Private Eye's take on the big event:

 

Almost as good as its special cover for the birth of...whichever of the Kate/William kids came first:

2 hours ago, Reader said:

Have a read here before you go on.
 

 

Don't see anything that says a person can be arrested for chanting "not my king". If it does, the UK is screwed.

Or anything that contradicts the following...

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights#:~:text=To arrest you the police,at home or at work.

"To arrest you the police need reasonable grounds to suspect you’re involved in a crime for which your arrest is necessary."

But of course, concern has been raised about the "new measures" that were quickly rushed into place.

Edited May 7, 20233 yr by martin-w

51 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

I don’t think there’s any point in joining this debate but Martin; you’re absolutely correct.

Just quite surprised at some of the misconceptions about the basic freedoms British democracy is established upon and the rights of the people to freedom of expression and dissent that we’re (supposed) to enjoy.

 

Exactly, I'm suprised too, in fact stunned. People don't seem to comprehend what's at stake here. Human rights organisations aren't concerned about this for nothing. 

Edited May 7, 20233 yr by martin-w

This debate is now turning political. No further political opinions or it will be locked.

5 hours ago, Holdit said:

Private Eye's take on the big event:

Almost as good as its special cover for the birth of...whichever of the Kate/William kids came first:

Im in my 40s, it will be interesting to see how big the royal family is in 20 years time.  Its my opinion that Charles should of abdicated to William. 

Harry looked like a lost lamb,  again its of my opinion that his wife within 5 to 10 years will take him for every penny,kid,house,car, and contract she can get off him.  Hes not the sharpest tool in the box and the poor lad has truely burnt his bridges,  the pain on his face and his father when Willam kissed his dad on the cheeck was plain to see.   

The poor sod has been hoodwinkled.  His grandfather was right when he said "actresses and showgirls are for fun not for marriage"  In a few years when he realises the LA life is has choosen to live is a sham and hes been knobbled ,  he will come home with his tail between is legs, to everyone saying "we told you so" 

Thats without the drama of his uncle. What a time to be alive., 

   

 

Edited May 7, 20233 yr by Ray Proudfoot
Embedded images in quoted post removed.

But if William now writes a book, it won't sell like Harry's. And will South Park have a William and Kate episode? I doubt it. 

 

16 hours ago, Fielder said:

But the Chorus sang, "May the King live forever"!

And how well has that worked out, eh? I've seen no mention of any monarchs to be still alive, have I simply missed something? (rhetorical question)

21 minutes ago, n4gix said:

And how well has that worked out, eh? I've seen no mention of any monarchs to be still alive, have I simply missed something?

It avoids the awkwardness of singing "May the king live for at least 15 years"

Princes Ann played two key roles.

1 Wear a tall hat

4:41

-----

2 Serve as principal bodyguard

6:51

 

Edited May 7, 20233 yr by Fielder

5 hours ago, dmwalker said:

It avoids the awkwardness of singing "May the king live for at least 15 years"

Yeah, that would be kind of awkward! Why were two of the pages wearing all black, unlike the other six pages? 

I noticed Rishi Sunak, Emmanuel Macron, Humza Yousaf, Anthony Albanese, Jill Biden, Justin Trudeau, and other top decision makers from around the world in attendance. 

On 5/7/2023 at 8:52 AM, martin-w said:

 

"They wouldn't have stopped at that"

You've shocked me there Ray.

Now wouldn't that be a dreadful scenario for the UK. The police thinking "You know what, he MIGHT do something, better arrest him". "Look at that Ray guy, standing by that shop, he might brake in, better arrest him, just in case.

Innocent untill proven guilty is the cornerstone of our legal system. In the UK, you can't arrest people without reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is involved in a crime, for which arrest is necessary. And holding a placard that says "not my king" is not reasonable grounds you are involved in a crime.

Unless you live in one of the extremely dodgy nations on the planet, where the police do that all the time. And I'm sure you wouldn't want the UK to be akin to one of those nations. 

 

A very naive reaction, I'm afraid. Those people have on many occasions stated their intention to disrupt. There was no way that the Police could take any chances. I think that their actions actually prevented the possibility of the Public taking matters into their own hands, should anything untoward have happened.

1 hour ago, IanHarrison said:

A very naive reaction, I'm afraid. Those people have on many occasions stated their intention to disrupt.

 

Ian, that's not relevant. You can't arrest an individual because "those people" on other occasions said something. That's the equivalent of a police state.

The law is clear on what's required...

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights#:~:text=To arrest you the police,at home or at work.

"To arrest you the police need reasonable grounds to suspect you’re involved in a crime for which your arrest is necessary."

That's "involved in a crime" that's present tense. It's not "those guys once said something so they MIGHT or MIGHT NOT do it so we'll arrest them just in case." That scenario, by definition, means those that weren't going to do anything other than wave a placard and a bit of chanting, would be arrested too, and thus, experience wrongful arrest.

We are in serious jeopardy as a society, if the claims are true, and people were arrested for chanting "not my king" or holding placards stating the same. That would definitively be police over reach.

The concern, is the additional laws that were rushed into place, at the last minute, that appear to be giving the police the latitude to arrest who they like, when they like.

The police appear to be using these new powers to "pre-arrest" people.

Numerous human rights organisations are concerned about this. They arent concerned just for fun.

If, in the report below, it's true that the organisation in question negotiated with police for four months and were given the all clear, and then on the day, two hours before the coronation, 50 police descended on them, took away placards and then arrested them, its dodgy indeed. The claim was that they had equipment to "lock on" but the leader of the group say they had no such equipment at all.

They are considering suing. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/arrests-coronation-gmb-republic-graham-smith-b2334749.html

And it's not just human rights groups that are concerned, politicians  are expressing concern too, and commenting that "this is not what democracy looks like". 

 

 

Edited May 8, 20233 yr by martin-w

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

 

"To arrest you the police need reasonable grounds to suspect you’re involved in a crime for which your arrest is necessary."

If I were the Police, I would have said that, bearing in mind the previous actions and statements, there were very reasonable grounds to suspect a crime was going to be committed.

It will be good if it goes to Court, to see who is judged to be correct. In other words, is "pre-emptive Policing" lawful? It jolly well ought to be if it isn't already.

Edited May 8, 20233 yr by IanHarrison

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

We are in serious jeopardy as a society, if the claims are true, and people were arrested for chanting "not my king" or holding placards stating the same.

Do you think they should have been able to demonstrate peacefully outside Westminster Abbey?

My impression is that coronations and royal funerals are the only two exceptions which justify this level of police response. The protesters still got some publicity, which is what they wanted.