still angry about the Royal wedding

[salingerreference]

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

calmdowndear.wordpress.com

"I actually am (broadly) a Royalist, and am not 'making stuff up.'"

Well seeming to say that we paid for the Wedding because we pay for the civil list and that in turn sort of funded the Wedding is "making stuff up".

And trying to criticise the Royals over the handling of protests along the Wedding route is also trying to find fault with something where there is no fault to be found. The Police would apply the same sort of handling about protests in any similar event where there were so many members of the public in one place with pretty partisan views.

"I just believe that monarchy shouldn't have any jurisdiction over the right to protest"

They don't, that is "making stuff up". As said above this is about the crowds of the public and not the Royals.

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

They do all the time especially when it comes to such huge crowds of people. As said they wouldn't allow protests from the opposite team along an FA Cup celebration parade route. It's about public order not class.

But yes I agree this isn't about the money but you brought that up with the statement "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."

Well seeming to say that we paid for the Wedding because we pay for the civil list and that in turn sort of funded the Wedding is "making stuff up".

er...no. We do, and therefore we did. What bit of that is made up?

"er...no. We do, and therefore we did. What bit of that is made up?"

If you're going to argue that Person A paid for something that Person B spent their money on because as a part of some business deal Person A paid Person B some money then that's hardly being honest.

It would be like your boss coming to your house and pointing at everything and saying "I paid for that".

And that's quite clearly nonsense.

And if you want to boil the detail down we "profit" directly from the deal struck a couple of centuries ago when the civil list was created to the tune of about £190 million a year.

So because we get that money from land is owned by the Crown can the Queen run around pointing at things that we, the taxpayer, spend our money on and saying "oh one paid for that". Can the Queen claim that she paid for the security for the Wedding because the bill for that came in at well under the £190 million.

No of course not.

We didn't "pay" for the actual Wedding any more than the Queen paid for the security.

And I hang my Republican leaning head in shame that I'm actually sticking up for the Monarchy here but the facts are the facts.

Ha! v funny- well put. Love the idea of the Queen marchign around saying: 'one paid for that.'

I guess where we differ is on the issue of accountability. I don't think the boss analogy stacks up. I compare it more to our funding of the NHS- we 'pay' a doctor's salary but can't comment about the holiday that he chooses to spend the money on as it is a private matter, but we can comment on the new furniture he orders for his surgery because that is NHS business. The wedding was a state occasion and so the Royals are accountable for the spending of the money.

The crown lands belong to the crown rather than to the Royal family personally. The distinction between official and private is difficult in this case but worth making I think. Also I think that making sure that the royals are in some way accountable to the public is important whether or not htey are revenue neutral or bringing in money.

It's not 'making stuff up' but a difference in perspective.

'
[

FGS, it was about security and safety of the public, politicians, the Heads of the Armed Forces, the foreign dignitaries, the Foreign royals and our own royals as well. It was also about the safety of our troops lining the streets, and I also expect about the safety of the potential protesters, as they would have come off worse had they attempted to demonstrate.

"I don't think the boss analogy stacks up. I compare it more to our funding of the NHS- we 'pay' a doctor's salary but can't comment about the holiday that he chooses to spend the money on as it is a private matter, but we can comment on the new furniture he orders for his surgery because that is NHS business."

If the Doctor chooses to spend his own salary on getting a very decadent chair for his office that's been made from the nose hairs of a million hand reared Scottish gerbils then that's the Doctor's own concern. If it doesn't come out of money that he's given to run his surgery then it's not our concern and we can't claim that we paid for it.

Likewise the Civil List is the "pay" for the Queen. She does actually get an allowance for her "state" related work.

"The wedding was a state occasion and so the Royals are accountable for the spending of the money."

No it wasn't a "state occasion", had it have been then maybe the tax payer would have picked up the bill as it did for the Wedding of Charles and Diana.

"The crown lands belong to the crown rather than to the Royal family personally."

Yes, but they used to belong explicitly to the Monarch and the Monarch received the income from them. That income was given up in exchange for the income from the Civil List in a deal that is apparently renewed by every new Monarch (which raises a question, could they say "stuff this, I'm keeping the income from the estates it's many many times higher!"?).

