The Queen has passed away

[foxes1988]

19 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Yes they should. 

 

There were hundreds of Burnley fans at the tribute to your late owner after his helicopter crash.  Would you have been supportive if any one or any hundreds of them had exercised their rights to free speech during the two minutes' silence, by shouting their heads off about Thailand, about football, about Prince Andrew, or any other subject they fell like speaking freely about?

 

It's all very well to say that if 30,000 people are present and 29,999 want to pay silent respect, that the other 1 has absolute freedom to shout his head off.  But what about the other 29,999?  Aren't they losing their right to their moment of respect?  

 

 

This is a fair point tbf.  Dan Roan said some disrespectful things during that time and i'm still angry about it to be honest 

[fox_up_north]

There's also (speaking from my A level teaching days) informal social control. If someone starts singing during a minute silence and people around don't agree, they'll let them know. It doesn't need to involve the law, as social conventions have stepped in. That person's actions have come with consequences, just not legal ones. 

[Houdini Logic]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Yes they should. 

 

There were hundreds of Burnley fans at the tribute to your late owner after his helicopter crash.  Would you have been supportive if any one or any hundreds of them had exercised their rights to free speech during the two minutes' silence, by shouting their heads off about Thailand, about football, about Prince Andrew, or any other subject they fell like speaking freely about?

 

It's all very well to say that if 30,000 people are present and 29,999 want to pay silent respect, that the other 1 has absolute freedom to shout his head off.  But what about the other 29,999?  Aren't they losing their right to their moment of respect?  

 

 

You're missing the important part of what happened yesterday - the law intervened. (actually there's another key difference regarding the subject and who it was targeted at, but I don't want to confuse the point).

 

This isn't a question of respect, it is a question of freedom of speech.

 

To carry on your analogy - if someone started shouting their head off during a two minutes silence, do you think they should be arrested?

 

 

[yorkie1999]

7 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

You're missing the important part of what happened yesterday - the law intervened. (actually there's another key difference regarding the subject and who it was targeted at, but I don't want to confuse the point).

 

This isn't a question of respect, it is a question of freedom of speech.

 

To carry on your analogy - if someone started shouting their head off during a two minutes silence, do you think they should be arrested?

 

 

I do, it’s incitement to provoke unrest.

[fox_up_north]

Very slippery slope, right there. Let's say the government want to hold a 2 minute silence for the death of a PM during football. A PM that many have disagreed with, who they have suffered deteriorating quality of life under. Should they be legally forced to do so?

 

Unrest is a right. To disagree with something is a right. Was I comfortable hearing people boo players take the knee? No. But that's their right. 

[HighPeakFox]

This makes for good, thought-provoking reading.

 

I can only contribute this - if the (I assume) OTT TV and media coverage of every moment of this event is not to your taste, then I suggest finding alternative avenues of distraction, as I have been doing for some time. 

[Foxdiamond]

35 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

You're missing the important part of what happened yesterday - the law intervened. (actually there's another key difference regarding the subject and who it was targeted at, but I don't want to confuse the point).

 

This isn't a question of respect, it is a question of freedom of speech.

 

To carry on your analogy - if someone started shouting their head off during a two minutes silence, do you think they should be arrested?

 

 

The law probably as been said saved the bloke from a beating and in a tight space possibly saved people from being crushed. We have seen protesters at the Tory hustings and they were removed by security. 

[st albans fox]

28 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Very slippery slope, right there. Let's say the government want to hold a 2 minute silence for the death of a PM during football. A PM that many have disagreed with, who they have suffered deteriorating quality of life under. Should they be legally forced to do so?

 

Unrest is a right. To disagree with something is a right. Was I comfortable hearing people boo players take the knee? No. But that's their right. 

They don’t have to remain silent but they also are not obliged to start shouting or singing 

 

they should respect the right of those who want to show their respects by refraining during that 2 mins.  After the period of quiet/silence, they can shout and sing what they want (as long as it isn’t inciting violence which is against the law) 

 

to me, it’s about showing respect to their fellow citizens. 

[Daggers]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Surely that’s a positive thing that even daggers can get on board with ! 

I was more concerned with the absence of strawberries and green bananas yesterday.

[Daggers]

15 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

They don’t have to remain silent but they also are not obliged to start shouting or singing 

 

they should respect the right of those who want to show their respects by refraining during that 2 mins.  After the period of quiet/silence, they can shout and sing what they want (as long as it isn’t inciting violence which is against the law) 

 

to me, it’s about showing respect to their fellow citizens. 

Quietly holding a sign saying #notmyking? Surely not even those who bang on about free speech on social media could object to that?

 

Doesn't seem to be creating any cause for arrest in my book.

 

Shouting at a paedo? I'm torn on the matter.

[Livid]

Whatever you think of Prince Andrew or the right to free speech.

 

To verbally abuse anyone (and that's what he was doing here) as they walk behind their mother's funeral cortege is a vile act.

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, Daggers said:

I was more concerned with the absence of strawberries and green bananas yesterday.

Brexit mate 😀

The ERG thought we could grow our own bananas …….

