Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Wymsey

The Queen has passed away

By Wymsey, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

hejammy

hejammy

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

I’m sorry, but this isn’t right. You stating the kings brother is a paedophile has no grounding whatsoever. In this country having sex with a 17 year old woman, nearly 18 when the photos were taken meaning she could have been 18 when what happened in the US happened,  is not illegal, she wasn’t a child and from the photos everyone has seen, she didn’t look exactly frightened to death, I’d go as far as to say she looked like she was up for it. IMO she was after another payday to keep her in the lifestyle she was accustomed to. 

Wow - from a picture - must be Nostradamus!

 

In all seriousness though - come on fella regardless of if you feel she was "up for it" or not - take a look at the bigger picture and how she came about being there, regardless of her current motive - she was taken advantage of back then and it's just not right.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Izzy

Izzy

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, RowlattsFox said:

Each to their own and all that but I really don't understand the queues. Madness. I get it's historical and people want to be part of it but anyone queuing over night to see a coffin is nuts. 

I watched a few minutes of the 'live stream' at about 6am this morning just out of curiosity.

 

Those walking past the coffin had clearly not had any kip and looked a combination of emotional, drained and exhausted. 

 

Props to one woman I saw (who I imagine was ex military) who waited her turn, faced the coffin, curtsied, bowed, saluted, then crossed herself.

 

A full house and she'd obviously put a lot of thought into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scotch

Scotch

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RowlattsFox said:

Each to their own and all that but I really don't understand the queues. Madness. I get it's historical and people want to be part of it but anyone queuing over night to see a coffin is nuts. 

I mean I've camped overnight for festival tickets before... Is this middle-class, middle age, suburban equivalent of T in the park? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RowlattsFox said:

Each to their own and all that but I really don't understand the queues. Madness. I get it's historical and people want to be part of it but anyone queuing over night to see a coffin is nuts. 

‘Each to their own’ = ‘nuts’ 

 

I get you wouldn’t do it but then again, there will be many people out there that think someone that spends many many hundreds of pounds each year in order to watch  Lcfc is nuts ……..

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Legend_in_blue

Legend_in_blue

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, RowlattsFox said:

Each to their own and all that but I really don't understand the queues. Madness. I get it's historical and people want to be part of it but anyone queuing over night to see a coffin is nuts. 

I agree.

 

I can understand, to a point, that living locally to London makes queuing for a long period of time a more attractive proposition, but don't these people have jobs to go to?

 

I don't know anyone who would have the time to fit it in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Parafox

Parafox

Posted
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

A live stream of a coffin in a room is absolutely mind boggling stuff lol 

FFS. It's not "just a coffin" though, is it. There's the ceremonial dignity and, for want of a better word, the spectacle of it. You know, the Guardsmen in full ceremonial uniform. The way they change the guard every 20 mins with great solemnity. Experiencing the whole atmosphere. Paying respects to our longest serving monarch who was highly thought of at home and abroad.

It's not your late granny their filing past.

The live stream, however, is unnecessary

Edited by Parafox
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxdiamond

Foxdiamond

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Parafox said:

FFS. It's not "just a coffin" though, is it. There's the ceremonial dignity and, for want of a better word, the spectacle of it. You know, the Guardsmen in full ceremonial uniform. The way they change the guard every 20 mins with great solemnity. Experiencing the whole atmosphere. Paying respects to our longest serving monarch who was highly thought of at home and abroad.

It's not your late granny their filing past.

The live stream, however, is unnecessary

I tend to agree. I would not be prepared to queue for hours but I understand why others would for the reasons you have stated. I know many posters have concerns that the whole issue is a distraction and some sort of establishment propaganda. I don't and after Monday we can get back to the nitty gritty of what has not gone away. There are lots of things that don't make much sense. For example  those of us that become attached to a football team in childhood but carry into our adult to obsession.  For others football fans look as barmy as those choosing to queue to see the late monarch once in 70 years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
inckley fox

inckley fox

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 14/09/2022 at 17:49, yorkie1999 said:

You don't have the right to be abusive, and label it as free speech, if we did, you'd end up with really serious racial problems. And, to be perfectly honest, that young scotish bloke, whose probably sh**ed his fair share of 17 year olds anyway, was being fairly abusive

It's one of the problems with free speech. At what point does free speech become something that you can't permit?

 

Before anything else, is it even practical to criminalise verbal abuse? Kids in schools, teachers, police officers, shop owners, social workers, politicians, medical staff... these people are insulted on a regular basis and it's impractical to process the charges that would be pressed if we were truly intolerant of abuse. You might argue that it comes with the territory, but then again you might say that this should go for royals too. I don't think I've been an unpopular teacher over my career, but I've lost count of the times I've been called a c***. And I've known plenty of colleagues who have had regular sexist or racial prejudice and abuse, including from people of a criminally responsible age (and their parents, on occasions), but who wouldn't dream of dragging it to the courts. It doesn't mean it's accepted, it just means it's impractical (and at times ineffectual) to go around arresting everyone for it.

