7 ms·

The most frustrating thing for me is that whenever you talk to people in the UK about this stuff you notice there is this cultural attitude that if you're stick

by kypro 3y ago

The most frustrating thing for me is that whenever you talk to people in the UK about this stuff you notice there is this cultural attitude that if you're sticking your neck out too much that its somehow your fault. People here don't care about being monitored by CCTV because they believe that so long as you keep your head down you'll be fine – and that any respectable person is going to keep their head down anyway. You'll also find a lot of people here just dislike the act of protest in general. Again, I think it's because protest involves drawing attention to yourself which a large percentage of people here dislike on an instinctive level. So you find even the most agreeable protests seem to receive some level of pushback and shame which I think bleeds into our attitude towards policing. That said, I don't know what it's like in other countries. I just get the sense that the UK has a much more conformist attitude which enables the state to take a more authoritarian approach to policing protest here. As an example, I'm not an anti-monarch but I was extremely angry about how the police handled anti-monarch protestors during the coronation. Yet when I've spoken to people about this over the weekend, most people have expressed to me that it was rude for there to be protestors at the coronation... But that's the point of protest!! Still, this doesn't change the fact that the act of protest is largely incompatible with our otherwise polite and conformist culture.

sirsinsalot 3y ago
Who on earth are "most people" to you? Is this the south of England? In my experience, anyone north of Birmingham holds the opposite attitude.
- ChrisKnott 3y ago
  Your experience is not representative - https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/72bpekq9nm/Internal_RoyalTrackers_230426_W.pdf https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/72bpekq9nm/Internal_RoyalTracker...
denton-scratch 3y ago
> rude to for there to be protestors at the coronation Many monarchists are offended by republican views. For that reason alone, I would have recommended against a republican demonstration in the middle of a large crowd of monarchists (if I'd been asked!) Also, I don't think republicanism is very widespread among cops, a group of people that tend to have an authoritarian mindset. I think some people have a sense that the monarchy "is theirs", as if this hyper-privileged family were their own children. I didn't watch any of the coronation coverage on purpose, but it's been devliishly difficult to avoid. Something that struck me is that many of the most ardent monarchists in the crowd seemed to be yanks and aussies. I find that really weird.
- account42 3y ago
  > Something that struck me is that many of the most ardent monarchists in the crowd seemed to be yanks and aussies. I find that really weird. It's not weird if you consider that only foreigners who give a shit will bother to come. Add that to them this whole thing is distant enough to treat it as a theme park where they can larp their mediaval fantasies and it only makes sense.
- bombolo 3y ago
  > Many monarchists are offended by republican views. Too bad they aren't phased by covering up sexual crimes then uh?
secretsatan 3y ago
Regarding CCTV, in my time, there used to be much opposition to the government installing such systems, but they kinda snuck in through the backdoor, being setup and run by private companies and individuals (A quick google seem to indicate this is still the case). We've handed over many public spaces to private interests and cctv proliferated that way, arguably with even less oversight than had the gov done it.
- data_maan 3y ago
  More of this is to come. There are talks about Palantir (you know, Thiels profitable firm) working with the NHS. But I'm not sure what the state of that is no. By and large the UK feels like a gutted country, where every scavenging corporation took one organ and left.
- gardnr 3y ago
  This is happening in New Zealand now[1]. The public has been pretty clear that it doesn want a surveillance state. The police just worked with private business to set up the feeds. [1] https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/475342/police-step-up-surveillance-activity-tap-into-cctv-footage-from-other-businesses https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/475342/police-step-up-su...
pif 3y ago
> most people have expressed to me that it was rude for there to be protestors at the coronation... Yes, it was. > But that's the point of protest!! No, it is not. From Cambridge Dictionary: "protest": a strong complaint expressing disagreement, disapproval, or opposition. You can express your dissenting opinions without being rude. And, by the way, the monarchy has been in UK for centuries, and it is still there: if you don't like it, you have any day available to protest. No need to pick that particular day when you can be most disruptive.
- jackmott42 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - pif 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - frob 3y ago
      Wow, that's quite the leap. Peacefully attending a public gathering in yellow shirts with printed slogans is nowhere near the violent insurrection perpetrated on Jan 6, 2021. You are approaching "Hitler was a vegan" territory.
      - pif 3y ago
        Not at all! "Peacefully attending a public gathering in yellow shirts with printed slogans" is my perfect definition of a protest. You take a message with you, I can read it and decide whether I'm interested in joining your protest or just go on with my life. My comment's parent called me authoritarian because I said that printing the message on my car would not be acceptable.
- account42 3y ago
  Any protest is infinitely less rude than expecting others to give you special treatment because your ancestors were bigger dicks than others.
snthd 3y ago
>As an example, I'm not an anti-monarch but I was extremely angry about how the police handled anti-monarch protestors during the coronation. The monarchy is classism personified. Do you not think that by not being anti-monarchy you're tacitly OK with a class based society, and that's a part of where the conformism comes from - class identity? Bear in mind the various loyalty swearing that goes on - MPs, Armed Forces, Police, is loyalty sworn first and foremost to the Monarch - implicitly a person at the top of a heirarchy of class.
- hiatus 3y ago
  > Do you not think that by not being anti-monarchy you're tacitly OK with a class based society, and that's a part of where the conformism comes from - class identity? No. Newborn babies aren't anti-monarchy either. Are they part of the problem? This rhetoric of "silence is violence" is deeply polarizing.
  - wootland 3y ago
    > Newborn babies aren't anti-monarchy either. Actually they are since monarchy is at odds with the basic human rights we are all born with.
    - hiatus 3y ago
      We aren't born with rights unless there are people living at the time of our birth willing to fight for those rights. I mean, monarchy exists with supporters today despite being against the basic human rights you assert we are all born with.
      - david927 3y ago
