21 ms·

They aren’t being arrested for being anti-monarchy though. They are being arrested for being rude about it. Was the fella on radio 4 who stated to the entire

• throwawaymanbot 4y ago
• closewith 4y ago
  > They aren’t being arrested for being anti-monarchy though. > They are being arrested for being rude about it. Got it. Arrested for poor taste. Hard to see the justification for that in a democracy?
  • dijit 4y ago
    You will be arrested for hurling obscenities at mourners regardless of who the dead person is. People were arrested at Margaret Thatchers funeral for the same thing. It’s not rocket science. You’re not allowed to do that.
    • ISL 4y ago
      In the United States, with certain limits [1], one can picket funerals and be massively disrespectful. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Laws_limiting_funeral_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Laws_l...
      • bawolff 4y ago
        So? the US is a weird, barely functioning, democracy. Why would anyone want to emulate it?
        • junofan 4y ago
          Not arresting protestors is probably a good thing to emulate regardless of your feelings about the US.
          • gambiting 4y ago
            Why does everything have to be so extremist with the US? Everything taken to the absolute maximum imaginable? Protests should be allowed, but it's not an absolute god given right - if you're being a dick, destroying public property, advocating violence or hate - then no, you shouldn't be allowed to protest. I know in America you let even neo nazis march your streets and boast how that's "freedom" but that's not freedom - that's blindly following certain ideology(freedom to do anything AT ALL costs) without any consideration as to what that does to your society.
            • mwint 4y ago
              USAian here: > Protests should be allowed They are. > destroying public property Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. > advocating violence or hate Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. You just can’t be arrested for “being rude”. You have to commit a crime. Protesting does not mean you’re immune to prosecution for non-free-speech crimes. What happened with the BLM riots was simply governments deciding, for one reason or another, not to stop the crimes being committed.
              • heavyset_go 4y ago
                > > advocating violence or hate > Is illegal and you can be arrested for it. This is untrue. Immediate, direct, actionable threats are illegal, saying "I/we/you need to go hunt down and murder X now" can be construed as an actionable threat. Extolling the virtues of murder and opining about how nice it would be if someone finally hunted down and killed X is legal free speech. You can talk about how X needs to die all you want, but if you start making immediate, direct, actionable threats towards X, that crosses territory from free speech to illegal threats.
    • KptMarchewa 4y ago
      Once again, Americans are proud of the fact they can protest at funerals.
      • defen 4y ago
        The alternative is that you can be arrested for saying something mean at a funeral. I prefer the American system.
        • munk-a 4y ago
          I don't - my father's funeral is literally two weeks away. Some relatives that my mother doesn't get along with at all aren't invited - they've never been particularly close and it'll be healthier for everyone if they don't stir shit in a time of healing. This isn't a case of protestors being repeatedly ignored - the public discussion about the monarchy is unfolding in most media outlets right now and other forms of protest are still quite available.
          • defen 4y ago
            Sorry about your father. I don't like using personal examples since emotions can be strong, especially at a time like this. If they were to show up and stand peacefully with a sign, I don't think that should be illegal. But if they did that it would certainly show the rest of the family what kinds of people they are.
            • munk-a 4y ago
              I mean - whenever we're talking about funerals it's an extremely personal event for some. Just because you can't see the person - or it's a person of privilege - doesn't mean it doesn't hit just as hard. Additionally, while I think this is extremely unhealthy mentally, there was a not insignificant proportion of Britain that felt they had a personal relationship with the queen even if they never met her for tea.
          • gjs278 4y ago
    • throwawaymanbot 4y ago
    • mytailorisrich 4y ago
      In Oxford someone was arrested for shouting "who elected him" during the proclamation of the new king so it's not just about respecting a funeral (which is understable) or unacceptable language. But in fairness to the police there seems to be a mass fervour at the moment and they may actually be doing the hecklers a service by taking them away for their own safety...