[foxy boxing]

14 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

They don’t have to remain silent but they also are not obliged to start shouting or singing 

 

they should respect the right of those who want to show their respects by refraining during that 2 mins.  After the period of quiet/silence, they can shout and sing what they want (as long as it isn’t inciting violence which is against the law) 

 

to me, it’s about showing respect to their fellow citizens. 

Much better to have a 2 minutes applause than a 2  minutes silence at least at places like football as you always hear some people shout.if people want to be silent  You can have a two minutes silence anywhere else.  It's never really made sense doing it in a packed stadium with thousands of people. You shouldn't force people who only want to watch football to do it if they don't want to. Yes it's about respect but it's also about free will.

[st albans fox]

Just now, Daggers said:

Quietly holding a sign saying #notmyking? Surely not even those who bang on about free speech on social media could object to that?

 

Doesn't seem to be creating any cause for arrest in my book.

 

Shouting at a paedo? I'm torn on the matter.

I dont believe that they arrested the lady with the ‘not my king’ sign 

[Daggers]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

I dont believe that they arrested the lady with the ‘not my king’ sign 

True, but officers "moved on" both women. I really can't see the justification. They both had the right to be in a public space imo.

 

I seriously question what goes through the minds of people who are doing this, don't get me wrong, but this does raise questions about how we are allowed to protest in future. If a tiny sign is claimed to cause distress, demos are effectively banned.

[Livid]

Anyway on a slightly lighter note.

 

Are we all off on Monday ?

 

We got the OK this morning, I will probably watch the funeral and weather permitting tidy up the garden a little.

[ozleicester]

8 minutes ago, Livid said:

Whatever you think of Prince Andrew or the right to free speech.

 

To verbally abuse a paedophile (and that's what he was doing here) as they walk behind their mother's funeral cortege is a vile act. is fine

 

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Houdini Logic said:

You're missing the important part of what happened yesterday - the law intervened. (actually there's another key difference regarding the subject and who it was targeted at, but I don't want to confuse the point).

 

This isn't a question of respect, it is a question of freedom of speech.

 

To carry on your analogy - if someone started shouting their head off during a two minutes silence, do you think they should be arrested?

 

 

Yes. The law about behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace has been in place in one form or another for many years, for just this sort of thing.

 

Here's another question.  If my particular form of protest was to play God Save the Queen (traditional version or Sex Pistols version, it doesn't matter for the sake of this question) at 100 decibels for weeks on end outside your house, would you take action to prevent it?  The law has remedies that will stop that sort of thing.  Would you invoke them?

[BKLFox]

 The Police can pull someone (out a crowd for instance) & arrest them under section 136 for their own saftey, both these incidents had the crowd turning against them & therefore could be seen in a police view as potentially putting themselves in danger

Usually this results in a de-arrest once the person is out of harms way.

 

The guy shouting at Andrew could well have done something else whilst in process of being or whilst arrested & maybe that's what his charge relates to, the guy in Oxford was de-arrested with no charge.
Those others that were arrested with the signs were not arrested due to what was written on the signs.

 

 

Edited 13 September 2022 by BKLFox

[st albans fox]

14 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Yes. The law about behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace has been in place in one form or another for many years, for just this sort of thing.

 

Here's another question.  If my particular form of protest was to play God Save the Queen (traditional version or Sex Pistols version, it doesn't matter for the sake of this question) at 100 decibels for weeks on end outside your house, would you take action to prevent it?  The law has remedies that will stop that sort of thing.  Would you invoke them?

go on - i dare you 

[yorkie1999]

15 hours ago, ajthefox said:

What he should've done is shouted Andrews a peado. 

I mean c'mon, lets call a spade a spade. It's not like he's got covid.

What he should have shouted out was “I hate you Andrew, I hate you since you left me in that motel room in Staines.

[yorkie1999]

Considering 90% of the worlds most powerful and possibly millions of people  are going to be rocking up in London, I think this is more about a zero tolerance towards any kind of trouble or potential trouble.

[Facecloth]

In lighter news, Center Parcs are closing their sites on Monday, expect all the guest to disappear, but they can come back at 10am Tuesday 

 

This country has lost the plot 

[Benguin]

27 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

In lighter news, Center Parcs are closing their sites on Monday, expect all the guest to disappear, but they can come back at 10am Tuesday 

 

This country has lost the plot 

The company I work for (also a holiday place) is doing the same. It’s a logistical nightmare to organise and I’m pulling my hair out and would much rather work 18 hours on Monday than deal with the changes I’m having to make. 

[Facecloth]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

The company I work for (also a holiday place) is doing the same. It’s a logistical nightmare to organise and I’m pulling my hair out and would much rather work 18 hours on Monday than deal with the changes I’m having to make. 

What i don't get about Center Parcs, aside from their spelling of both Centre and Parks, is its self catering, there's no need to kick people out. They can stay, fend for themselves. Just cancel the daily activities and offer refunds. You wouldn't get kick out of an Air Bnb on Monday so why are Center Parcs doing it?