So their status is somewhat special, which is good, because as said it's probably stopped David Cameron from trying to flog them to his mates in the same way that he tried to sell our forests.

"It's not 'making stuff up' but a difference in perspective."

Claiming that because we pay them £x in exchange for them giving us about 20 times that amount we can say that we paid for the Wedding is a very strange perspective indeed.

That is basically a business deal, and despite a similar deal my bosses would not be welcome to come to my house and claim that they paid for my TV.

And the launching point for all of this was your statement that "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."

It wasn't paid for by the tax payer.

Regardless of not paying for it the public did have the right to protest, even if it was over the imaginary idea that they did pay for it.

However all protests at large crowd events, especially large partisan crowd events, will be controlled by various bits of public order legislation that has nothing at all to do with the "class" of those that the spectators are there to spectator.

"Regardless of not paying for it the public did have the right to protest, even if it was over the imaginary idea that they did pay for it.

However all protests at large crowd events, especially large partisan crowd events, will be controlled by various bits of public order legislation that has nothing at all to do with the "class" of those that the spectators are there to spectator."

Actually the right to protest in Westminster is covered by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, brought in by the last government. The Act brought in the requirement that anyone staging a protest at any time within a certain distance of Westminster needs to apply for permission to do so from the police. Personally, I believe that this is an incursion into civil liberties. At the time the law was passed, the understanding was that these requests were formalities and that the police shouldn't be turning requests down for reasons of freedom of speech. So this is a relatively new thing. for example people still had the 'right' to protest at Charles and Diana's wedding.

Public order legislation is separate and can only be invoked when there is an actual breach of public order- ie something has already happened. If people are protesting peacefully there is no breach of public order. If trouble erupted because people coming out in support of the wedding were to cause trouble, the protesters would not be the perpetrators and could not be prosecuted under public order legislation.

None of this has anything to do with class, and I certainly never said it did.

"Actually the right to protest in Westminster is covered by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act"

Fair point. And something that has absolutely nothing to do with the Royal Family or the Royal Wedding, the zone falls short of Buckingham Palace though (most of The Mall isn't covered for example).

"Public order legislation is separate and can only be invoked when there is an actual breach of public order"

No.

The Public Order Act of 1986 is one of the big things used to control demonstrations and it is proactive in that it applies before things happen rather than waiting for there to be trouble.

Of particular relevance is Section 14 which allows the police to place conditions on assemblies "to prevent serious public disorder, serious criminal damage or serious disruption to the life of the community". The Police can ask the assembly to move somewhere else or limit the duration or number of people involved.

"the protesters would not be the perpetrators and could not be prosecuted under public order legislation"

No again.

If you do not move after after Section 14 has been invoked you are committing an offence and you can and will be arrested.

So not recent, not part of SOCPA, not separate from "Public Order" law, not only invoked following a breach of the peace and not targeted only at those that abuse the protesters.

"None of this has anything to do with class, and I certainly never said it did."

No but you did say: "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."

The Monarchy is commonly associated with "class", apologies if you did just mean the Monarchy and not "class".

However the fact is that both of your points there are wrong.

1. The Monarchy do not have jurisdiction over the right to protest, the 1986 act however does.
2. The Police do legally have the right to pre-empt "crimes" and trouble, the 1986 act once again gives them that right.

Actually Kate Middletons parents paid for some of this wedding

There is a specific media request section.

Jesus, another C4 load of shite pretending to be intellectual then.

What kind of idiot would have stood in front of Westminster Abbey and protested? Apart from any laws or whether they should have been allowed.

It would have been a fucking bloodbath, mobs don't think like individuals, an individual can say 'Well, they have a right to protest', the mob would have turned from happy revelry to violent within moments of being challenged. Who 'started' it wouldn't have mattered, people would have been hurt and possibly killed.

Madness, perhaps there should be a law against being bloody stupid. Though we would need really big prisons for that.

Gosh you miserable woman!

If you are angry about this nearly a month after the event you might want to get yourself a life