        Speed limits on roads exist; if someone's speeding, it's a question of enforcement. Similarly, we're born with human rights as ratified in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. To your point, they're moot if not enforced -- I get that. But it's easier to enforce what exists than to fight for the original law.
tailspin2019 3y ago
> As an example, I'm not an anti-monarch but I was extremely angry about how the police handled anti-monarch protestors during the coronation. This is exactly my position too. And if you force me to chose between a) democracy, free speech and right to protest OR b) a monarchy, then I will very quickly become an anti-monarchist. The fact that the government felt that they had to rush in legislation in the last week which was - completely predictably - used to detain people unlawfully, to save possible embarrassment during the coronation, has done nothing to improve my view of our monarchy whatsoever. I struggle to believe that this would have happened without some sort of implicit or explicit pressure from Buckingham Palace. They did afterall have veto rights on aspects of BBC coverage [0] so it seems highly unlikely to me that they weren't also working with the government to attempt to "contain" possible protests. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/05/revealed-royal-family-has-power-to-censor-bbc-coronation-coverage https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/05/revealed-roy...
- regularfry 3y ago
  The legislation has been on the way for a while as a response to XR and others. It certainly aligns with royal interests, but I don't think you need to look any further than Braverman and the hang'em-and-flog'em electorate she appeals to for a source.
- wootland 3y ago
  As someone who is anti-monarch I have to admit that this seems like the logical extension of monarchy and exactly what democracy is meant to help with. Can I ask why someone wouldn't be anti-monarch in 2023?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - kypro 3y ago
    Let's be clear here, the UK isn't a monarchy, we just have a monarch who has effectively zero power and simply serves as a hereditary head of state. As for why I support this, I think it makes sense diplomatically to have an apolitical head of state and I also believe the British monarch functions similarly to second amendment in the US. If the UK ever needed to revolt against the government the monarch serves as way in which the public (and armed forces) could side with the state over the government. I cannot express how much I like that our armed forces swear allegiance to a largely powerless Monarch that represents the state rather than Rishi Sunak. However, getting back on topic here, the fact the UK has a monarch in my opinion has zero relevance to the fact the UK is becoming a place increasingly hostile to protest. Instead, it seems to me to be far more to do with the fact our two major political parties both have authoritarian tendencies, which I suspect stems from the UK having cultural values which lend themselves to certain kinds of authoritarian social policies. Specifically, laws around limiting "improper" behaviour like rowdy protests, being rude online, and consuming porn that's a little too edgy seem to be ways in which our dislike of improper behaviour manifest politically. In most ways we're quite a liberal society, but there are certain ways that our conformist and overly polite nature seems to work its way into our politics via democracy – protest perhaps being the most clear example of something that people here seem to struggle with since freedom of expression requires an acceptance of impoliteness.
InCityDreams 3y ago
...so happy i left the uk several years ago.
- greybox 3y ago
  Hear hear, though that doesn't stop everyone asking me about the royal family all the time. It follows me around like a disease. From living abroad I get the feeling that the royal family is a lot more popular abroad than it is at home.
data_maan 3y ago
Yes, the UK is weak on protest (compares to the EU for example.) I never understood how this conformist attitude came to be exhibited from a people that on every other occasion, to the styles itself as proud. Seems like, domestically a very different game is played.
whywhywhywhy 3y ago
UK doesn't have free speech, think that culturally makes a big difference compared to how Americans look at these issues. Gotta remember they have a birth right to rattle cages and say anything while the UK does not. Changes "I don't agree with it but they do have a right to say it" to "I don't agree with it..."
- laputan_machine 3y ago
  The UK has "freedom of expression": https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/arti...
neilwilson 3y ago
There is a world of difference between free speech and the right to voice your opinion, and interfering with other people's right to go about their business unimpeded. What we call 'The King's Peace' is the British sense of fair play. You can do whatever you like as long as you don't interfere with my equal right to do the same. Where those two try to occupy the same space, then the current majority opinion will prevail and the minority suppressed. Breaching the King's Peace is a public order offence. The right to protest in the UK is the right to be heard and listened to voluntarily, not to dominate proceedings or act in a manner that heads towards terrorism. Where there is intelligence that physical disruption was on the cards, the authorities are right to step in and head it off. That is the British way. Most people in the UK still support the monarchy. Nobody stopped Spiked publishing their views on Republicanism, and nobody was forced to read it. That's free speech. If the individuals objecting had waved a few placards and otherwise been respectful to those whose views differ from their own they would have been left alone. They didn't do that and were removed. I suspect that was the idea since that leads to greater publicity.
- bombolo 3y ago
  > The right to protest in the UK is the right to be heard and listened to voluntarily A bit difficult to get heard once you get arrested for having violated no law… Funny that when putin does this to political opponents he's a dictator, but king charles is a great guy uh?
908B64B197 3y ago
> Still, this doesn't change the fact that the act of protest is largely incompatible with our otherwise polite and conformist culture. Come to the Bay! Honestly it's not the first time I hear the exact same sentiment from Brits living here in California.
unethical_ban 3y ago
It may come off as low-effort, but "V for Vendetta" seems more and more accurate. Keep calm, don't draw attention, everything will be fine if we just go along with it - until things are not fine, and they come for you. By then, the mechanisms of state control have been well exercised on those who stood up earlier. Has King Charles made any efforts or donated any money to causes that could help the people in this time of recession and retraction from the EU? I know he isn't supposed to be involved in politics, but if he doesn't speak as the "conscious of a nation" then he really does seem without purpose at great cost.
- jasonm23 3y ago
  Monarchists mention something about tourism.
  - bombolo 3y ago
    Versailles brings in more money and the head of the monarch didn't need to remain attached to the rest of the body for the home to still be a tourist attraction.
    - jasonm23 3y ago
      That's definitely a good case for something or other.

