# Prince Charles' car attacked



## DrRingDing (Dec 9, 2010)

Holy fucking Nora.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 9, 2010)

On BBC


----------



## Belushi (Dec 9, 2010)

Lets hope so.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 9, 2010)

> #1940: The Associated Press is reporting that protesters in London have attacked a car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. The BBC has not confirmed the report.



Get the fuck in.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

It'll be one stick thrown, and missed.


----------



## lizzieloo (Dec 9, 2010)

Someone kicked his car FFS

Can't wait for the headlines tomorrow.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

Boo.

I was hoping he'd at least got a bit of a kicking.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 9, 2010)

Yes, boo and hiss.


----------



## WWWeed (Dec 9, 2010)

He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Although to be fair regent street should have been reasonably ok...


----------



## yardbird (Dec 9, 2010)

Window smashed and white paint thrown.


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

*thread title amended for accuracy


----------



## swampy (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## Gingerman (Dec 9, 2010)

I hope the car was'nt hurt


----------



## jakethesnake (Dec 9, 2010)

nice one!!


----------



## Goatherd (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## lizzieloo (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

Posted this on another thread, but I'm quite pleased with my screen cap.


----------



## swampy (Dec 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Posted this on another thread, but I'm quite pleased with my screen cap.


 
I was about to say they just used your photo on BBC news ....


----------



## Mr Moose (Dec 9, 2010)

'One's pissed one's trizers'


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Dec 9, 2010)

> 2059: London Mayor Boris Johnson thinks the attack on the car containing the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall was "very worrying", according to a spokesman. He is "appalled by the scenes of violence this evening... It is an insult to our democracy," the spokesman adds.


----------



## socialist (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## JimW (Dec 9, 2010)

Fine London tradition: http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/constitu/regent.htm


----------



## Edie (Dec 9, 2010)

Fuckin A. Now fuck off you privileged wanker and give us our fuckin money back.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 9, 2010)

Them plucky students - I was beginning to worry they were a one-smashed-window pony.


----------



## Kaye (Dec 9, 2010)

Good.


----------



## dylans (Dec 9, 2010)

swampy said:


>


 
gooooooaaaaaaaaallllllll


----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Posted this on another thread, but I'm quite pleased with my screen cap.


 
Proof that the Prince and Camilla weren't even in the car. That's just a couple of blow up dolls.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

It's bad PR for the students, will turn public opinion against them and steal headlines away from the actual issue.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> will turn public opinion against them


 
Lol at the liberal


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

xes said:


> Proof that the Prince and Camilla weren't even in the car. That's just a couple of blow up dolls.


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

It's all Nick fucking Clegg's fault. If he and his gang of lying two-faced wannabe Tory twats hadn't made such a spectacular u-turn on their own promises, people wouldn't be out in the streets.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Two people might to want to see that pic.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Dec 9, 2010)

Why weren't people monitoring CCTV on their route to foresee any problems like groups of breakaway protestors and suchlike


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Why weren't people monitoring CCTV on their route to foresee any problems like groups of breakaway protestors and suchlike


 

It's all a bit bizarre.  Royal cars normally have motorbike police escorts that go ahead and stop all the traffic for them so not sure what went on here


----------



## Sir Belchalot (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's bad PR for the students, will turn public opinion against them and steal headlines away from the actual issue.



Who gives a shit? It's lovely to see 2 parasites shitting a brick, stirring stuff.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Lol at the liberal


 
hello stranger!


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2010)

brilliant


----------



## 19sixtysix (Dec 10, 2010)

Don't worry dear people camilla the police horse was unhurt.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Dec 10, 2010)

lol, at her face.


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 10, 2010)

editor said:


> It's all Nick fucking Clegg's fault. If he and his gang of lying two-faced wannabe Tory twats hadn't made such a spectacular u-turn on their own promises, people wouldn't be out in the streets.


 
#nickcleggsfault


----------



## A380 (Dec 10, 2010)

"It's all Nick fucking Clegg's fault. If he and his gang of lying two-faced wannabe Tory twats hadn't made such a spectacular u-turn on their own promises, people wouldn't be out in the streets."

Could you clarify please, only I'm not quite sure where you stand on the Lib Dems.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Dec 10, 2010)

editor said:


> It's all Nick fucking Clegg's fault. If he and his gang of lying two-faced wannabe Tory twats hadn't made such a spectacular u-turn on their own promises, people wouldn't be out in the streets.


 
Let's think about how that would have panned out.


The LDs would have been unable to reach a coalition agreement with Labour and the SNP / whoever
There would have been another election, which the tories would have won outright
The same basic bill but without any concessions would have been passed
Spoilt middle class kids would still have gone on a bullingdon-style rampage through London


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Lol at the liberal


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 10, 2010)

ExtraRefined said:


> Let's think about how that would have panned out.
> 
> 
> The LDs would have been unable to reach a coalition agreement with Labour and the SNP / whoever
> ...


 
Nah, its the anger at being lied to by the lib dems thats has turned students from being pissed off to rioters.  Anyway you're talking bollocks on the other stuff, why would the tories have won outright second time around?


----------



## revlon (Dec 10, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> It's all a bit bizarre.  Royal cars normally have motorbike police escorts that go ahead and stop all the traffic for them so not sure what went on here


 
cut backs


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 10, 2010)

ExtraRefined said:


> Let's think about how that would have panned out.
> 
> 
> The LDs would have been unable to reach a coalition agreement with Labour and the SNP / whoever
> ...



The bit in bold is wishful thinking on your part.  No one wants the Tories' sub-Randian bollocks where the rich are painted as oppressed and the rest of us are their oppressors.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 10, 2010)

never should have happened

somebody in royal protection should be looking for a new job.
 all it would have taken is one violent twat and all demos have them and we'd be looking at a dead demonstrater
 I 'm not saying who threw the paint was a threat.
 but if fire extingusher boy had rocked up with a bit of scaffolding etc then things go bad real fast.
  First rule of close protection avoid putting targets in harms way if at all possible. big student demo hmmm lets avoid the centre of town or drive a blacked out range rover etc.
 nobody knows the royals are about nobody gets over excited no possibility of somebody getting killed.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 10, 2010)

likesfish said:


> never should have happened
> 
> somebody in royal protection should be looking for a new job.
> all it would have taken is one violent twat and all demos have them and we'd be looking at a dead demonstrater
> ...


