Protesters in Mall

[MXRod]

Pity the police could not react as quick with EX R protesters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8IUNoPqywE

[Smiljan]

To be fair with huge numbers gathered and the royal family and military musicians at high risk of terrorist attack, the Police were already there primed to react in case of such muppetry.

When a fool super glues himself to a BP unleaded pump at a random fuel station it's not quite the same.

[Ouroboros]

Yet the police did nothing when working people are disrupted, double standards really.

[Countdown]

Anybody know what they were protesting about?

[turbobloke]

MXRod said:

Pity the police could not react as quick with EX R protesters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8IUNoPqywE

The corporal mentioned in the commentary had the right idea.

[bitchstewie]

Countdown said:

Anybody know what they were protesting about?

Animal Rebellion I believe.

[MXRod]

Smiljan said:

To be fair with huge numbers gathered and the royal family and military musicians at high risk of terrorist attack, the Police were already there primed to react in case of such muppetry.

When a fool super glues himself to a BP unleaded pump at a random fuel station it's not quite the same.

Perhaps I should have been clearer , the protesters were dealt with robustly , and not offered a cupper , the bandsmen had the right idea , a size 9 in the right place works wonders

[Johnnytheboy]

Countdown said:

Anybody know what they were protesting about?

The usual st.

[Derek Smith]

It's not as if this sort of demonstration of beliefs and desires is anything new. It's gone on for all my lifetime and back when I used to police such things, they were very violent. These non-aggressive demonstrators are a definite improvement.

I've been injured by supporters of most of the beliefs of the 70s and 80s. Pro/anti immigration, pro/anti abortions, workers who lost their jobs, and against decisions of the then government. I would much rather this type, although there would have been no overtime for me back in the day.

As long as they accept their legal punishments, I'm more or less happy for them to exercise their rights in a democratic society.

If the anecdote was accurate, the corporal acted illegally, and the comment on this thread about kicking a protester is out of order. A demonstrator died after being pushed and PH was, rightly, in uproar. Why are these bods different? (Rhetorical, of course.) If I was gaoler, he'd get a cup of tea.

We live in a democracy and the benefits are not without cost. If the right to demonstrate is removed, or the protection of law is removed from those whose behaviour you think goes beyond the pale, then we would no longer live in a democracy.

[Johnnytheboy]

The thing I don't get - unless it's just me - is that protest like this seem utterly counterproductive.

The more people like this protest disruptively about an issue, the more I am pushed towards the opposing view, simply because the nature of their protest.

[turbobloke]

Johnnytheboy said:

The thing I don't get - unless it's just me - is that protest like this seem utterly counterproductive.

The more people like this protest disruptively about an issue, the more I am pushed towards the opposing view, simply because the nature of their protest.

Every cloud and all that

[QuickQuack]

Derek Smith said:

It's not as if this sort of demonstration of beliefs and desires is anything new. It's gone on for all my lifetime and back when I used to police such things, they were very violent. These non-aggressive demonstrators are a definite improvement.

I've been injured by supporters of most of the beliefs of the 70s and 80s. Pro/anti immigration, pro/anti abortions, workers who lost their jobs, and against decisions of the then government. I would much rather this type, although there would have been no overtime for me back in the day.

As long as they accept their legal punishments, I'm more or less happy for them to exercise their rights in a democratic society.

If the anecdote was accurate, the corporal acted illegally, and the comment on this thread about kicking a protester is out of order. A demonstrator died after being pushed and PH was, rightly, in uproar. Why are these bods different? (Rhetorical, of course.) If I was gaoler, he'd get a cup of tea.

We live in a democracy and the benefits are not without cost. If the right to demonstrate is removed, or the protection of law is removed from those whose behaviour you think goes beyond the pale, then we would no longer live in a democracy.

He took a shot at the queen. That it was with a starter pistol isn't something that can be established at the time; all everyone knows is he tried to shoot the queen. He's lucky he didn't die of acute lead poisoning pretty much instantly. That's what would've happened if anyone takes a shot at the head of state in most countries.