      • account-5 4y ago
        And then de-arrested.
        • jjgreen 4y ago
          That arrest can still see you barred from certain jobs: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29784497 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29784497
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
        • mytailorisrich 4y ago
          Why do you arrest someone just to de-arrest them minutes later once there are away? I think this rather proves the point that the police knew that person was not actually committing an offence but wanted to take them away.
      • krona 4y ago
        This is the point. 'Fear or provocation of violence' is an offence since it precipitates violence, its a provocation that 'might cause a reasonable individual to lose self control', which would be quite dreadful!
        • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
          How does a reasonable, sober person lose self-control over some random dude shouting at a celebrity?
        • 4y ago
    • bogomipz 4y ago
      >"You will be arrested for hurling obscenities at mourners regardless of who the dead person is." The word hurling in the context of insults or obscenities means vocalizing them in a very audible fashion. The article states that the woman at St Giles was not audibly protesting but rather holding a sign. Given that she was quietly expressing her opinion, tasteful or not, it seems she could have been quietly removed without being arrested. >"In widely seen photos, a woman holding a sign reading "Abolish monarchy" and "F*** imperialism" was arrested on Sunday at St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh, where the queen's body is to lie at rest until Tuesday. Further the object of their protest was the institution and neither the mourners or the deceased. The other two people mentioned in the article who were vocal, were outside on public streets and not in a Church. The article states they were near parade barricades. Again the object of their protest was the institution and it was being done on public streets. Surely you are allowed to express your discontent about an institution on a public street. That's not rocket science. >"And in London, a woman was led away by four uniformed officers on Monday after holding up a sign reading "Not my king" — which has become a trending hashtag — near Westminster Hall." Again we have a woman who was holding up a sign on a public street "near Westminster Hall."
    • dTal 4y ago
      You will also be arrested for shouting "who elected him" at the new King's proclamation ceremony apparently. These tired strawmen need to stop. Anti-royalists are being arrested for expressing anti-royal views in inconvenient places, not "hurling obscenities at a funeral".
  • zardo 4y ago
    A democracy certainly doesn't need rules to protect the dignity of it's royal family.
    • ysleepy 4y ago
      Not a royal privilege though, the commoners enjoy the right to an undisturbed funeral too.
      • misnome 4y ago
        Ah, so the entire country counts as the site of a funeral now?
        • yellowapple 4y ago
          It does if it's for a royal, I guess.
        • type0 4y ago
          Yeah and why not entire Commonwealth then?
  • googlryas 4y ago
    It's not being arrested for poor taste. They're being arrested for their actions, not their beliefs. Is there some democracy somewhere which doesn't have a public nuisance/breaching the peace style law?
    • mytailorisrich 4y ago
      Let's just say that the hecklers have been arrested much, much faster (pretty much instantly, apparently) than the "eco-activists" who recently blocked roads, petrol stations, even motorways...
      • koheripbal 4y ago
        I think we agree that all disruptive assholes should be arrested quickly.
        • teamonkey 4y ago
          Definitely, absolutely not.
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
    • type0 4y ago
      UK isn't a democracy it's a monarchy
      • TheCoelacanth 4y ago
        It purports to be both a non-republican democracy and a monarchy.
        • cma 4y ago
          The king/queen can dissolve parliament: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_Uni... It is only by convention that he doesn't, that will only last until you get a bad king/queen and thr right opportunity.
  • metacritic12 4y ago
    Is stealing someone else's wallet also in poor taste? Yes. If that thief gets arrested, is it just because it is poor taste? No. Same thing with hurling obscenities at a funeral.
  • dqh 4y ago
    Do you really think you should have the right to disrupt the funeral of someone you don’t like?
    • pharmakom 4y ago
      What if the funeral is a 10 day extravaganza at tax payer expense whilst some families are choosing between eating and heating?
