Anti-monarchists protest wrecked during Thames sail.

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by chocolate_frog, Jun 4, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. A bunch of Anti-monarchists attempted to stage a protest during the Queen's 7 mile ride down the London Canal.

    Alas, their chants of 'Lizzie, Lizzie, Lizzie: OUT, OUT, OUT' were drowned out by an impromptu retort of 'Lizzie, Lizzie, Lizzie: IN, IN, IN' followed by a stiring rendition of 'God save the Queen'.

    Possibly because the groups (Republic) websites promise of 'hundreds of protesters' turned out to be about 60.

    And they all appear to be freaks... either that or the Daily Mail only took pictures of the more freaky looking ones...

    Don't we all fella, luckily I have one that does.
    • Like Like x 8
  2. They are also wrong in one of those placards. I don't think we have been subjects for some time.
  3. I was hoping that Antipodean **** would swim into the Thames to protest about elitism again, and get a bit shot.
    • Like Like x 8
  4. No, I completely agree - A Monarchy is not a democracy. However, look where bloody democracy got us - Tony Blair, David Cameron, I've never known the Queen to lie like a cheap NAAFI watch. I couldn't imagine the damage that would be done to this country if David Cameron was in No.10 and Ed Balls was in Buck House.
    People might not all like the system, (I do) But at least The Queen and her family can be trusted a damn sight more than 99% of the loonies that run around, lie over expenses, lie over what they're going to do when in power, racial . verbally abuse each other and beat each other up in the House of Commons.

    Also, someone should tell that fool that HE is the only one that embody's his values. Everybody has slightly different values, that's what diversity is about.
    • Like Like x 13
  5. Yes, they want a head of state who 'embodies their values'. Leaving aside the dubious set of values to which they presumably subscribe, because they must have the vision of 'President Blair' in their minds, do they genuinely think that an elected president is somehow better - in that only a tiny proportion of the country would actually have voted for whichever shifty 'chancer' is fielded by each of the political parties in a presidential election? An impartial, constitutional monarch is far more likely to represent a larger proportion of the population than a partisan politician.

    And whilst I am a terrific fan of 'the blessed Margaret', I wonder if these republican campaigners have ever given a moment's thought to the fact that the pseudo-socialist 'new' Labour regime was only a recent phenomenon - would they be quite so fervent in advocating President Thatcher (which I am damn sure would have happened at some point in the 80s).

    God Save the Queen
    • Like Like x 5
  6. I have to say I can't think of a single person in UK that I would rather be our head of state...

    As mentioned above could you imagine some of hte fcuking chancers we'd get trying to get teh 'top job' if it were up for grabs? We'd end up like America.

    Actually there probably is ONE man I'd consider, and he's ficitonal.

    maybe a jont monarch and weatherman...

    One for me, and one for my homies.
    • Like Like x 3
  7. While in theory i support a republic. the queen has done a better job than anyone could imagine.
    The king of spain thought a spot of nellie bashing was a good idea :(
    Charles will probably screw it all up though
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Not so fast Tiger. I wouldn't trust Charles as far as I could throw TFC Andrew. The bloke couldn't keep his cock in his pants; his loyalty and integrity went out the window on the day he married Diana (not that she was on the moral high ground). I wouldn't trust Andrew to be the United Kingdom's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment or to choose the circle of people he likes to associate with. The only thing I'd trust Edward to do is to abuse his position in order to make a fast buck for his utterly shit TV company. Fergie - I'd trust her to **** up everything she touched. Henry VIII - wouldn't trust that **** with my daughter. The list goes on - they are all fallible and their shit stinks.

    But I'm sure we can brush all that under the carpet and put forward an emotional straw man argument to defend monarchy until the next **** up by them.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Only in a democracy would you be able to protest about not being a democracy.
    • Like Like x 9
  10. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone....
  11. Absolutely - but let's not have unblinkered adulation and adoration for a fallible family.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. I must admit, the 'baggage' around the 'middle' generation of the family is immense. I can't help thinking that Charles would win a great deal of respect (for all time) if he passed the mantle to William, either directly or after a short time (say 1 year).

    Wills (and Harry and Zara) are really forging their own identities and the public seemingly love them for it. I fear Charles will be too old, when he finally ascends... I think the nation will literally be waitig for him to pop his clogs, so that William can step forward.

    The Queen will not be around forever, like everyone else, but I think she has a fair few years left to run... Charles will be quite old on his corinaton... in fact so will William!

    Shame Harry can't be King. There is something about a monarch in an Apache that a Monarch in an RAF Rescue chopper just can't quite emulate!
    • Like Like x 4
  13. BBC News - Police 'suppressed anti-Royalism during Royal Wedding'

    Quite true.

    But the met is working on it! :)

    It did seem at the time of the Wedding the met reintroduced internment.

    Pageantry & pre-crime: Royal Wedding arrests Judicial Review begins Monday at the High Court | Hannah Chutzpah: Firing from a Double-Barrel

    The problem I would comment is the police apparently being brought into something other than their role, which is to stay within the law.

    I lookforward to this ruling and the effect it has on Sportsday, the next great event that could have disagreement on the streets.

    Markintime makes a fine point. Indeed in a democracy you should be able to protest, even about that democracy.

    You should not be able to attempt violent overthrow of that democracy however, or engage in "The undermining or overthrow of parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means" or something like that.
  14. The House of Windsor resolutely trots out better women than men. Shame there's none on the horizon.

    The people who hanker for a bunny hop from HMQ to William are hoping that a piece of populist democracy occurs in a monarchist system. It's OK to hope but the nature of a monarchy is that you don't get to choose, folks. I also have very little time for Charles (or the other brothers for that matter) and after one of the longest apprenticeships in history still think that he's going to make a pig's ear of being King. He's rash, not as intellectual as he makes out, has proved himself morally weak, is too political, and I think he has surrounded himself with some poor advisers. All things that HMQ has kept such distance from that these sort of things have never been in question.

    My bet is that upon his accession there is serious pressure to reform the monarchy and this may be the saving grace of GVIIR or CIIIR, whoever he elects to be...
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Were they actually arrested?

    Surely a bit of Police pro-activity to prevent disorder is a good idea. ie preventing the meeting of two opposing views.