RugbyRebels

I believe they were comparing two events and drawing parallels, i.e. peaceful protester arrested for no reason. Its intended to cause impact and make people think.

In other related news Last Week Tonight's opening bit was cut to ribbons because John Oliver made some very, very mild jokes relating to companies' reactions to the Queen's death. Apparently, the public is no longer allowed to suffer comedy in which the Queen is mentioned, even if it's not at her expense.

I was vaguely leaning anti-monarchy before this, but mostly apathetic. This nationwide enforced saccharine mewling combined with censorship and repression of any contrary views has pushed me over the edge into outright disgust.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:You posted a tweet that said that the U.K. = Russia.

Liar, liar, pants on fire

J Dory wrote:I believe they were comparing two events and drawing parallels, i.e. peaceful protester arrested for no reason. Its intended to cause impact and make people think.

It’s complete hyperbole which, imo, doesn’t help the side we are both on in what is a very important issue.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:You posted a tweet that said that the U.K. = Russia.

Liar, liar, pants on fire

Is this now an internet play ground squabble?!?!? Your reaction to being challenged on here is very telling. Ironically, we’re both on the same side, ie that peaceful and respectful anti-monarchy protest should be allowed.

Hang on, so Which is the one being dramatic here?

Who has said dramatic, other than you?
I just find the whole U.K. = Russia implications in the tweet, and therefore by the poster who shared it, completely hyperbolic and actually a hindrance to the argument for free speech. That the perma-attention seeker and sensationalist JHB is saying the same thing, ie UK = Russia, makes me believe I have this one correct. That the challenge was met by a strawman argument and then childish obfuscation also makes me believe I'm correct.
Ultimately, I blame Mark Zuckerberg but he’s far too clever to come on here.

Well you keep talking about hyperbole, while suggesting that commenting ‘this one event reminds me of a thing in Russia’ is the same as saying our countries (or leadership) are the same.

You were the one who posted the Hartley-Brewer tweet where she said it more directly, right? I get that the direct comparisons to Russia aren’t necessarily helpful, but removing all nuance and boiling it down to ‘UK = Russia’ doesn’t seem like a useful strategy either.

Apols, I thought that it would be obvious that by joining in a discussion specifically about free speech that when I said ‘U.K. = Russia’ I was talking about how free speech is dealt with in those two countries. It’ll make for some long posts if we all have to explain on each post that any assertions are specific to the topic we are discussing.
The reason for posting JHB was to highlight that if she’s making the same argument/comparison then it’s probably one to back away from.
Glad we agree that equating U.K. laws on free speech with Russia is unhelpful. That is all I was trying to say.
I will try and be verbose from here on in avoid any further confusion.

Bad person having opinion X, making opinion X inherently bad, is another really simplistic, unhelpful stance that a lot of people seem to take for some reason. Taking everything in absolutes makes most of these conversations kind of pointless.

I think the opinion that U.K. laws on free speech are akin to Russian laws on free speech, and even alluding to it, is inherently bad and won’t apologise for stating/thinking that. Using JHB was in hindsight perhaps a bit too provocative but it was meant to make people stop and think.

Mellsblue wrote:Is this now an internet play ground squabble?!?!?

Sorry, I was trying to meet you at the level of discussion you were engaging in - just following your lead.

Mellsblue wrote:Your reaction to being challenged on here is very telling.

If you want to challenge me, feel free, so far, you haven't. Of course, I can also feel free not to play as and when you do.





Elsewhere
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/nhs-ca ... k-holiday/

Hospital appointments cancelled because of Queen’s funeral

Exclusive: Thousands of patients waiting for surgery, maternity checks and some cancer care will be affected

Thousands of patients have had hospital appointments cancelled because of the Queen’s funeral, openDemocracy can reveal.
Some NHS trusts have said that all non-urgent procedures and clinic appointments will be postponed, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery, maternity checks and some cancer treatments.
Many patients had been waiting months for surgery – only to have it cancelled a week beforehand. In a letter to one patient, the NHS blamed “unforeseen circumstances”.
Doctors at one central London hospital trust were told: “The day of the State Funeral will be treated as a bank holiday so please go ahead and start rescheduling patients.”
...
ARTICLE CONTINUES

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Is this now an internet play ground squabble?!?!?

Sorry, I was trying to meet you at the level of discussion you were engaging in - just following your lead.

Mellsblue wrote:Your reaction to being challenged on here is very telling.

If you want to challenge me, feel free, so far, you haven't. Of course, I can also feel free not to play as and when you do.

Obfuscation 101.
What’s next - my dad’s bigger than your dad? When he was approx 5 years old my eldest loved ‘I know you are but what am I?’, you could give that a go.