      • gambiting 4y ago
        I think we're reaching some insane point in this discussion when a funeral of one of the most well known people in the world, where leaders of literally every major superpower are coming over to pay their respects is called an extravaganza.
        • dTal 4y ago
        • aembleton 4y ago
          > where leaders of literally every major superpower are coming over to pay their respects Is Putin coming?
          • autoexec 4y ago
            Considering they've failed to take Ukraine I'm not Russia gets to keep it's "Superpower" status anymore. Even if they eventually managed it in the following weeks/months/years, that's still just pathetic. I'm not saying I wanted Russia to invade or beat Ukraine, I think the war was beyond stupid and unnecessary but it sure has made Russia look weak and dumb. Not the kind of thing that "projects power on a global scale."
      • rlpb 4y ago
        Since about half the country seem to want to show up, it seems reasonable and proportionate. I wouldn't have a problem with some celebrity's funeral being a huge affair either, even if I didn't care for that celebrity myself. In case I'm misunderstood, I don't feel strongly either way about the British royalty, but I'm OK with allowing a significant proportion of the population being left alone to get on with what ceremony they want to do, given that they want to do it.
  • babypuncher 4y ago
    I think it's fair to make certain events, like funerals, off-limits to protest. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything you want wherever you want. I can't just walk into the Oval Office and start hurling obscenities at the President, and attempting to do so is likely to get me shot by the Secret Service.
    • jakelazaroff 4y ago
      > Freedom of speech does not mean you are free to say anything you want wherever you want. I can't just walk into the Oval Office and start hurling obscenities at the President, and attempting to do so is likely to get me shot by the Secret Service. For trespassing. This example has nothing to do with speech.
      • bawolff 4y ago
        It has the same amount as the thing this article is about, which makes it a good comparison (the article also has nothing to do with the content of the speech)
        • jakelazaroff 4y ago
          The article definitely has to do with the content of the speech: > Similar reports emerged Monday, including one case involving a man who was seen being forcibly removed from a parade barrier after shouting at the royal procession leading to the cathedral. He was reportedly heckling Prince Andrew. This comparison just has nothing to do with speech at all. It’s categorically different. You’d get arrested for breaking into the Oval Office even if you remained silent the whole time.
    • tastyfreeze 4y ago
      You can hurl all the obscenities you like at the President. You might be removed from the property but you won't be shot.
      • babypuncher 4y ago
  • throwawaylinux 4y ago
    They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the whole of the UK is like that.
    • lupire 4y ago
      Fragile, civilized. Potato, potato.
    • alasdair_ 4y ago
      > They arrested a person for making a video of his dog doing nazi salutes. It's not that the royal family is singularly fragile about being upset by other peoples' expression, the whole of the UK is like that. And yet at the same time one of the biggest movies in the cinema was a Nazi spoof comedy with jokes in far poorer taste. But the movie producers have money.
      • gambiting 4y ago
        That's like complaining that you will get arrested for having sex in the middle of the street, but sex in a film is somehow fine(surely it's because movie producers have money and are in cahoots with the government, and not for any other, more logical reason, like the fact that art forms, no matter how poor in taste, are protected by society).
        • wutbrodo 4y ago
          In what legal sense is the YouTuber with the pug less protected by the "art form" argument than the movie production? Did the latter get a permit for Nazi jokes? (Sincere question, maybe they did: UK speech norms and laws are incredibly alien to me)
          • type0 4y ago
            > In what legal sense is the YouTuber with the pug less protected by the "art form" The rules are different for regular plebs, that's as simple as that. And the lesson is that everyone should know their place.
  • koheripbal 4y ago
    Screeching profanities at a funeral march should be a minor crime. ...but perhaps more importantly, you should just be ashamed of your childish behaviour.
    • bogomipz 4y ago
      And yet nowhere in the article was it mentioned that someone was "screeching profanities." There were people who were holding signs and there were people that expressed their opinions without profanity during the ascension ceremonies. In fact the only screeching of any referenced in the article was Twitter post with a video where people are screeching "God Save the King."
