall Clarkson and short Ringo).

14 minutes ago, martin-w said:

From the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65507435

That report included… “Officers, she said, have a duty to intervene "when protest becomes criminal and may cause serious disruption".

That’s good enough for me. It was a historic occasion and they only had one thing on their mind.

1 hour ago, Reader said:

In recent times, there has been a constant move to undermine the authority of the police, emanating from those at all levels of society, who believe that the rules are there for everyone else, but not them.

 

Indeed, but its a slippery slope when new laws are put in place that make it easy to arrest someone whenever the police feel like it. this is the scenario that exists in some pretty dodgy countries. the police have a difficult job, I appreciate what they do, but I also appreciate that freedom of speech is important

The Metropolitan Police actually said that their tolerance for any disruption would be very low. Having a very low tolernece makes it far more likley that arrests will be manifest that shouldn't be arests

I would say human rights organizations that are expressing concern should be listened to.

2 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That report included… “Officers, she said, have a duty to intervene "when protest becomes criminal and may cause serious disruption".

 

Indeed! But the issue is WHAT they are regarding as criminal. The new laws allow then a wider latitude in terms of what they deem criminal. 

Thailand, now that's one place I wouldn't mess around with mocking the royals. North Korea, mocking the great leader and his family might not be wise either. UK I'm pretty sure most people would be fine most of the time, but maybe nerves are on edge with the large crowds. 

10 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Indeed! But the issue is WHAT they are regarding as criminal. The new laws allow then a wider latitude in terms of what they deem criminal. 

I read couldn’t give a monkey’s Martin. I think they’re a bunch of idiots.

19 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I read couldn’t give a monkey’s Martin. I think they’re a bunch of idiots.

 

Pretty sure many of them are idiots. But even idiots are allowed freedom of speech.

Anyway, was indeed an historic occasion. 

2 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Pretty sure many of them are idiots. But even idiots are allowed freedom of speech.

Anyway, was indeed an historic occasion. 

I have no problem with freedom of speech but they wouldn’t have stopped at that. They would have disrupted the occasion as much as they could. The police acted appropriately.

Freedom of speech does not mean anyone else is obligated to give you an audience. It most certainly does not give you the right to interfere with other people's freedom of movement, commerce, or right to personal safety and use of their private property. This so-called freedom to protest has gotten extremely out of hand.

1 hour ago, Patco Lch said:

 It most certainly does not give you the right to interfere with other people's freedom of movement, commerce, or right to personal safety and use of their private property. This so-called freedom to protest has gotten extremely out of hand.

Agree completely.
 I mean, look what happened when a group of hooligans tipped a great deal of stolen tea into Boston harbour.🤔

Disgraceful!

10 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Agree completely.
 I mean, look what happened when a group of hooligans tipped a great deal of stolen tea into Boston harbour.🤔

Disgraceful!

Actually I agree with you there. Destruction of someone else’s property is never justified. Just don't buy it.🙂

I wonder why they didn't use the canopy for the anointing, which they used for Queen Elizabeth.

26 minutes ago, Patco Lch said:

Actually I agree with you there. Destruction of someone else’s property is never justified. Just don't buy it.🙂

You’re kidding right? If that hadn’t taken place we’d all be speaking German now….

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

Hmmm... for the same reason as free to chant "not my king", I have no issue with anyone expressing their democratic right to fawn over whoever and whatever they want. 

I got up at 0400 CST to watch the entirety of the event mainly for the pomp and circumstance pagentry, as well as the wonderful music. I'm decidedly ambivalent about the King and "adult members" of the Royal Family...

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

Anyway, was indeed an historic occasion. 

Indeed it was an historic occasion. However, for the last few days I've been hearing it referred to as a "once in a lifetime event." What, they don't think William will become King one day in the not too distant future?

I suspect that I might still be alive to watch William become King!