 
It is a trully astonishing lapse in security, I know they broke away from the main demo but thats hardly unusual, in fact it happened a couple of weeks back at Millbank.


----------



## revlon (Dec 10, 2010)

likesfish said:


> never should have happened
> 
> somebody in royal protection should be looking for a new job.
> all it would have taken is one violent twat and all demos have them and we'd be looking at a dead demonstrater
> ...



we can't have the royals getting too close to their subjects can we?

Where's fire extinguisher boy when we need him


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 10, 2010)

revlon said:


> Where's fire extinguisher boy when we need him


 
In jail I think.  This is the problem with street rioting there is often a lack of weapons to hand other then the paint you've brought along.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 10, 2010)

Edie said:


> Fuckin A. Now fuck off you privileged wanker and give us our fuckin money back.


 
Yes!


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> gooooooaaaaaaaaallllllll


 
Brilliant - the best thing for donkeys years. Reminds me of the good old days when the ROyals were heckled more in the streets.


----------



## nuffsaid (Dec 10, 2010)

editor said:


> It's all Nick fucking Clegg's fault. If he and his gang of lying two-faced wannabe Tory twats hadn't made such a spectacular u-turn on their own promises, people wouldn't be out in the streets.


 
Wrong: Their idiotic pledging was made IF they were the elected party with a majority. They weren't, they had to compromise to form a coalition, their promises were then able to be reneged on as they weren't the elected party with a majority. Although, as they were never going to be the elected party with a majority, and they knew it, it was easy to make popular promises that they would never have to keep. A cheap tactic really, but they didn't u-turn as they weren't the elected party. At least that was the argument on question time last night.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 10, 2010)

Nick Clegg, go home and get your fucking shine box


----------



## creak (Dec 10, 2010)

nuffsaid said:


> Wrong: Their idiotic pledging was made IF they were the elected party with a majority. They weren't, they had to compromise to form a coalition, their promises were then able to be reneged on as they weren't the elected party with a majority. Although, as they were never going to be the elected party with a majority, and they knew it, it was easy to make popular promises that they would never have to keep. A cheap tactic really, but they didn't u-turn as they weren't the elected party. At least that was the argument on question time last night.


 
No. the pledge was made to vote against fees _in the next parliament_. This shite about their promises only being valid if elected as a government with a majority is just a cheap revisionist ploy, recently coming in to use by Clegg, Cable, Ashdown and others to justify this astounding LibDem u-turn. And it seems you've swallowed it too. 

Look at this.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

That picture really is about as clear cut as you can get, to be fair.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 10, 2010)

nuffsaid said:


> Wrong: Their idiotic pledging was made IF they were the elected party with a majority. They weren't, they had to compromise to form a coalition, their promises were then able to be reneged on as they weren't the elected party with a majority. Although, as they were never going to be the elected party with a majority, and they knew it, it was easy to make popular promises that they would never have to keep. A cheap tactic really, but they didn't u-turn as they weren't the elected party. At least that was the argument on question time last night.


 
Wrong: it went to a vote; they could have kept their promise by voting against it.


----------



## JimW (Dec 10, 2010)

Exactly. Wording even implies they didn't expect to be part of the next government they promise to pressure.


----------



## revlon (Dec 10, 2010)

nuffsaid said:


> Wrong: Their idiotic pledging was made IF they were the elected party with a majority. They weren't, they had to compromise to form a coalition, their promises were then able to be reneged on as they weren't the elected party with a majority. Although, as they were never going to be the elected party with a majority, and they knew it, it was easy to make popular promises that they would never have to keep. A cheap tactic really, but they didn't u-turn as they weren't the elected party. At least that was the argument on question time last night.


 
but the lib dems asked people to vote for them on specific policy. They also made personal pledges about specific issues. 

Regradless of the backroom deals done behind closed doors of westminster, lib dem mps are there to represent the people who voted them into power - voting for them on the back of, amongst other things, no raise in tuition fees.


i actually find nick clegg a seriously fucked up nutter.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## creak (Dec 10, 2010)

JimW said:


> Exactly. Wording even implies they didn't expect to be part of the next government they promise to pressure.


 
Yup, absolutely. The irony being that behind the scenes they were already secretly drawing up plans to scrap that pledge, in case they _did_ end up in government!


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 10, 2010)

nuffsaid said:


> Wrong: Their idiotic pledging was made IF they were the elected party with a majority.


 


creak said:


>


 
I've had a good look at that bit of paper Clegg's holding and I don't see much small print - is the bit about 'if they were the elected party with a majority' contained in microfilm embedded in the dot over an 'i' or something?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

discokermit said:


> hello stranger!


 
Alright disco!


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## nuffsaid (Dec 10, 2010)

Well on QT the Lib Dem rep said they had to make compromises as they weren't elected, that he regretted signing any pledge and Cable said on (BBC news I think) that they were able to get the tories to rework their original plans for tuition fees, so instead of voting against an increase he was arguing that they'd got the whole deal changed in a way that was better than what the tories would have put through had they been a majority govt. and that that ws better than merely voting against increases.

Although this is all a bit academic, if you really believe those election promises when the country is in debt to the amount it is, every govt. is going to have to make hard decisions. They shouldn't promise in the first place, accepted and that was said as much last night, but if you believe them when it was obvious the fees needed to rise and there's no money in the coffers, thanks to Gordon, then you're being naive.

There's going to be a lot more protests, because a lot more cuts are going to be made, because Gordon ran away with the banking boom.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

nuffsaid said:


> Well on QT the Lib Dem rep said they had to make compromises as they weren't elected, that he regretted signing any pledge and Cable said on (BBC news I think) that they were able to get the tories to rework their original plans for tuition fees, so instead of voting against an increase he was arguing that they'd got the whole deal changed in a way that was better than what the tories would have put through had they been a majority govt. and that that ws better than merely voting against increases.
> 
> Although this is all a bit academic, if you really believe those election promises when the country is in debt to the amount it is, every govt. is going to have to make hard decisions. They shouldn't promise in the first place, accepted and that was said as much last night, but if you believe them when it was obvious the fees needed to rise and there's no money in the coffers, thanks to Gordon, then you're being naive.
> 
> There's going to be a lot more protests, because a lot more cuts are going to be made, because Gordon ran away with the banking boom.


