still angry about the Royal wedding

[salingerreference]

am i the only person who agrees with this??:

calmdowndear.wordpress.com

I hardly think that our democratic rights have been 'trampled' by the monarchy because protesters were not allowed to demonstrate outside Westminster Abbey on the day of the wedding.

So you think that people should be shouting etc at the wedding?

Would you have liked people outside your church/home protesting at the use of child labour for your shoes/ dress etc?

Didn't think so....

Even some of the demonstrators outside the Abbey agreed that they shouldn't be there on the day. There was a very sweet and thoughtful man from the Peace Movement on the radio just before the wedding who entirely agreed that he should move away. I think he even made a new banner for the wedding with love hearts. It was just one day.

No, I don't think it would be appropriate to protest at a wedding, no matter who's wedding it is

Reminds me of those religious protestors in the US who wave placards about at soldiers funerals in the Louis Theroux documentary - freedom of speech is one thing but there is still a time and a place and weddings and funerals are not it, no matter what they want to protest about

"So you think that people should be shouting etc at the wedding?

Would you have liked people outside your church/home protesting at the use of child labour for your shoes/ dress etc?"

I'm not sure that I do agree with the linked article, in part because it seems to completely misunderstand how our constitution actually works. And given the constant arguments in the US about how some people want the right to be able to walk into a shop and buy a machine gun I don't think that a written and explicit bill of rights/constitution is any less subject to interpretation and legal argument than what we have.

However it's worth pointing out that protesters would have a right to protest outside anybody else's wedding and since Weddings have to . I don't think that the police would turn down a protest at any of our Weddings because it was "inappropriate".

We may not want protesters outside our Wedding, but there's not much that we could do about it.

The Royals did not want protesters outside their Wedding, but they seemed able to get something done.

However I've got to admit that I think that public order alone would be a reason to not allow protests along the path of the Royal Wedding. Many thousands of people wanted to be there to enjoy the Wedding and people disrupting that is an obvious source of trouble.

I think it was a sensible judgement on the basis of keeping public order. That happy face-painted crowd of patriotic grannies was very well-behaved on the day but, if faced with a bunch of anti-royals with placards, could have turned extremely nasty. They'd have been scraping bits of protestor off the pavements for months afterwards.

Agree with Chil: the protestors would have come off very much second best and would have set their cause back a considerable amount.

I imagine the protestors weren't allowed there partly as had they started shouting obscenities or waving controversial placards then the very supportive public could have taken them out!

there were protesters there in traf square........getting dirty looks

they looked embarassed to be there to be honest

The assumption that this is okay because the royals are more important than ordinary couples getting married is distasteful to me. I don't think laws should be enforced according to social status or anything else.

There are plenty of instances where ordinary people have asked for the police to come to prevent trouble and been told "call us when someone breaks the law. We can't just turn up because someone has threatened to do something"

The royal wedding is far more important than other weddings though. How can it not be? It isn't about laws being enforced according to social class or status, it's about an event that was a showcase for Britain. It was a huge money-spinner for the country and hopefully will be a boost for tourism for years to come. Quite apart from the fact that the heir to the throne is actually more important than almost anyone else in the UK (apart from old Queenie), whether you like it or not.

Safer really, given the level of security, not to allow a protest there, as no actions could be misconstrued and no-one could therefore be hurt.

"The assumption that this is okay because the royals are more important than ordinary couples getting married is distasteful to me. I don't think laws should be enforced according to social status or anything else."

Public safety and public order are relevant here not because of of "social status" but because of the scale of the event.

If I put in a request to protest outside the home fans entrance at West Hams football ground during a huge match saying that West Ham were rubbish and the fans should switch to Tottenham you can bet the police would say "erm, no". Not class or social status, just an obvious conclusion that with so many people there clearly being in favour of one thing to protest against that is going to cause trouble.

And there's a lot more football matches than Royal Weddings so "ordinary people" "benefit" from that application of the law far more often than the social elite do.

The only way that you could not apply standard public order policies during a Royal Wedding would be to say that the crowds at the Royal Wedding cannot be protected because of the class of the people getting married. And if anything is unequal isn't that?

Get over it. Move on.

In fact an even better comparison would be to request the right to put on a protest on the victory parade route of Football Club A after they have beaten Football Club B in the FA Cup Final. And the protest that you want to do is to say that Football Club A is rubbish and the B is the bees knees.

