If the action of underming is intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress to those celebrating.
Was just talking about that linked incident in which, from the article they gave them over 30minutes to stop walking in the road. Some of the protestors did move to the pavement.
The ones that didnât got arrested. Continuing to protest whilst being reminded for 30 mins that you will be arrested unless you move to the pavement, then get arrested. That seems level headed to me, but obviously if your plan was to get arrested and promote your cause more, then they achieved that too.
So what they should have said is âWe will deal robustly with anyone intent on causing harassment, alarm or distressâ which from quick googling is part of the Public Order Act.
They chose âunderminingâ which in my mind is a far lesser action that doesnât constitute any of the above.
Indeed.
Who / What would be the Head Of state for the 14 other realms around the world, Australia, Canada, Jamaica and New Zealand etc. Avec Head of the Commonwealth 54 states, mainly former British colonies and dependencies⌠And also draw in 1-2 billion in tourism head up the C of E and weigh off little expenses like rebranding HMRC / the mint, the odd charitable thing etc host foreign dignitaries etc etc .
Not impossible of course but âwho or whatâ and how would this be decided is the question.
3 Likes
A question I have- actually two- is what is the Commonwealth for? Also what is itâs relevance in the modern world?
Bugger all really but again this would involve quite some untangling
Exactly my point. There are appropriate words already written in the law they could have chosen, they didnât.
Itâs left open to interpretation, so are they are going to enforce the public order act or start dealing robustly with people undermining the celebration even though they are well within the law in doing so?
When I lived in Australia there was poll to replace the queen as head of state. The nation wanted a directly elected head of state. The PM at the time, (an odious little shit called) John Howard, decided that the Republican model would involve a President voted for by Parliament alone. The vote was to retain the monarchy. I suspect the current Labour government, if re-elected, will move pretty swiftly to offer a referendum to replace the monarch with a directly elected head of state. Iâll be very surprised if Straya is not a republic by the end of the decade.
6 Likes
Ha ha ha. Nothing says 'One is white and superior" louder than white wall tyres on oneâs Land Rover.
6 Likes
I donât understand why a head of state is needed at all. Sure a government, with a system of checks and balances, but a head of state? Why?
2 Likes
Exactly. The whole argument that you MUST have a HoS is fatuous. There is no need. Many countries have no HoS.
You just need to acknowledge that your PM or President is the top dog.
Get a code of conduct enshrined in a Constitution and Jobs a Goodun.
5 Likes
Meanwhile David Starkey going absolutely full racist potato about the actual flipping Prime Minister. Surely this must end him?
3 Likes
It does seem to have a relevance for a lot of the member states.
Three countries have joined since 2000 so they must think it worthwhile.
âŚwhich will need considerable overhaul to ensure that they canât be abused, by a government that is willing to change constitutional laws to suit its own agenda.
We will need something more than the luck of having a strong willed woman wearing a spider broach to save us from the kind of cunts we have at the moment.
But yes, on that proviso I donât see why we need a HoS at all.
2 Likes