 
Bollocks


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Bollocks


 
Ah, it's good to have you back.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 10, 2010)

editor said:


> It's all Nick fucking Clegg's fault. If he and his gang of lying two-faced wannabe Tory twats hadn't made such a spectacular u-turn on their own promises, people wouldn't be out in the streets.


 
Bollocks, fees are pretext not cause (otherwise people would have rioted when they were introduced) Assorted lefties - not necessarily students - are desperate to prove that "Con-Dem" wickedness means rioting, revolution, since their entire understanding of politics is formed by telling each other stories about how though Labour is not socialist enough, Tony Blair at least brought relief and joy for progressive people, after a generation of unremitting violence and poverty and social regression in the years from 1979 to 1997.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Bollocks, fees are pretext not cause (otherwise people would have rioted when they were introduced) Assorted lefties - not necessarily students - are desperate to prove that "Con-Dem" wickedness means rioting, revolution, since their entire understanding of politics is formed by telling each other stories about how though Labour is not socialist enough, Tony Blair at least brought relief and joy for progressive people, after a generation of unremitting violence and poverty and social regression in the years from 1979 to 1997.


 
Fuck off moon.


----------



## creak (Dec 10, 2010)

nuffsaid said:


> Well on QT the Lib Dem rep said they had to make compromises as they weren't elected, that he regretted signing any pledge and Cable said on (BBC news I think) that they were able to get the tories to rework their original plans for tuition fees, so instead of voting against an increase he was arguing that they'd got the whole deal changed in a way that was better than what the tories would have put through had they been a majority govt. and that that ws better than merely voting against increases.
> 
> Although this is all a bit academic, if you really believe those election promises when the country is in debt to the amount it is, every govt. is going to have to make hard decisions. They shouldn't promise in the first place, accepted and that was said as much last night, but if you believe them when it was obvious the fees needed to rise and there's no money in the coffers, thanks to Gordon, then you're being naive.
> 
> There's going to be a lot more protests, because a lot more cuts are going to be made, because Gordon ran away with the banking boom.



1. The Lib Dems are lying. 

2. http://falseeconomy.org.uk/


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 10, 2010)

Clegg looks a decade older and a stone  and 1/2 lighter now. Hope it's not the worry of it all . . . .


----------



## creak (Dec 10, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Clegg looks a decade older and a stone  and 1/2 lighter now. Hope it's not the worry of it all . . . .


 
Time for this picture again I think


----------



## ddraig (Dec 10, 2010)

probably looks worse today again!


----------



## Goatherd (Dec 10, 2010)

revlon said:


>



I only wish there was some way of making sure that Nick Clegg was forced to look at this image every day for the rest of his life.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 10, 2010)

nuffsaid said:


> Well on QT the Lib Dem rep said they had to make compromises as they weren't elected, that he regretted signing any pledge and Cable said on (BBC news I think) that they were able to get the tories to rework their original plans for tuition fees, so instead of voting against an increase he was arguing that they'd got the whole deal changed in a way that was better than what the tories would have put through had they been a majority govt. and that that ws better than merely voting against increases.
> 
> Although this is all a bit academic, if you really believe those election promises when the country is in debt to the amount it is, every govt. is going to have to make hard decisions. They shouldn't promise in the first place, accepted and that was said as much last night, but if you believe them when it was obvious the fees needed to rise and there's no money in the coffers, thanks to Gordon, then you're being naive.
> 
> There's going to be a lot more protests, because a lot more cuts are going to be made, because Gordon ran away with the banking boom.


 
They shouldn't have made a promise they thought they might have to compromise on, possible some of the current LD ministers knew this might happen which is a betrayal to the party.  I think the fact that well over half of LD MPs rebelled by either voting against or abstaining says quite a lot about the integrity of the backbenchers


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

Indeed it does. The gutless wonders.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

"Camilla could be heard screaming as she gripped Charles’s hand. Terrified for her safety, she then dived on to the floor of the car. One witness said Charles pushed her down in an attempt to protect her."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ose-Prince-Charles-Camilla.html#ixzz17i2QqRu2


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

The royal couple left the palladium in a police van....

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/10/article-1337351-0C6C3593000005DC-963_634x460.jpg


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

kabbes said:


> View attachment 12835
> View attachment 12836
> View attachment 12837
> View attachment 12838


 it's not really a  haha moment.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


> "Camilla could be heard screaming as she gripped Charles's hand. Terrified for her safety, she then dived on to the floor of the car. One witness said Charles pushed her down in an attempt to protect her."


I bet he did, the dutty boy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The royal couple left the palladium in a police van....
> 
> http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/10/article-1337351-0C6C3593000005DC-963_634x460.jpg


 sadly not a la ceauceascu


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## Zabo (Dec 10, 2010)

Oops!


----------



## Nice one (Dec 10, 2010)

a few choice pics of charles and camilla shitting it on the front page of freedom press website 

http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/


----------



## dylans (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Bollocks, fees are pretext not cause (otherwise people would have rioted when they were introduced) Assorted lefties - not necessarily students - are desperate to prove that "Con-Dem" wickedness means rioting, revolution, since their entire understanding of politics is formed by telling each other stories about how though Labour is not socialist enough, Tony Blair at least brought relief and joy for progressive people, after a generation of unremitting violence and poverty and social regression in the years from 1979 to 1997.


 
You would so love this thread to be full of Labour supporters. You have a whole line of argument worked out that begins with "but labour..."

Unfortunately very few here give a flying fuck about Labour. I didn't vote for them and I despise them as much as the rest of the bag of snakes. Because you find yourself confronted with people who make no attempt to defend labour, you are left with no wind in your sails and an argument that is lying in the mud. "Yeah but Labour" don't wash I'm afraid.Fuck labour.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 10, 2010)

What has it all achieved? The tabloids have gone into meltdown and all the attention has been diverted from the whole reasons for the protest.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2010)

the mob is angry you parasites


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

jer said:


> What has it all achieved? The tabloids have gone into meltdown and all the attention has been diverted from the whole reasons for the protest.
> 
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.


