A Political Thread pt. 2

[ncurd]

Way to authorarian for me telling the police to step in over words written down.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the hate speech laws we have over here but this is it's taking the ****. F the monarchy. Lol. Pretty tame.

And this ******** about not spoiling the day for the people who are there celebrating, I'm sorry but that's not how a democratic society works. They have just as much right to protest on public property as the people who want to celebrate on public property.

 

[Welsh Exile]

We'll see at the Coronation. I am sure there'll be one or two. I think legally that would be "disturbing the peace" IIRC and police can step in. Yes, it's Moral call as well.

Very very dangerous ground there. As @ncurd says you're really opening the doors for an authoritarian style society that can shut down any kind of free speech they don't like as people on here would like people to do just to spare their feelings about a horrible institution that symbolises the worst parts of Britain. **** that.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Very very dangerous ground there. As @ncurd says you're really opening the doors for an authoritarian style society that can shut down any kind of free speech they don't like as people on here would like people to do just to spare their feelings about a horrible institution that symbolises the worst parts of Britain. **** that.

‘The crowd were saying, “Kill him, kick him to death”’: what happened to the people who protested against King Charles?

When the queen died last year, republicans balked at the fawning response to the succession. Some even found themselves under arrest for minor acts of protest, such as heckling. Ahead of next week’s coronation, three tell their tales

www.theguardian.com

They already are.

 

[Welsh Exile]

‘The crowd were saying, “Kill him, kick him to death”’: what happened to the people who protested against King Charles?

When the queen died last year, republicans balked at the fawning response to the succession. Some even found themselves under arrest for minor acts of protest, such as heckling. Ahead of next week’s coronation, three tell their tales

www.theguardian.com

They already are.

I know. Very worrying and even more worrying you have people saying it's ok to do or say these kind of things to people protesting an archaic institution.

So, would you still think it's ok to arrest people for saying F the monarchy?

 

[BrokenWing]

"Man coming home from something archaic and irrelevant is annoyed by something he regards as archaic and irrelevant."

"Who elected him?"... Apparently the god you seem to believe in.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I know. Very worrying and even more worrying you have people saying it's ok to do or say these kind of things to people protesting an archaic institution.

So, would you still think it's ok to arrest people for saying F the monarchy?

Doesn't matter what I think, it's what the police will do to peeps if they do cross that line. They'll use the they are pre empting violence to use their powers of arrest. I wouldn't do it personally although I am against the institution itself.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Doesn't matter what I think, it's what the police will do to peeps if they do cross that line. They'll use the they are pre empting violence to use their powers of arrest. I wouldn't do it personally although I am against the institution itself.

For me it does matter what you think as in this instance that's all I wanted to know so thanks for clarifying.

My line would be a bunch of people with megaphones screaming "The monarchy need to be executed we must take action" or something along those lines.

 

[ncurd]

For me it does matter what you think as in this instance that's all I wanted to know so thanks for clarifying.

My line would be a bunch of people with megaphones screaming "The monarchy need to be executed we must take action" or something along those lines.

Yup actual incitement to violence requires an actual call to break the law. **** the Monarchy clearly isn't meant to be taken literally by any sane person or the audience it is intended for. Which is the requirement in law.

This why Trump hasn't been indited for what he said that caused the capital riots (although he was damn close).

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

If you make "**** the monarchy" something that can be punished then it isn't a huge logical leap to say "**** the prime minister" also gets banned for major events, then generally, then the government as a whole...

Colourful criticism and outright rude condemnation and mockery of those in power should never be made illegal.

 

[Reiser99]

If you make "**** the monarchy" something that can be punished then it isn't a huge logical leap to say "**** the prime minister" also gets banned for major events, then generally, then the government as a whole...

Colourful criticism and outright rude condemnation and mockery of those in power should never be made illegal.

This would be especially ironic considering the Conservatives are the supposed champions of free speech, though that's mainly so they can keep lying and misinterpreting facts intentionally to create an alternative truth.

 

[General Melchett]

The national anthem sets the wrong tone for me. Other countries like Ireland, Australia, Canada etc talk about standing shoulder to shoulder, advance Australia, Oh Canada we stand on guard etc. The anthem should symbolise what's great about the country and it's people as a collective. The British national anthem is about highlighting the importance of one individual.

Imagine putting your whole life into training for a sport and when you reach the pinnacle and stand on the podium to collect your gold medal, the flag starts to raise, the music hits and bloody Charles steals your thunder.

 

[Saintjay]

The law is pretty clear and has been for years. If you act or display insulting words, signs or behaviour you risk getting nicked. Simply down to what the average person thinks which would realistically be the pretty conservative god fearing magistrates. Good luck convincing them thr f*uck the king or **** Borris sign isn't insulting. Freedom of speech simply isn't a defence.

 

[Reiser99]

Stella Creasy: MP left humiliated after online troll contacted police

Labour MP Stella Creasy was investigated after a troll told authorities her children were at risk.

www.bbc.co.uk

So you're allowed to make up claims about an MP's children based on zero evidence that then gets recorded permanently and face no consequences because you are 'entitled' to your point of view, but you aren't allowed to protest a corrupt, archaic institution without risk of being arrested.

 

[ncurd]

The law is pretty clear and has been for years. If you act or display insulting words, signs or behaviour you risk getting nicked.

Citation Needed

 

[Saintjay]

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5(1) provides:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

 

[Bada-Bing!]

The pledge of allegiance to the king is nonsense – and seems designed to incense everyone | Zoe Williams

People will give voice to this absurd word salad and a chorus will go up from those of us who have been silent about the royals for years. The only thing I swear? There will be tears after this homage, writes Zoe Williams

www.theguardian.com

Can you see yourself saying these words out loud on Saturday?

'I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.'"

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Heads up lads, we had a civil war over an oath of allegiance to the King so take care of yerselves.

 

[ncurd]

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5(1) provides:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

And the people being arrested for it?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 5(1) provides:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

That last sentence provides a threshold that I don't think a judge would want to cross for some lad holding a sign and shouting the odd swear word, it would take a lot more than that for a reasonable person to feel in amy way distressed.