by kypro 3y ago

sirsinsalot 3y ago

Who on earth are "most people" to you? Is this the south of England? In my experience, anyone north of Birmingham holds the opposite attitude.

ChrisKnott 3y ago
Your experience is not representative - https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/72bpekq9nm/Internal_RoyalTrackers_230426_W.pdf https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/72bpekq9nm/Internal_RoyalTracker...

denton-scratch 3y ago

> rude to for there to be protestors at the coronation Many monarchists are offended by republican views. For that reason alone, I would have recommended against a republican demonstration in the middle of a large crowd of monarchists (if I'd been asked!) Also, I don't think republicanism is very widespread among cops, a group of people that tend to have an authoritarian mindset. I think some people have a sense that the monarchy "is theirs", as if this hyper-privileged family were their own children. I didn't watch any of the coronation coverage on purpose, but it's been devliishly difficult to avoid. Something that struck me is that many of the most ardent monarchists in the crowd seemed to be yanks and aussies. I find that really weird.

account42 3y ago
> Something that struck me is that many of the most ardent monarchists in the crowd seemed to be yanks and aussies. I find that really weird. It's not weird if you consider that only foreigners who give a shit will bother to come. Add that to them this whole thing is distant enough to treat it as a theme park where they can larp their mediaval fantasies and it only makes sense.
bombolo 3y ago
> Many monarchists are offended by republican views. Too bad they aren't phased by covering up sexual crimes then uh?