No one cares about your whining - into the dusbtin!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2010)

great the wringing of liberal hands- fuck off has it diverted attention.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

jer said:


> What has it all achieved? The tabloids have gone into meltdown and all the attention has been diverted from the whole reasons for the protest.
> 
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.


 
Nobody gives a fuck what the tabloids say. If you speak to actual w/c people instead of taking cues from Murdoch, Desmond and the Barclay bros then you will discover that the vast majority back the students. Nobody wants this govt.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No one cares about your whining - into the dusbtin!


 
And freedom of speech shall be abolished when butcher has his way. If he can get out of the ale house, first.

Chucking things at two oaps has achieved sod all and played right into the hands of Cameron et al.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Nobody gives a fuck what the tabloids say. If you speak to actual w/c people instead of taking cues from Murdoch, Desmond and the Barclay bros then you will discover that the vast majority back the students. *Nobody wants this govt*.


 
Nobody wants them & yet, here they are. If nobody wants them why aren't Labour in power?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2010)

theres a character in Pilgrims Progress. Pliable. Thats you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

jer said:


> And freedom of speech shall be abolished when butcher has his way. If he can get out of the ale house, first.
> 
> Chucking things at two oaps has achieved sod all and played right into the hands of Cameron et al.


 No, you'll be free to whine away.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Dec 10, 2010)

Nice one said:


> a few choice pics of charles and camilla shitting it on the front page of freedom press website
> 
> http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/


 
They sure do look jolly terrified


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 10, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> theres a character in Pilgrims Progress. Pliable. Thats you.


 
There's a character in Lord of Light. Mara. That's you.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Nobody wants them & yet, here they are. If nobody wants them why aren't Labour in power?


 
Nobody elected this government, and the general election was six months ago anyway. People who voted Liberal, and even Tory, are now completely opposed to the coalition.

Govt in Ireland was elected too, yet how popular do you think they are?


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No, you'll be free to whine away.


 
I don't drink wine


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Nobody elected this government, and the general election was six months ago anyway. People who voted Liberal, and even Tory, are now completely opposed to the coalition.
> 
> Govt in Ireland was elected too, yet how popular do you think they are?


 
FF get in all the time, someone's voting the bastards in, PT.

Let's say the Libdems implode and there's another general election - who will the majority vote for?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

jer said:


> FF get in all the time, someone's voting the bastards in, PT.
> 
> Let's say the Libdems implode and there's another general election - who will the majority vote for?


 
But that doesn't suggest they are governing by consent, in the UK or Ireland. It suggests that the system of choosing our governments is corrupt and that people have insufficient choice.

I would imagine Labour would be back in if we had an election tomorrow btw.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But that doesn't suggest they are governing by consent, in the UK or Ireland. It suggests that the system of choosing our governments is corrupt and that people have insufficient choice.
> 
> *I would imagine Labour would be back in if we had an election tomorrow btw*.



And I'd vote for them as I usually do but if the majority can't stand the tories or the libdems, surely Labour are set for imminent victory, should aforementioned implosion happen?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

"Camilla was hit by rioter through car window as protesters attack royals
Ross Lydall and Justin Davenport
10.12.10

Gallery: Students riot again over tuition fees
Vote: Coalition takes a hit as MPs resign over tuition fees increase
Fees: Students battle riot police as thousands besiege Parliament
Sebastian Shakespeare: A very middle-class sort of a riot
Mark Damazer: It's right that students protest - but they're wrong
ES Comment: After the demos, the hard questions begin

Ads by Google

Kate Middleton Looks
Discover Kate Middleton's Glamorous Transformation. Full Photo Gallery!

London Coupons
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. It's like doing London at 90% Off!

London 1-Day Coupons
Up To 90% Off The Best Stuff To Do! Restaurants, Spas, Events And More

Telescopic Police Baton
Official Police Batons Used By Law 100% Guaranteed delivery to the UK


The Duchess of Cornwall was physically attacked through an open car window as thugs rampaged through London, the Standard can reveal today.

*A rioter managed to push a stick through an open window of the limousine and jab her in the ribs*. Camilla's terrifying ordeal came as a baying mob surrounded her and husband Prince Charles when they rode through central London in the vintage Rolls-Royce last night."
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...b-attacks-charles-and-camilla-on-fees-riot.do


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

It says something about this govt that a chap I train martial arts with, a highly-paid corporate accountant who very firmly believes in capitalism, voted Labour last time round and is dismayed by this govt. He voted Labour for no other reason than that he thinks this lot do not know what the hell they are doing. They are hopeless even on their own terms, and they could seriously damage this country for decades to come. If you think periodic elections are democracy, then fuck democracy, jerB. It is failing.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

jer said:


> And I'd vote for them as I usually do but if the majority can't stand the tories or the libdems, surely Labour are set for imminent victory, should aforementioned implosion happen?


 
Probably, although of course Labour are no white knights. However, what we are seeing is a generation - and hopefully a class - waking up to the political, social and economic reality - and that is how change happens.


----------



## gabi (Dec 10, 2010)

lol. middle class spongers attack upper class spongers. middle class spongers gets their heads kicked in by cops then try to kick cops heads in. win. win. win.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gabi said:


> lol. middle class spongers attack upper class spongers. middle class spongers gets their heads kicked in by cops then try to kick cops heads in. win. win. win.


 
Knob


----------



## gabi (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Knob


 
'oh dear, i have to pay slightly more for my pointless anthropology degree?! golly, no! - why should I have to pay for our own education, no you, sir, yes you, who has made his own way without a fucking uni education, yes, you, you there, you with the job, paying fucking taxes, yes, you should pay for THE WHOLE FUCKING LARK - I'd settle for you paying 3 quarters of it tho.. pleease?'

get fucked.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gabi said:


> 'oh dear, i have to pay slightly more for my pointless anthropology degree?! golly, no! - why should I have to pay for our own education, no you, sir, yes you, who has made his own way without a fucking uni education, yes, you, you there, you with the job, paying fucking taxes, yes, you should pay for THE WHOLE FUCKING LARK - I'd settle for you paying 3 quarters of it tho.. pleease?'
> 
> get fucked.