    • ziftface 4y ago
      Even if you think that should be a crime, why should that apply to the funeral of a representative or government official? People should be able to show their distaste of such a public figure however they want, even if it makes you feel weird about it.
    • TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      Someone was arrested for yelling "Who elected him?". Is that considered a profanity now?
  • munk-a 4y ago
    I was absolutely in favor of opposing funeral protests when they were happening in America[1]. Freedom to protest doesn't mean the freedom to abuse people when they're in an emotionally fragile state. I think it's perfectly fair to have a discussion about the validity of the monarchy moving forward - and I think it's also perfectly fair to let those folks who had some emotional connection (whether reciprocated or single-directional) attend a funeral to remember the queen in peace. 1. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2006-04-20-0604200211-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2006-04-20-060420... - the government didn't directly step in in this case but the protestors were effectively silenced by way to crowds of decent folks with loud motorcycles.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • ben_w 4y ago
    In a democracy? Sure, arrests can still occur, but one needs to be a lot more careful than the argument OP used. However, the UK is a kingdom in various important ways, and this was the funeral of the head of state and the head of the official state religion.
  • karaterobot 4y ago
    > The new law allows police to act in cases which they deem to be "unjustifiably noisy protests that may have a significant impact on others" or seriously disrupt an organization's activities.
• AndyMcConachie 4y ago
  Oh ok. Does that mean if we ask nicely we can dissolve the monarchy?
  • haunter 4y ago
    I mean yes? Elect MPs, vote for parties that support the republic movement for a starter. It doesn't really help when all the mainstream parties in the Westminster are royalists.
    • tialaramex 4y ago
      I would guess Parliamentarians are likely to have read up a bit and discovered why Parliament is sovereign. The English literally tried not having a monarch, they executed Charles I for treason. This concretely answers any residual question, the Parliament can execute the King, so Parliament is sovereign. Turns out the alternative wasn't better. "Lord Protector" Cromwell (ie a dictator) wasn't an improvement over a King. After Cromwell died, the restored Parliament invited Charles II to become King. People want a figurehead. If you elect the figurehead they have political power (because of democratic legitimacy) and that's bad. Monarchy is better for this purpose.
      • WastingMyTime89 4y ago
        Is it going to be one of this discussion where people speak of Cromwell while pretending the USA and France don’t exist? Just asking.
        • tialaramex 4y ago
          The USA is the one where they give their elected figurehead pardon powers - like a King in the old times - and the previous one used them to insulate friends who very obviously did crimes. Then in fact he promises to do the same again only more so if given the chance, but his political allies protect him from prosecution anyway. Wow. I mean, I guess Cromwell was worse, but it's not exactly an enviable choice. The US governance model is unsound, it's been around for only a relatively brief period and it's crumbling. France's setup is better, but if there had been some way to not execute the King of France I think they'd be doing just fine with some guy in a fancy hat living in one of their palaces and somebody to represent France as an idea who isn't connected to a political executive.
• bhk 4y ago
  I immediately suspected it was a misleading headline. (NPR was a clue.)
• wutbrodo 4y ago
  True of the first two examples, but: > in London, a woman was led away by four uniformed officers on Monday after holding up a sign reading "Not my king" — which has become a trending hashtag — near Westminster Hall. If you count that as rude, you're essentially counting any dissent as rude, no? Edit: there's an even better example, of a man who was nowhere near any funerary rites, calling out "who elected him" at the proclamation of Charles' ascension.
• kazinator 4y ago
  Police are looking for barrister Paul Powlesland who held up a blank sign and only said we was going to write "not my king" on it: https://twitter.com/paulpowlesland/status/1569351772606550022 https://twitter.com/paulpowlesland/status/156935177260655002... Or, more precisely, he was going around with this blank sign, asking officers whether he would be arrested if he were to write that on the blank paper, according to the account here: https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/man-said-warned-risked-arrest-214033380.html https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/man-said-warned-risked-arre...