[Johnnytheboy]

turbobloke said:

Johnnytheboy said:

The thing I don't get - unless it's just me - is that protest like this seem utterly counterproductive.

The more people like this protest disruptively about an issue, the more I am pushed towards the opposing view, simply because the nature of their protest.

Every cloud and all that

Yes, but I mean: is it just me? Most people I know seem to instinctively oppose the 'protesting classes'.

[survivalist]

Johnnytheboy said:

The thing I don't get - unless it's just me - is that protest like this seem utterly counterproductive.

The more people like this protest disruptively about an issue, the more I am pushed towards the opposing view, simply because the nature of their protest.

It’s all largely irrelevant. Once Queen Elizabeth is no longer on the throne the royal family will just become the British version of the Kardashian’s and become increasingly irrelevant, especially as the older generations die out.

I’m not anti-royals, but all the pomp and circumstance does seem increasingly irrelevant in modern times. My 7-year old came back from school last week and told me that ‘did’ the jubilee in school but that it all seemed like a history lesson.

[bitchstewie]

Johnnytheboy said:

The thing I don't get - unless it's just me - is that protest like this seem utterly counterproductive.

The more people like this protest disruptively about an issue, the more I am pushed towards the opposing view, simply because the nature of their protest.

I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive.

I think it's totally bloody counter-productive but a good cause is still a good cause.

[Ivan stewart]

survivalist said:

It’s all largely irrelevant. Once Queen Elizabeth is no longer on the throne the royal family will just become the British version of the Kardashian’s and become increasingly irrelevant, especially as the older generations die out.

I’m not anti-royals, but all the pomp and circumstance does seem increasingly irrelevant in modern times. My 7-year old came back from school last week and told me that ‘did’ the jubilee in school but that it all seemed like a history lesson.

I sort of agree, however so far we have avoided having a president Blair or maybe Johnson so I think the royals aren’t that bad really .. we will have to wait and see what
King Chuck is like eh !!

[Johnnytheboy]

bhstewie said:

Johnnytheboy said:

The thing I don't get - unless it's just me - is that protest like this seem utterly counterproductive.

The more people like this protest disruptively about an issue, the more I am pushed towards the opposing view, simply because the nature of their protest.

I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive.

I think it's totally bloody counter-productive but a good cause is still a good cause.

Yes, but if they are harming whatever their cause is this week, what's the point?

[Last Visit]

Johnnytheboy said:

bhstewie said:

Johnnytheboy said:

The thing I don't get - unless it's just me - is that protest like this seem utterly counterproductive.

The more people like this protest disruptively about an issue, the more I am pushed towards the opposing view, simply because the nature of their protest.

I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive.

I think it's totally bloody counter-productive but a good cause is still a good cause.

Yes, but if they are harming whatever their cause is this week, what's the point?

I think they are too stupid to realise.

This is why you won't see a group like Greenpeace doing a stunt like we saw today, as they have a moral compass of sorts and their PR machine knows disprupting Trooping the Colour would not work in their favour.

[Evanivitch]

survivalist said:

I’m not anti-royals, but all the pomp and circumstance does seem increasingly irrelevant in modern times. My 7-year old came back from school last week and told me that ‘did’ the jubilee in school but that it all seemed like a history lesson.

I disagree entirely on this part.

I'm not against the idea of the Monarch no longer being a living, breathing human. I do agree with your earlier point that it's increasingly difficult to justify a Monarch in this world and I don't think William is deaf to that (Charles, maybe. Might surprise us).

But the pomp and ceremony should remain. Be that simply of a crown without a head to carry it I don't really mind. But the parades and ceremony are very, very much a part of British society and I don't see why we'd remove that.

[Vanden Saab]

We were in the crowd close to where they were, the police could argue that they dragged them away for their own safety from said crowd. They were roundly booed... it was a good way to ps off 100,000 people.