 
You come from a rich home don't you? Plastic prole.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 10, 2010)

gabi said:


> 'oh dear, i have to pay slightly more for my *pointless anthropology degree*?! golly, no! - why should I have to pay for our own education, no you, sir, yes you, who has made his own way without a fucking uni education, yes, you, you there, you with the job, paying fucking taxes, yes, you should pay for THE WHOLE FUCKING LARK - I'd settle for you paying 3 quarters of it tho.. pleease?'
> 
> get fucked.



In what sense pointless?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

gabi said:


> 'oh dear, i have to pay slightly more for my pointless anthropology degree?! golly, no! - why should I have to pay for our own education, no you, sir, yes you, who has made his own way without a fucking uni education, yes, you, you there, you with the job, paying fucking taxes, yes, you should pay for THE WHOLE FUCKING LARK - I'd settle for you paying 3 quarters of it tho.. pleease?'
> 
> get fucked.


 
cunts like you keep idiots in power


----------



## socialist (Dec 10, 2010)

*Unwanted Camilla *


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> In what sense pointless?
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Because students are tax-dodging, perpetually drunk, tax-soaking, sponging, layabout, promiscuous idiots who have no common sense and should get into the REAL WORLD as soon as possible and be just as fucking bitter and stupid as those decrying them.

Piece in the local paper yesterday - some of the comments on there have to be seen to be believed:

http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/news/Students-send-message-MP-fees/article-2987382-detail/article.html


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

That's poor, even for you gabi.

If you choose to 'make your way' without taking up the chance of a university education, that is fine. Most people who do that, though, then in their turn want their children to have the chance to go to university. Many people who never had the chance to go to university, like my mum, for instance, are the keenest of all that their children should have the chances that were denied to them. 

And yes, if you earn good money, you should pay for others to go to university. If you earn very good money, you should pay for lots of others to go to university. It is the responsibility of the older generation to provide education for the generation that comes after them. This is both their duty and an act of self-interest – after all, you'll need that generation to generate your pension one day. 

You're completely wrong.


----------



## rekil (Dec 10, 2010)

gabi said:


> lol. middle class spongers attack upper class spongers. middle class spongers gets their heads kicked in by cops then try to kick cops heads in. win. win. win.


 
Shake in your shitty size six shoes you scab bastard.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 10, 2010)

This story has been sexed up so much by telly news that I bet Andrew Gilligan wished that he'd covered it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 10, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Because students are tax-dodging, perpetually drunk, tax-soaking, sponging, layabout, promiscuous idiots who have no common sense and should get into the REAL WORLD as soon as possible and be just as fucking bitter and stupid as those decrying them.
> 
> Piece in the local paper yesterday - some of the comments on there have to be seen to be believed:
> 
> http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/news/Students-send-message-MP-fees/article-2987382-detail/article.html


 
Having taught/worked with social policy students, student nurses, social workers, community and youth workers for the best part of 20 years that's not been my experience; perhaps I've just been lucky to have encountered people who have been overwhelmingly (though not exclusively) committed, hard working and quite smart enough for HE.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Having taught/worked with social policy students, student nurses, social workers, community and youth workers for the best part of 20 years that's not been my experience; perhaps I've just been lucky to have encountered people who have been overwhelmingly (though not exclusively) committed, hard working and quite smart enough for HE.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



I'm being sarky, mate. Echoing the comments on my shitty local rag.


----------



## rekil (Dec 10, 2010)

ExtraRefined said:


> They sure do look jolly terrified


There was a hint of Ceausescu on the balcony at Piata Republica about the whole thing, nervous waves and so on.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 10, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I'm being sarky, mate. Echoing the comments on my shitty local rag.


 
I knew SI; I was just taking the opportunity to make a point.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

gabi said:


> 'oh dear, i have to pay slightly more for my pointless anthropology degree?! golly, no! - why should I have to pay for our own education, no you, sir, yes you, who has made his own way without a fucking uni education, yes, you, you there, you with the job, paying fucking taxes, yes, you should pay for THE WHOLE FUCKING LARK - I'd settle for you paying 3 quarters of it tho.. pleease?'
> 
> get fucked.



If that is your genuine opinion, then you have been duped. The privatisation of university education will lead to those from the most privileged backgrounds who go on to earn the largest wages will pay many times less for their education than they would if it were fully funded by the taxpayer. 

That you cannot grasp this is a poor reflection on your reasoning powers. Should have gone to university, perhaps.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

copliker said:


> There was a hint of Ceausescu on the balcony at Piata Republica about the whole thing, nervous waves and so on.


 
Best xmas ever.


----------



## sim667 (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Bollocks, fees are pretext not cause (otherwise people would have rioted when they were introduced) Assorted lefties - not necessarily students - are desperate to prove that "Con-Dem" wickedness means rioting, revolution, since their entire understanding of politics is formed by telling each other stories about how though Labour is not socialist enough, Tony Blair at least brought relief and joy for progressive people, after a generation of unremitting violence and poverty and social regression in the years from 1979 to 1997.


 
So now we're going to have a period of violence and poverty again from 2010 - what year?

Just so I know like.


----------



## rekil (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Best xmas ever.


 
RTE fucked it up. They were all on holidays or something and didn't cover it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Bollocks, fees are pretext not cause (otherwise people would have rioted when they were introduced)


What you've written isn't just bollocks, it's ahistorical bollocks. There are many reasons why student protest didn't reach the level of rioting when fees were introduced, chief among them being that the NUS barely coordinated any concerted action, and left uni SUs hanging, to do their own thing. 


> Assorted lefties - not necessarily students - are desperate to prove that "Con-Dem" wickedness means rioting, revolution, since their entire understanding of politics is formed by telling each other stories about how though Labour is not socialist enough.