This argument appears to be two people who broadly agree with each other, attacking what they thought the other person was saying.

In the name of our beloved deceased Queen, can we not have peace in this most solemn of enforced mourning periods? {candle emoji}

Puja

For me, the key para in that article about parts of the NHS taking the day off is this:
‘It follows the announcement that the UK will have a bank holiday on September 19 to mark the Queen's funeral. But government guidelines says: "There is no statutory entitlement to time off," adding that this is "a matter for discussion between individuals and their employer".’
It is quite the two fingers up to their patients and makes the decision to postpone the Prem rugby matches on Friday look almost rational.

Puja wrote:In other related news Last Week Tonight's opening bit was cut to ribbons because John Oliver made some very, very mild jokes relating to companies' reactions to the Queen's death. Apparently, the public is no longer allowed to suffer comedy in which the Queen is mentioned, even if it's not at her expense.

I was vaguely leaning anti-monarchy before this, but mostly apathetic. This nationwide enforced saccharine mewling combined with censorship and repression of any contrary views has pushed me over the edge into outright disgust.

Puja

Strangely, or not I guess, my reaction has been very different - the people I've seen/heard have been kindly, history-aware, and not particularly emotional, just saddened by the end of an era and the passing of an old lady who mostly came over as a warm and kind old lady. Yes there are some emotional train-wrecks out there but I'm in no position to sit in judgement on them. The press are as bad as ever but that's the British Press for you. I am still vaguely leaning anti-monarchy, as much as I ever was, which is to say, not that much.

Justin Trudeau, Canadian PM, recently voted PM with the best hair of 2022 and PM most likely to cry in front of the camera has declared Monday a holiday in Canada, in honor of one of his favorite rich people in the world, Queen Liz. But our heartless premier of Ontario, recently voted most likely to grease it forward (long live the king), well Dougy Ford, has said, no holiday for Ontarians.

I can't really express how weird I find this.

Mikey Brown wrote:

I can't really express how weird I find this.

There's some truth hidden in there. It's clearly very upsetting for them but the writer (assuming it isn't just a Daily Mail reporter) certainly needs to wake up, or grow up.

Yeah, honestly...I mean, she was ancient, what do you expect? For her to live forever? And while it can certainly be said she handled herself very well before I was born, since then...well, with the way the world has gone, some stronger and more human leadership wouldn't have gone amiss. As it was, keeping the crown safe was the most important thing.

The only reason I'm not a republican is because I don't trust any UK government or the people to choose a viable President.

Stom wrote:Yeah, honestly...I mean, she was ancient, what do you expect? For her to live forever? And while it can certainly be said she handled herself very well before I was born, since then...well, with the way the world has gone, some stronger and more human leadership wouldn't have gone amiss. As it was, keeping the crown safe was the most important thing.

The only reason I'm not a republican is because I don't trust any UK government or the people to choose a viable President.

This resonates. I used to be a monarchist when I was younger for this very reason - I liked that our head of state wasn't chosen by a bunch of fucking idiots and that we weren't forced to deify an idiot like Bush as "the symbol of our country".

As I've got older and learned a bit more about the world, learned more about this country and the way it's acted across history, learned about the vast power the constitutional monarchy holds (both political and financially), as well as reflected on the fact that it's actually entirely fucked up that we take children of this one particular family and make them grow up in this petri dish to create little "symbols of our country" rather than people, I've become steadily more anti-monarchist. However, I've never really worked out what I want instead. I guess a republic, but that's only because I've yet to hear anything better than because I think there's any lower chance of the people electing David Beckham.

Puja

Stom wrote:..well, with the way the world has gone, some stronger and more human leadership wouldn't have gone amiss.

What would this look like?

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:..well, with the way the world has gone, some stronger and more human leadership wouldn't have gone amiss.

What would this look like?

Well, I for one liked Charles' 'spider letters' to Cameron's govt., telling them that they should really think about not fucking people over...

Speaking up against inhuman treatment of your subjects would be a good start.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:..well, with the way the world has gone, some stronger and more human leadership wouldn't have gone amiss.

What would this look like?

Well, I for one liked Charles' 'spider letters' to Cameron's govt., telling them that they should really think about not fucking people over...

Speaking up against inhuman treatment of your subjects would be a good start.

So not politically neutral? Leaves her/them/it open to plenty of flak.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: What would this look like?

Well, I for one liked Charles' 'spider letters' to Cameron's govt., telling them that they should really think about not fucking people over...

Speaking up against inhuman treatment of your subjects would be a good start.

So not politically neutral? Leaves her/them/it open to plenty of flak.

How about someone that could acknowledge their family's heavy investment in the slave trade and who could apologise to people around the globe who's culture has been irreparably damaged?