  • rhacker 4y ago
    I was looking at various other twitter posts about russians holding up blank signs too. I guess that's "Quiet Protesting".
• Havoc 4y ago
  >They are being arrested for being rude about it. Which is substantially worse. Rudeness is so subjective and context sensitive that it really shouldn't form the basis for arrests
  • Gigachad 4y ago
    This is the UK. You get arrested for taking a plastic knife outside or making mean tweets.
    • CameronNemo 4y ago
      https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-sentenced-grossly-offensive-tweet-tom-moore-joseph-kelly https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-...
    • somewhereoutth 4y ago
      Or indeed burning a model of the Grenfell Tower at a bonfire party https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/06/grenfell-bonfire-video-police-search-house-as-five-men-questioned https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/06/grenfell-bon...
      • pessimizer 4y ago
        • egeek 4y ago
          As a person from Northern Ireland, I'm not sure what holiday you're referring to. Closest I can think of is the 12th July, which is a holiday, but not one celebrating burning Catholics[0]. You might be referring to the bonfires that are lit on the 11th, but that's not a holiday. Aside from some small events in Scotland, the 12th July is not celebrated in the rest of the UK. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth
• jj90 4y ago
• matthewh806 4y ago
  I see this exact same comment did pretty well on Reddit too: https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/xckw5v/comment/io5vgsn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/xckw5v/comme... 1. Not all of the arrests have been made at a "funeral" 2. It wasn't a funeral 3. If you're going to have a very public precession, parading a body through the streets with all the obedients lapping it up, surely you have to have a level of tolerance for dissenting voices? I imagine the disruption this event caused on Edinburgh was pretty large... There's wall to wall coverage of this event happening worldwide right now, we need room for the dissenting voices too. Otherwise it's just outright sycophancy
  • deskamess 4y ago
    > Otherwise it's just outright sycophancy Well... that's what the monarchy practice is all about. God-like status for some god-forsaken reason. Blind sycophancy.
    • afarrell 4y ago
      It is because humans have an irrational tendency towards sycophancy. This was true throughout both the Obama and Trump administrations and before them. Better to direct that impulse towards a dignified institution that does nothing but attract tourists and occasionally signal society’s values than towards something that tries to have efficient and lethal decision-making power.
      • hahaxdxd123 4y ago
      • paulryanrogers 4y ago
        Wait, is this satire? Surely we should resist our less productive qualities, like sycophancy. Not try to channel it to some "worthy cause".
        • 4y ago
• nimbius 4y ago
  i see quite a few confusing or ill spirited comments so I suppose most of this thread is from a distinctly United States American perspective. Its worth kindly pointing out the UK has its own law and order, much of which applies to your character and conduct in the public sphere. Conversely Whilst considered in egregiously poor taste, burlish crass and offensive protests are generally permitted in the USA provided they are performed on public property. a prime example is the Westboro Baptist Church, a cavalcade of questionably religious zealots who protest everything from LGBTQ funerals to the funerals of war veterans. They shout, scream, and generally send mourners into distress and misery for the duration of their service.
  • bendbro 4y ago
• pera 4y ago
  Note that the arrests happened during the proclamation ceremony of the new king. The funeral will be next Monday.
  • type0 4y ago
    UK just tries to show they are a real monarchy and not a fake one like Sweden or Netherlands
• mhh__ 4y ago
  Oh well that's all right then...
• bjourne 4y ago
  The queen was a public figure whose lavish livelihood were paid for by British tax-payers. So it seems to me that British people should have the right to celebrate her death in any way they please. Curtailing people's freedom of speech by misusing public order laws (the queen's funeral is not comparable to any normal funeral) is curtailing freedom of speech.