secretsatan 3y ago

Regarding CCTV, in my time, there used to be much opposition to the government installing such systems, but they kinda snuck in through the backdoor, being setup and run by private companies and individuals (A quick google seem to indicate this is still the case). We've handed over many public spaces to private interests and cctv proliferated that way, arguably with even less oversight than had the gov done it.

data_maan 3y ago
More of this is to come. There are talks about Palantir (you know, Thiels profitable firm) working with the NHS. But I'm not sure what the state of that is no. By and large the UK feels like a gutted country, where every scavenging corporation took one organ and left.
gardnr 3y ago
This is happening in New Zealand now[1]. The public has been pretty clear that it doesn want a surveillance state. The police just worked with private business to set up the feeds. [1] https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/475342/police-step-up-surveillance-activity-tap-into-cctv-footage-from-other-businesses https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/475342/police-step-up-su...

pif 3y ago

> most people have expressed to me that it was rude for there to be protestors at the coronation... Yes, it was. > But that's the point of protest!! No, it is not. From Cambridge Dictionary: "protest": a strong complaint expressing disagreement, disapproval, or opposition. You can express your dissenting opinions without being rude. And, by the way, the monarchy has been in UK for centuries, and it is still there: if you don't like it, you have any day available to protest. No need to pick that particular day when you can be most disruptive.

jackmott42 3y ago
[flagged]
- pif 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - frob 3y ago
    Wow, that's quite the leap. Peacefully attending a public gathering in yellow shirts with printed slogans is nowhere near the violent insurrection perpetrated on Jan 6, 2021. You are approaching "Hitler was a vegan" territory.
    - pif 3y ago
      Not at all! "Peacefully attending a public gathering in yellow shirts with printed slogans" is my perfect definition of a protest. You take a message with you, I can read it and decide whether I'm interested in joining your protest or just go on with my life. My comment's parent called me authoritarian because I said that printing the message on my car would not be acceptable.
account42 3y ago
Any protest is infinitely less rude than expecting others to give you special treatment because your ancestors were bigger dicks than others.

snthd 3y ago

>As an example, I'm not an anti-monarch but I was extremely angry about how the police handled anti-monarch protestors during the coronation. The monarchy is classism personified. Do you not think that by not being anti-monarchy you're tacitly OK with a class based society, and that's a part of where the conformism comes from - class identity? Bear in mind the various loyalty swearing that goes on - MPs, Armed Forces, Police, is loyalty sworn first and foremost to the Monarch - implicitly a person at the top of a heirarchy of class.

hiatus 3y ago
> Do you not think that by not being anti-monarchy you're tacitly OK with a class based society, and that's a part of where the conformism comes from - class identity? No. Newborn babies aren't anti-monarchy either. Are they part of the problem? This rhetoric of "silence is violence" is deeply polarizing.
- wootland 3y ago
  > Newborn babies aren't anti-monarchy either. Actually they are since monarchy is at odds with the basic human rights we are all born with.
  - hiatus 3y ago
    We aren't born with rights unless there are people living at the time of our birth willing to fight for those rights. I mean, monarchy exists with supporters today despite being against the basic human rights you assert we are all born with.
    - david927 3y ago
      Speed limits on roads exist; if someone's speeding, it's a question of enforcement. Similarly, we're born with human rights as ratified in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. To your point, they're moot if not enforced -- I get that. But it's easier to enforce what exists than to fight for the original law.

tailspin2019 3y ago

> As an example, I'm not an anti-monarch but I was extremely angry about how the police handled anti-monarch protestors during the coronation. This is exactly my position too. And if you force me to chose between a) democracy, free speech and right to protest OR b) a monarchy, then I will very quickly become an anti-monarchist. The fact that the government felt that they had to rush in legislation in the last week which was - completely predictably - used to detain people unlawfully, to save possible embarrassment during the coronation, has done nothing to improve my view of our monarchy whatsoever. I struggle to believe that this would have happened without some sort of implicit or explicit pressure from Buckingham Palace. They did afterall have veto rights on aspects of BBC coverage [0] so it seems highly unlikely to me that they weren't also working with the government to attempt to "contain" possible protests. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/05/revealed-royal-family-has-power-to-censor-bbc-coronation-coverage https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/05/revealed-roy...

