421–430 of 693 posts
The UK media (not just the BBC) continue to profess "amazement" at the speed and efficiency of the transitioning from a dead monarch to a living one. There's been much speaking in awed tones at the pace of the various proclamations, committee meetings, document signings, etc, as if this pace tells us why we should be impressed. Personally I've found it borderline sickening. If there was a curtain that could have slip…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I will never understand about people who argue with others preferences on the internet: Why don’t they just not post? I don’t understand people who read and reply to posts they hate. Maybe it’s because the OP overall likes the country but wants it to be better? Not everyone even has the option of voting with their feet, and for many others though they could, it means leaving behind a lifetime of friends and…
Another thing I don't understand. This time online: People who read comments and make-up shit the post didn't actually say. At all. I was expressing a general idea; one that was not at all addressed at the OP. Just a thought, inspired by reading a comment. I even went out of my way to clarify this much with: "I am not saying this in a spirit of confrontation or even criticism at all."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing about having a monarch as the head of state that requires so much ceremony and attention. We could stop putting the king on currency, not have official periods of mourning, relegate news about the royal to the tabloids etc. without making any changes to how the government is structured.
To paraphrase "Mother," Italians have their food, [censored] have their music, the CIA have the United States of America, and the Brits have their King/Queen. And once you have a Thing, it makes sense to be good at it, hence nice ceremonies, attention, and world wide respect.
If it's a racial slur, please stop repeating it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know much about UK law, but it is at least is constitutional monarchy. So the ruler and rituals of succession exist under the purview of the people and parliament. Surely there is just not enough political will to change it. That’s very different from your implication that it’s some kind of authoritarian hellscape. Rewording: this “keeps happening” because it’s written into the constitution of the UK. If it d…
There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know much about UK law, but it is at least is constitutional monarchy. So the ruler and rituals of succession exist under the purview of the people and parliament. Surely there is just not enough political will to change it. That’s very different from your implication that it’s some kind of authoritarian hellscape. Rewording: this “keeps happening” because it’s written into the constitution of the UK. If it d…
There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
Awful lot of Brits learning the crucial difference between the right to free speech, and the privilege of being allowed to speak freely.
Americans too. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/06/1121322520/a-black-protester-...
"The jury acquitted Martin of inciting a riot and reached no verdict on whether she threatened officers' lives. Her legal team was "elated" when jurors found her guilty only of breaching the peace, punishable by no more than a $500 fine and 30 days in jail, investigator Tony Kennedy recalled.
State law defines breachers of the peace as any disturbers, "dangerous and disorderly persons" or people who utter "menaces or threatening speeches." But prosecutors presented the charge as a "high and aggravated" crime, which carries up to 10 years imprisonment. "
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold.
Yes, there is a constitution [0]. No, it's not writen as complete in any set of documents. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched;[2] the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law.
You cannot point me to a document that is the constitution. Words like uncodified or "unwritten arrangements" just create a semantic whack-a-mole, furthering the point that no written constitution exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold.
https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-com...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there is a constitution [0]. No, it's not writen as complete in any set of documents. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
From your link: The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily chang…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did you forget what you fought about in 1776? Not having our views represented in parliament whilst having our taxes decreased to bail out the British East India Company.
It's always funny to see how many Americans truly believe in this founding myth. The American revolution was supported by around 30% of the colonists by the time it started. And that was only after the media-owning elites spent years churning out non-stop pieces trying to promote the perspective. Of course the taxes primarily affected those wealthy elites and they knew a revolution would significantly benefit them Do…