What do you think the Police's response would be:
A) Of course, no problems, you've got a right to protest.
B) Don't be so bl**dy silly there'll be a riot. Go and mount your protest over there away from the parade route.

Nothing to do with class.

Everything to do with public safety and the unfortunate fact that that the masses in the crowds can't be trusted not to get violent.

Hi
I agree with everyone who says that deciding to protest outside someone's wedding is distasteful. But that's not the point. Freedom of speech means having the right to be distasteful even if you don't choose to exercise it. It means people saying things we don't like.

The point about the football match doesn't stand up, because you don't need permission from the police to protest at a football match. You have the right to do it, and more fool you if you do. It's down to peoples judgement.

And as for the 'it's just like anyone else's wedding' well no to that too. It's paid for by the taxpayer, unlike everyone else's wedding, and people should have the right to object to that if they choose.

"Freedom of speech means having the right to be distasteful even if you don't choose to exercise it. It means people saying things we don't like."

Freedom of speech has limits, the most famous example of that would be to stand up in an overcrowded confined space and shout out "fire".

"The point about the football match doesn't stand up, because you don't need permission from the police to protest at a football match. You have the right to do it, and more fool you if you do. It's down to peoples judgement."

Certain levels of protest will require permission, and if you just mounted a spontaneous protest you can expect that you will be dealt with negatively by the police. So it does stand up and it is similar.

"It's paid for by the taxpayer, unlike everyone else's wedding, and people should have the right to object to that if they choose."

No, the Wedding itself was paid for by the Royal Family while we picked up the bill for the security.

And the idea that if something is paid for by the taxpayer then you have a right to protest that trumps all public order and safety legislation is just ridiculous. Use of public money does not mean that the police will turn their back and let a crowd situation turn into a riot.

It's hard to believe but I'm actually far from a Royalist and think that William and Kate in particular are terrible role models and quite simply awful people. But that doesn't mean that I think it's OK to be irrational and just nail them for every imagined slight. The Royal Family does enough "wrong" for them to be ripped apart on pretty much a daily basis, we don't need to make things up to do it.

"No, the Wedding itself was paid for by the Royal Family while we picked up the bill for the security."

And who do you think pays for the Royal family?

"And who do you think pays for the Royal family?"

Well we pay them the Civil List, so less than £10 million goes out.

And in return we get the income from the Crown Estates, which is just under £200 million coming in.

So all told a "profit" of £190 million and best of all the land owned by the Crown Estates is held in a manner which means that David Cameron can't eBay it off to his chums.

And it's worth repeating that I'm not a Royalist but that there are plenty of genuine things to attack both the people and the institution of the Monarchy with, we don't need to make stuff up.

And it has been said that the wedding has pumped up to £1billion into our economy

There were many families at the Royal Wedding and they wanted to know that insofar as a large crowd can be it would be friendly and safe. It was not appropriate for people to feel they should protest. I am not a royalist myself but frankly why would anyone want to ruin someone's wedding? Stinks of too much sense of entitlement to me.

I actually am (broadly) a Royalist, and am not 'making stuff up.' It is not a question of whether the wedding was a good thing for the economy or whether we support the monarchy per se. I just believe that monarchy shouldn't have any jurisdiction over the right to protest, whatever the day, and the police shouldn't pre-empt crimes that have not yet been committed.

According to that well-known Royalist, right-wing newspaper, The Guardian, the wedding will bring in four billion over the next few years in terms of tourism revenue.

It would have been a police decision, on public order grounds. That it was a Royal event was a side issue to crowd safety.

Did the protestors really intend turning up 2 days in advance (when the well wishers colonised the entire space outside the Abbey)? With or without permission, you cannot demonstrate on ground that is already occupied.

And any demonstration there would have been a spectacular "fail" in terms of garnering any public support. The Republican street party (in Red Lion Square) got positive coverage (and looked like a good event) whilst not marring the day for anyone. Perhaps they're just more media savvy?

"the police shouldn't pre-empt crimes that have not yet been committed."

So they shouldn't have done sweeps of nearby buildings for snipers ... or searched vehicles for explosive devices... or kept an eye out for suspicious characters in the crowds....made use of covert intelligence... or any of the other preemptive security measures that typically take place at an event of this scale? They should just have waited for the assassination attempt and then arrested the perpetrators afterwards?

I think you're geting sidetracked with the fact that it was a royal occasion. The police have to make judgement calls about security & public order all the time and if that means protests have to be relocated or temporarily postponed, then that's a legitimate course of action for them to take