More bollocks, with a bit of revisionism thrown in.
The reasons for the protests (and for the concomitant rioting) are simple:

Our political structures contain very few ways for the electorate to express their opinion on policy in such a way as to affect policy formation or effect a policy change.
Street protest is a (time-honoured) method of expressing that opinion in a noticeable way.
The rioting, yesterday, as previously, wasn't started by protesters, but in reaction to the actions of the state apparatus known as "the police"  


> Tony Blair at least brought relief and joy for progressive people, after a generation of unremitting violence and poverty and social regression in the years from 1979 to 1997.


A shit sandwich with a garnish of flat leaf parsley is still a shit sandwich.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> You would so love this thread to be full of Labour supporters. You have a whole line of argument worked out that begins with "but labour..."
> 
> Unfortunately very few here give a flying fuck about Labour. I didn't vote for them and I despise them as much as the rest of the bag of snakes. Because you find yourself confronted with people who make no attempt to defend labour, you are left with no wind in your sails and an argument that is lying in the mud. "Yeah but Labour" don't wash I'm afraid.Fuck labour.


 
Absolutely. It's not about Labour, or "socialism", it's about people expressing their discontent that the state appears to believe it can unilaterally re-write the social contract so that all the burdens accrue to one section of the citizenry, and all the benefits to another.
People are angered at being expected to suffer to pay for the greed and stupidity of Capitalists, while those same Capitalists walk away from the mess they have caused with nary a hair out of place.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> great the wringing of liberal hands- fuck off has it diverted attention.


 
The most it can be said to have done is to give the media a tool by which to *attempt* to divert attention.
The sensible and rational will see through that.
The dolts, the servile and those who hang onto the coat-tails of capital will not, but who gives a fuck about *them*?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Nobody wants them & yet, here they are. If nobody wants them why aren't Labour in power?


 
Because Labour spout the same shit, they're just a different set of arseholes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

sim667 said:


> So now we're going to have a period of violence and poverty again from 2010 - what year?
> 
> Just so I know like.


 
Yeah. We want to know so we can stockpile life's little luxuries like loo roll and tins of corned beef!


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 10, 2010)

gabi said:


> 'oh dear, i have to pay slightly more for my pointless anthropology degree?! golly, no! - why should I have to pay for our own education, no you, sir, yes you, who has made his own way without a fucking uni education, yes, you, you there, you with the job, paying fucking taxes, yes, you should pay for THE WHOLE FUCKING LARK - I'd settle for you paying 3 quarters of it tho.. pleease?'
> 
> get fucked.



Thing is that 20 or 30 years ago, higher education was much more limited to the better off. But with the abolition of grants and fees H/E expanded and more and more people from poorer backgrounds go. Part of that was govts attempts to keep unemployment figures down. But it has bought about some positive changes. The anger of people on the demos was not just the usual hooray henrys and the left wing of the bullingdon club types.......It was youngsters on EMA who understand the problem in the UK is the upper and middle classes who look down on people.....The people who should pay for Higher Education are the rich.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> A shit sandwich with a garnish of flat leaf parsley is still a shit sandwich.



Bleeeuuurgh...parsley.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 10, 2010)

jer said:


> What has it all achieved? The tabloids have gone into meltdown and all the attention has been diverted from the whole reasons for the protest.
> 
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.



Worked better than the Police van with no number plates though didn't it?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

Attacking Charley and horseface has ensured the protests and the reasons  behind them are on news sites and papers the world over. Millions and Millions of people will have read about the issues. Loads will take heart. At last we can hold up our heads to the Greeks, the Italians etc.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 10, 2010)

What a fucking result! heard about it just I got home after a really shit and hard day, this news really cheered me up fantastic result. I echo those who say this was a massive boost to the protestors as well, and those who say this could be the shape of things to come, I think the government and the police are showing real fear now, we're looking at a few years of riots at least on this showing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


> At last we can hold up our heads to the Greeks, the Italians etc.


 
I was thinking that too.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Attacking Charley and horseface has ensured the protests and the reasons  behind them are on news sites and papers the world over. Millions and Millions of people will have read about the issues. Loads will take heart.


 
Indeed



TopCat said:


> At last we can hold up our heads to the Greeks, the Italians etc.



Not yet.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 10, 2010)

likesfish said:


> never should have happened
> 
> somebody in royal protection should be looking for a new job.


Indeed it shouldn't ... but whether or not it was an individual fuck up or not is another matter.  It happened just as they got where they were going ... and eventually you have to do that no matter whcih route you take ... you can check even a minute prior to arriving and in a situation like this a mob can have appeared round the corner just as you do too so unlucky timing could have added the last bit of the jigsaw.  

The choice of vehicle (bearing in mind the known demonstrations) could / should have been different.  That one is (a) VERY obvious (almost a two fingers to any protestors they encountered deliberately or accidentally) and (b) less secure than the others.

The _usual_ plan for bringing a royal escort in to a venue could / should have been changed in view of the known demonstrations but it appeared to be pretty much what they normally do.

And there _may_ have been Charlie saying "We're going to the theatre and we're going in the Rolls - a bunch of workshy students aren't going to stop us!"


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Indeed it shouldn't ... but whether or not it was an individual fuck up or not is another matter.  It happened just as they got where they were going ... and eventually you have to do that no matter whcih route you take ... you can check even a minute prior to arriving and in a situation like this a mob can have appeared round the corner just as you do too so unlucky timing could have added the last bit of the jigsaw.
> 
> The choice of vehicle (bearing in mind the known demonstrations) could / should have been different.  That one is (a) VERY obvious (almost a two fingers to any protestors they encountered deliberately or accidentally) and (b) less secure than the others.
> 
> ...


there are more articulate and better informed people than you talking about this on the media. your contribution to this thread is therefore superfluous.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Indeed it shouldn't ... but whether or not it was an individual fuck up or not is another matter.  It happened just as they got where they were going ... and eventually you have to do that no matter whcih route you take ... you can check even a minute prior to arriving and in a situation like this a mob can have appeared round the corner just as you do too so unlucky timing could have added the last bit of the jigsaw.
> 
> The choice of vehicle (bearing in mind the known demonstrations) could / should have been different.  That one is (a) VERY obvious (almost a two fingers to any protestors they encountered deliberately or accidentally) and (b) less secure than the others.
> 
> ...