regularfry 3y ago
The legislation has been on the way for a while as a response to XR and others. It certainly aligns with royal interests, but I don't think you need to look any further than Braverman and the hang'em-and-flog'em electorate she appeals to for a source.
wootland 3y ago
As someone who is anti-monarch I have to admit that this seems like the logical extension of monarchy and exactly what democracy is meant to help with. Can I ask why someone wouldn't be anti-monarch in 2023?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kypro 3y ago
  Let's be clear here, the UK isn't a monarchy, we just have a monarch who has effectively zero power and simply serves as a hereditary head of state. As for why I support this, I think it makes sense diplomatically to have an apolitical head of state and I also believe the British monarch functions similarly to second amendment in the US. If the UK ever needed to revolt against the government the monarch serves as way in which the public (and armed forces) could side with the state over the government. I cannot express how much I like that our armed forces swear allegiance to a largely powerless Monarch that represents the state rather than Rishi Sunak. However, getting back on topic here, the fact the UK has a monarch in my opinion has zero relevance to the fact the UK is becoming a place increasingly hostile to protest. Instead, it seems to me to be far more to do with the fact our two major political parties both have authoritarian tendencies, which I suspect stems from the UK having cultural values which lend themselves to certain kinds of authoritarian social policies. Specifically, laws around limiting "improper" behaviour like rowdy protests, being rude online, and consuming porn that's a little too edgy seem to be ways in which our dislike of improper behaviour manifest politically. In most ways we're quite a liberal society, but there are certain ways that our conformist and overly polite nature seems to work its way into our politics via democracy – protest perhaps being the most clear example of something that people here seem to struggle with since freedom of expression requires an acceptance of impoliteness.

InCityDreams 3y ago

...so happy i left the uk several years ago.

greybox 3y ago
Hear hear, though that doesn't stop everyone asking me about the royal family all the time. It follows me around like a disease. From living abroad I get the feeling that the royal family is a lot more popular abroad than it is at home.

data_maan 3y ago

Yes, the UK is weak on protest (compares to the EU for example.) I never understood how this conformist attitude came to be exhibited from a people that on every other occasion, to the styles itself as proud. Seems like, domestically a very different game is played.

whywhywhywhy 3y ago

UK doesn't have free speech, think that culturally makes a big difference compared to how Americans look at these issues. Gotta remember they have a birth right to rattle cages and say anything while the UK does not. Changes "I don't agree with it but they do have a right to say it" to "I don't agree with it..."

laputan_machine 3y ago
The UK has "freedom of expression": https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/arti...

neilwilson 3y ago

There is a world of difference between free speech and the right to voice your opinion, and interfering with other people's right to go about their business unimpeded. What we call 'The King's Peace' is the British sense of fair play. You can do whatever you like as long as you don't interfere with my equal right to do the same. Where those two try to occupy the same space, then the current majority opinion will prevail and the minority suppressed. Breaching the King's Peace is a public order offence. The right to protest in the UK is the right to be heard and listened to voluntarily, not to dominate proceedings or act in a manner that heads towards terrorism. Where there is intelligence that physical disruption was on the cards, the authorities are right to step in and head it off. That is the British way. Most people in the UK still support the monarchy. Nobody stopped Spiked publishing their views on Republicanism, and nobody was forced to read it. That's free speech. If the individuals objecting had waved a few placards and otherwise been respectful to those whose views differ from their own they would have been left alone. They didn't do that and were removed. I suspect that was the idea since that leads to greater publicity.

bombolo 3y ago
> The right to protest in the UK is the right to be heard and listened to voluntarily A bit difficult to get heard once you get arrested for having violated no law… Funny that when putin does this to political opponents he's a dictator, but king charles is a great guy uh?

908B64B197 3y ago

> Still, this doesn't change the fact that the act of protest is largely incompatible with our otherwise polite and conformist culture. Come to the Bay! Honestly it's not the first time I hear the exact same sentiment from Brits living here in California.

unethical_ban 3y ago

It may come off as low-effort, but "V for Vendetta" seems more and more accurate. Keep calm, don't draw attention, everything will be fine if we just go along with it - until things are not fine, and they come for you. By then, the mechanisms of state control have been well exercised on those who stood up earlier. Has King Charles made any efforts or donated any money to causes that could help the people in this time of recession and retraction from the EU? I know he isn't supposed to be involved in politics, but if he doesn't speak as the "conscious of a nation" then he really does seem without purpose at great cost.

jasonm23 3y ago
Monarchists mention something about tourism.
- bombolo 3y ago
  Versailles brings in more money and the head of the monarch didn't need to remain attached to the rest of the body for the home to still be a tourist attraction.
  - jasonm23 3y ago
    That's definitely a good case for something or other.