  • munk-a 4y ago
    This is actually an incredibly false point. The royal family (if treated like anonymous land-owners) would cause a sudden and drastic drop in fundraising within the UK. Assuming their property wasn't seized having them retain their current station is actually a net positive to the British tax-payers - they lose far more potential income each year in free land leases and charitable donations (known collectively as the Crown Estate) to the state then they receive in benefits (known as the Sovereign Grant). This arrangement is financially detrimental to the royal family in terms of absolute value.
    • rtpg 4y ago
      I mean… why would the royal family be allowed to “keep” anything in an abolished monarchy? Obviously you should just seize roughly all the property. It’s a product of the State, not the royal family working hard
      • blibble 4y ago
        if the government tried it they'd take it to judicial review and they'd win
      • munk-a 4y ago
        Maybe? That's a really complicated question honestly - how much of their personal property actually is hereditary wealth and how much is a benefit of their station. I can tell you the answer is neither 0% nor 100% - the royal family (if dethroned) shouldn't be thrown out as paupers and it shouldn't be granted personal control of spaces that enjoy public use. Where precisely that line should be drawn is complicated but if that line leaves them with any significant portion of their current titular wealth the UK will end up losing money. The Crown Estate might be worth around 15.6 Billion, so a few hundred million every year is far less then the family would receive if they liquidated the lands at value and just invested it into an index fund. The actual income of the estate is significantly higher - with a lot of those assets under reporting their actual yield in terms of tourism and public benefits. I think it's a really complicated question. Lastly, while we're on this topic - why hasn't the US seized the wealth of the 100 most wealthy individuals unilaterally - that money would be of immense amount of benefit to the country so why do we let wealth accrue?
• mhh__ 4y ago
  You should be allowed to have a sign with swearing on it. If prince Andrew gets to parade around in public give the peasants some leeway as well
• bendbro 4y ago
  [flagged]
• dTal 4y ago
  Really. A woman who held an “abolish monarchy” sign at a proclamation ceremony for King Charles III in Edinburgh has now been charged with a criminal offence. That's not a funeral, nor was her political statement rude.
  • wutbrodo 4y ago
    She also had a "fuck imperialism" sign, and was outside of the cathedral in which QEII's body was lying. Cultures that are more fragile wrt speech norms may object to that. A better example is the man calling out "who elected him" to the proclamation of Charles III, at a ceremony that had as little as possible to do with funerary rites while still dealing with her son's ascension. The better example is
    • pera 4y ago
      That arrest happened on Saturday during the proclamation ceremony, the coffin only arrived yesterday (Sunday).
• prvc 4y ago
  Worth noting that currently, most UK arrests over "offense-giving" (which are increasingly common) are done on behalf of precisely those grievance-based identity groups which anti-monarchists support.
  • pharmakom 4y ago
    Huh? What does republicanism have to do with identity politics?
    • bee_rider 4y ago
      Ah, well the monarchy and corresponding empire to have a history of inflicting massive suffering on various ethnic groups, so I guess there's probably some correlation between republican sentiment and identity (I mean look Irish Twitter). But I think it is not a very compelling reason to write off these sentiments, as the original comment seems to have...
• peteri 4y ago
  They are being arrested typically for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Often they're being arrested for their own safety, you only have to look at the example of the chip shop owner in Muir of Ord, who posted a video online and now her chippy has a smashed window. Do you leave the person with the offensive sign there? I can easily see some "have a go hero" deciding to tear the sign to bits and causing a fight to happen.
  • encryptluks2 4y ago
    Arrested for ones own protection makes no sense. That would not be protection then it would be an escape plan. If someone is putting you into handcuffs to protect you they are lying. Any victim of abuse knows the signs of gaslighting.
• oliwarner 4y ago
  It's super important to note that many of the people being arrested and otherwise lead away are not attending a funeral. That's 6 days away. Some have been at processions and that might be distasteful. Grossly offensive or abusive though? Whatever your view on those cases, many of these interactions have happened at proclamations and just in public places, well away from the Queen. One shouldn't be threatened with imprisonment for peacefully airing their personal views. You defend it all like it's one horrific thing that needs to be stopped, and I find that far more distasteful than anything any of these people have said.