 
i.e You could make some money off this. Spam


----------



## ddraig (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> i.e You could make some money off this. Spam


 
init 
not called Graham are ya db? or were you one of the other voxpops coining it in last night/today

also was i tripping or were a smartened up n-dubz in the line up along with kylie and take that bowing to the royals after the performance last night??? 

if they were then for shame, they should stand by and stick up for their generation/fans etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

wolfe tones said:
			
		

> i bowed down and i scraped and my manners were polite
> but all the time i'm thinking of my little armalite


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Indeed it shouldn't ... but whether or not it was an individual fuck up or not is another matter.  It happened just as they got where they were going ... and eventually you have to do that no matter whcih route you take ... you can check even a minute prior to arriving and in a situation like this a mob can have appeared round the corner just as you do too so unlucky timing could have added the last bit of the jigsaw.
> 
> The choice of vehicle (bearing in mind the known demonstrations) could / should have been different.  That one is (a) VERY obvious (almost a two fingers to any protestors they encountered deliberately or accidentally) and (b) less secure than the others.
> 
> ...



Fuck off you pig cunt, no one reads what you write on here anyway.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

Its a good job they didnt have molotovs (which is the next step I guess) otherwise the armed royal guard would have opened the fire .....


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

rumours that charles required new trousers are true.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

8ball said:


> Them plucky students - I was beginning to worry they were a one-smashed-window pony.


tsk. O ye of little faith...


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 10, 2010)

Remeber people it was they who drove into the protestors not the protestor targeting them. So the coppers are to blame period.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2010)

looking at camillas hideous coupon all shocked is making me giggle


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 10, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> looking at camillas hideous coupon all shocked is making me giggle


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

of course what you really want for a car like that is a scaffold pole like the one shoved into the cop car at the poll tax riot


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> of course what you really want for a car like that is a scaffold pole like the one shoved into the cop car at the poll tax riot



I remember seeing that on the telly. I was out of my chair, cheering like I did when Steve Ovett won the 800m at the 1980 Olympics.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 10, 2010)

Time to remember the finest class traitor of his generation, maybe Charlie Chuck will take some leafs out of his book

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/jun/02/highereducation.news


> Imagine it in Britain, Jonathan Gregson suggests. The Nepalese royal massacre of 2001 was the equivalent of Prince Charles shooting and killing Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, Prince Andrew, Princess Anne and numerous other royals before finally killing himself, leaving Princess Margaret to assume the throne.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 11, 2010)

According to the independant, the crowd were chanting 'off with their heads' at big ears and horse features. 

That made me


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 11, 2010)

clearly Charles and Camilla haven't seen Pimp My Ride.


----------



## Zabo (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm surprised (no I'm not) that none of the media picked up on the glaring contrast of young people being marginalised in society with the cuts and fees against the two privileged twats riding along in a Rolls Royce to a very nice function.

It speaks volumes about 21st century Britain. Now when am I going to get my alms?


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Dec 11, 2010)

Were they wearing seatbelts?


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Dec 11, 2010)

good.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 11, 2010)

charles & camilla facing republican ire on the streets has filled me full of deep deep joy. it's quite extraordinary how it has affected me. it's basically made my year.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> charles & camilla facing republican ire on the streets has filled me full of deep deep joy. it's quite extraordinary how it has affected me. it's basically made my year.


 
yeah me too


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 11, 2010)

i keep thinking about it and chuckling to myself. on public transport.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 11, 2010)

copliker said:


> RTE fucked it up. They were all on holidays or something and didn't cover it.


 
Were they fuck on holidays , they just dont want people to see it . Theyre currently attempting to prepare the ground for a British Royal visit to Dublin . Such scenes in the centre of London are more than a bit off message . The scabby bastards  are practising their curtsies and scraping as we speak .


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> charles & camilla facing republican ire on the streets has filled me full of deep deep joy. it's quite extraordinary how it has affected me. it's basically made my year.


 
according to one of the tabloids i was reading at work today the crowd were chanting " off with their heads" . I really hope that was true .


----------



## little_legs (Dec 11, 2010)

.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 11, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> according to one of the tabloids i was reading at work today the crowd were chanting " off with their heads" . I really hope that was true .


 


It's all over the youtube videos. Certainly warms the cockles of one's heart. I'm not sure whether I'd actually want to see them hanging from lampposts, but it's nice that angry mobs think its a serious option.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

All you needed was a white uno and the protesters to group themselves into a French underpass.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 11, 2010)

i cant wait to see the simpsons take on this


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

Casually Red said:


> according to one of the tabloids i was reading at work today the crowd were chanting " off with their heads" . I really hope that was true .


 
It was. The clips I've seen on TV News have chosen that bit of audio too.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 11, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Certainly warms the cockles of one's heart.



What - a load of slime, intimidating a couple of pensioners - such heroism............

OOOOOOOOOOh the sheer *bravery* of the baying mob!!!!!!!!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 11, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> What - a load of slime, intimidating a couple of pensioners - such heroism............
> 
> OOOOOOOOOOh the sheer *bravery* of the baying mob!!!!!!!!


 
Nonce


----------



## 8den (Dec 11, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> What - a load of slime, intimidating a couple of pensioners - such heroism............
> 
> OOOOOOOOOOh the sheer *bravery* of the baying mob!!!!!!!!


 
Yes because Pensioners travel to the theatre in limos with police outriders.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 12, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> charles & camilla facing republican ire on the streets has filled me full of deep deep joy. it's quite extraordinary how it has affected me. it's basically made my year.


 
I kind of know what you mean.

It's the chanting of 'off with their heads' that really tops it off for me.


----------



## newharper (Dec 12, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> charles & camilla facing republican ire on the streets has filled me full of deep deep joy. it's quite extraordinary how it has affected me. it's basically made my year.



Still siling now


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 12, 2010)

8ball said:


> I kind of know what you mean.
> 
> It's the chanting of 'off with their heads' that really tops it off for me.


 

Indeed - shouting death threats is just so mature..........