 

I'm not sure there's any perfect solution to the problem you put forward. On the one hand, you can do what governments tend to try to do and say 'look, we don't want to go around locking everyone up who calls someone a prat - if they do it all the time then that's harassment, so yes we can, and if they threaten you then we can deal with that too - but we'll get ourselves caught up in knots if we process people for dishing out a bit of abuse.' So they tend to say, 'okay, you can call Trevor Sinclair a 'silly sod', but if you slip in certain other adjectives then you're in serious trouble.' Distinctions are drawn if there is prejudicial language. The other solution, which is truer to freedom of speech, is that you deal with the persistent harassment, the threatening behaviour, but leave pretty much everything else out of the legal process, whether it's prejudiced or not. People have their right to reply to insults, their right to consider someone to be abhorrent, their right to publish evidence which shows how abhorrent they are, their right not to employ people like that... but these are the penalties for the simple act of verbally abusing someone, regardless of what you say.

 

There are huge problems with both approaches. But equally there are lines that you can't cross if you want to retain freedom of speech, even if it allows people to say dreadful things. On the other hand, plenty of people actually prefer the third possibility - that authorities insist on well-defined public standards across the board in terms of what you can say, and what you can't; where you can say it, when you can say it, and when you can't. Which language is deemed offensive, and therefore not allowed. That isn't freedom of speech. But in many countries where this approach applies, the majority of people tend to agree that people shouldn't be saying a lot of the things which governments tell them they're not allowed to say. Reading people's thoughts on the recent protests, I also wonder how many of our people truly value freedom of speech. When you hear that over 60% of 18-34 year-olds would like a strong leader who didn't have to bother with parliament, I increasingly wonder if many British people hate - as the obvious example - Putin and his values, or are slightly jealous of them.

 

Obviously I agree that we don't want to validate verbal abuse. Especially not when it's discriminatory. But it's so hard (and quite dangerous) to pinpoint where the line is crossed with insulting language. You don't want people getting prosecuted for the unpleasant words they've used to describe Brendan Rodgers, and published, on this forum. You don't want people getting pulled up for abuse when they refer to someone with words like 'stupid', 'thick', 'brainless', 'moron', 'idiot' - even though it's all insulting.

 

While I don't think most people who have been arrested or 'bothered' by the police in recent days have been particularly abusive, in the case of the guy who laid into Prince Andrew, I think it's problematic when we talk about dealing with someone like that in the penal system. Can I see the difference between someone saying Rodgers is a bloody moron for picking Amartey, and someone screaming 'sick old man' at a technically-innocent person who is mourning his mother? Of course I can, even if it's hard to come up with something legally watertight which separates the two. Yet some things don't get dealt with in the courts when perhaps they should. Others are worthy of addressing, but not by a police officer or a judge. It's a nightmare to get this right, not only for governments but also for the police officers (who really shouldn't be humiliated and demonised if they've slipped up).

 

For me, though, it's telling that the Times obit for King George IV called him everything under the sun and said he wouldn't be missed at all. Over the next hundred years, we all got the vote. And a hundred years after that, another monarch dies, and you might find yourself in serious trouble if you echoed those Times obit sentiments in public. It's unsurprising that people from across the political spectrum are uneasy about this.

 

Sorry if that was a bit long. I wrote a short paragraph in response last night and thought, 'I'll go over it tomorrow' before posting. And I ended up with this...

Edited by inckley fox
typo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Izzy

Izzy

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I said the same thing earlier, and a good percentage of the men that are there are probably only there with the women. 

It's like being dragged around the shops :whistle:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, RowlattsFox said:

Each to their own and all that but I really don't understand the queues. Madness. I get it's historical and people want to be part of it but anyone queuing over night to see a coffin is nuts. 

May I suggest you spend a few minutes watching the live stream?

 

It clearly means a lot to a lot of people. For a multitude of reasons - whether they loved or respected the Queen or the monarchy, or served in her army, or in paying respects to her they're mourning their own private loss. Thousands of people have gone past and either bowed/curtsied, prayed or cried. Hell my gran would have gone down there if she wasn't 89.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Super_horns

Super_horns

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Why the hell this is in the public domain I have no idea.  Complete lack of respect for the man.  Anyone having the week he is having would be struggling.

All seems rushed as well.

 

Couldn't they wait till the Queen is buried and the family (after all that is what the Royals are like all of us)  had time alone to grieve?

 

I know we were always going to have them in public looking at the tribute and the like but I doubt he has had any time with his sons/siblings.

 

I got the impression these events were supposed to be a celebration of Charles becoming King but doubt he felt very cheerful!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Free Falling Foxes

Free Falling Foxes

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Here's a useless observation....

 

Watching people walk past the coffin, I'd say at least 70% are women.

Someone pointed out to me that when you see general pictures of the queues, the vast majority of the folk are white.

However, when the TV shows interviews with some of those in the queue, they portray a 50/50, white/non white balance.

He's right, at least when I watched last night.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...