• mikesabbagh 4y ago
  I saw a reporter claiming they are being arrested for their own protection
• zucker42 4y ago
  Being rude is grounds for being banned from HackerNews, not for being arrested and thrown in jail. You can not say you support free speech but also support the arrest of someone for a "abolish the monarchy, fuck imperialism" sign, or for saying "who elected him".
• some_random 4y ago
  If a Brit protests in the woods and no one is around to be upset, only then is it a legal protest?
• Rebelgecko 4y ago
  They're being arrested for misbehaving at a funeral that hasn't happened yet?
• y5y5y5jjjj 4y ago
• Sakos 4y ago
  > They are being arrested for being rude about it. Is this China or Russia? This sounds insane to me. Meanwhile, the UK ruling class is free to gut the NHS and bleed the population dry and none of them give a shit. The British sense of "decorum" is pure bullshit.
• sfvegandude 4y ago
  >If you are going to attend a funeral […] and hour abuse or hold up signs with obscenities, you will be arrested. It’s a shame that the UK doesn’t have robust protections for free speech. In the US, you certainly will not be arrested for this. We have Supreme Court precedent preventing it.
• jlokier 4y ago
  > Like the fella who stated that ‘we didn’t vote for him’ In fairness, we didn't vote for the Prime Minister either. Where was this fella when we needed him in parliament? I think UK democracy has a much bigger democratic problem than whether there is a symbolic monarch. Unlike the monarch, the Prime Minister we didn't vote for is a political activist with serious power and a nasty agenda - including the agenda to reduce freedom to protest and other basic rights of the people. In fairness to the Queen, as far as I know she never asked that we reduce the people's rights and freedoms, and in fairness to the new King, one of the things he is known for is being a climate and environment activist, which was viewed as kooky a couple of decades ago but looks prescient and relevant to the times now.
  • WickyNilliams 4y ago
    > Where was this fella when we needed him in parliament? There's no obligation to protest everything you disagree with, why would you suggest there is? Furthermore, how do you know they _didnt_ protest the PM? The PM may not have been voted for, but a crucial difference is, unlike the monarchy, the position of PM is not handed down by hereditary lineage. > including the agenda to reduce freedom to protest and other basic rights of the people. Don't you think perhaps these two events are related? You chastise someone for protesting, whilst bemoaning the right for protest being eroded. A strange contradiction.
    • jlokier 4y ago
      > You chastise someone for protesting No I didn't, someone else did. HN is not one person posting under hundreds of usernames :-)
• wlll 4y ago
  > If you are going to attend a funeral, any funeral, be it the Queen’s or anyone else’s and hurl abuse or hold up signs with obscenities, you will be arrested. The funeral hasn't happened yet, Google tells me it's on September 19, 6 days from now.
• StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >They are being arrested for being rude about it. Coming from the country that has held Julian Assange in a dungeon for the crime of journalism for years at the behest of the United States, this comes as no surprise. And people wonder why, when UK and other "Western" leaders point at Russia and China and cry about "authoritarianism", people with brains and morality are disgusted with their hypocrisy.
• BrainVirus 4y ago
  >They aren’t being arrested for being anti-monarchy though. >They are being arrested for being rude about it. We're truly scratching the bottom of the barrel of pro-censorship arguments here. This is parody-grade stuff. "I am for freedom of speech an all, but this person held a rude sign during a massively public political event. Arrest them and drag them through courts!"
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• jdkee 4y ago
  Too bad the UK doesn't have the US First Amendment's protection of free speech. Being rude in one's speech is no grounds for arresting a person.
• HyperSane 4y ago
  I would say that even using a word like Royalty to describe yourself is pretty rude.