----------



## past caring (Dec 12, 2010)

I think the thing that needs emphasising or publicising when we're talking to others about this who may not be quite so on side is the Met's revelation that royal protection officers were "seconds away" from using their firearms. Myself I think this is hyperbole, but I also think it's more politic to take the statement at face value - "seconds away" from opening fire on protestors who offered the royals no real risk of physical injury (other than that one jab with a stick to Camilla's chest), much less any injury that might be life threatening. To my mind, that really lays bare what class privelge means and the role of the state when push comes to shove.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 12, 2010)

8ball said:


> I kind of know what you mean.
> 
> It's the chanting of 'off with their heads' that really tops it off for me.


 
Charlie boy was waving at the crowd shortly beforehand, the knob. Now it seems Camilla was poked with a stick. Should have been a barge pole.


----------



## past caring (Dec 12, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Indeed - shouting death threats is just so mature..........



It wasn't a death threat you silly cunt - it was a vocal expression of coherent republicanism. The chances of heads rolling were nil.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Dec 12, 2010)

> Charlie boy was waving at the crowd shortly beforehand, the knob.



Yeah that bit made me laugh as well, what a prick!


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2010)

Some people are easily amused. If Prince Charles had attacked protesters in a bus would you be laughing so heartily?


----------



## Belushi (Dec 12, 2010)

jer said:


> Some people are easily amused. If Prince Charles had attacked protesters in a bus would you be laughing so heartily?


 
Beyond parody.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

jer said:


> Some people are easily amused. If Prince Charles had attacked protesters in a bus would you be laughing so heartily?


 
The class him and privileged bastards like him represent attack us every day.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> The class him and privileged bastards like him represent attack us every day.


 
How does he attack you every day? And at what times, in particular?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 12, 2010)

jer said:


> If Prince Charles had attacked protesters in a bus would you be laughing so heartily?


 
Like a demented Cliff Richard in Summer Holiday? Could be quite funny.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

jer said:


> How does he attack you every day? And at what times, in particular?


 
Didn't you know?  It's the great unwasheds favourite line.  It comes with a full portion of chips on each shoulder.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2010)

I've tugged my forelock dry


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

jer said:


> How does he attack you every day? And at what times, in particular?


 
80% of the worlds population live on less than ten dollars per day

More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day

22.000 children die from poverty EVERY FUCKING DAY

A billion people can't read or sign their names.

Over a billion people have limited access to clean water and 2 and a half billion have inadequate sanitation

Half of all children in the world have experienced hunger. 


1.6 billion people — a quarter of humanity — live without electricity:


And you want to cry tears cus someone poked Camilla with a stick? Fuck off.


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Didn't you know?  It's the great unwasheds favourite line.  It comes with a full portion of chips on each shoulder.


 
I can fully understand people being pissed off with the govt and their contempt for the electorate but this "the royals are attacking us" - it's not like they're riding their horses through villages and cutting down any serfs in their path...


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> 80% of the worlds population live on less than ten dollars per day
> 
> More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day
> 
> ...


 
As stated earlier, I don't care for the royals but all of the above has nothing to do with the 2 elderly people attacked on the way to a night out.

No tears from me, sunshine.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

jer said:


> As stated earlier, I don't care for the royals but all of the above has nothing to do with the 2 elderly people attacked on the way to a night out.
> 
> No tears from me, sunshine.


 
I wouldnt call Charles elderly but it's still no way to behave by anyone.  If one member of the Royal family was likely to be supportive it would be Charles also.


----------



## rekil (Dec 12, 2010)

jer said:


> Some people are easily amused. If Prince Charles had attacked protesters in a bus would you be laughing so heartily?


 One for mauvais on the disasterpaint thread.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

jer said:


> As stated earlier, I don't care for the royals but all of the above has nothing to do with the 2 elderly people attacked on the way to a night out.
> 
> No tears from me, sunshine.


 
They exist as an institution which justifies and perpetuates the brutal class divisions and inequality that allows the above to happen. They are a symbol of privilege. That's its purpose. The monarchy is an institution that says, inherited wealth and inequality is the natural order of things. Know your place. We are rich and you are poor because we are better than you. It's a myth that serves class society well. A myth perpetuated by forelock tugging idiots like  you.


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 12, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Charlie boy was waving at the crowd shortly beforehand, the knob.



He seems actually to believe that he is popular.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> He seems actually to believe that he is popular.


 
and the world smells of wet paint


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2010)

jer said:


> As stated earlier, I don't care for the royals but all of the above has nothing to do with the 2 elderly people attacked on the way to a night out.
> 
> No tears from me, sunshine.


 i wouldn't expect tears from you, you're the sort of person who'd revel in the poverty of other people.


----------



## love detective (Dec 12, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> He seems actually to believe that he is popular.


 
look at them all!

given it the thumbs up and everything


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2010)

jer said:


> Some people are easily amused. If Prince Charles had attacked protesters in a bus would you be laughing so heartily?


 
You take my breath away...


----------



## suburbia (Dec 12, 2010)

Hi, I haven't posted here for ages! but I was at the front of the breakway group on Thursday towards Oxford Street (and we actually got a few streets further than that). 
Not thought to post about it here before as I've needed a couple of days to get my head straight about it all but have read this thread and will read the main one in a bit.



Minnie_the_Minx said:


> It's all a bit bizarre.  Royal cars normally have motorbike police escorts that go ahead and stop all the traffic for them so not sure what went on here



They _did_ have motorbike police escorts. I'd been on Regent Street for a while when I heard sirens behind me and turned to see them weaving left and right around the people walking on the road. 



detective-boy said:


> you can check even a minute prior to arriving and in a situation like this a mob can have appeared round the corner just as you do too so unlucky timing could have added the last bit of the jigsaw.



We'd been there longer than that. There were even a couple of police walking with us even us far as Leicester Square so I don't know where else they thought we'd go 



lopsidedbunny said:


> Remeber people it was they who drove into the protestors not the protestor targeting them. So the coppers are to blame period.



This is accurate and furthermore, Charles and Camilla seemed absolutely fine before their drivers started ramming into the back of people, and it was only then that the crowd turned on the convoy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2010)

suburbia said:


> Hi, I haven't posted here for ages! but I was at the front of the breakway group on Thursday towards Oxford Street (and we actually got a few streets further than that).
> Not thought to post about it here before as I've needed a couple of days to get my head straight about it all but have read this thread and will read the main one in a bit.
> 
> 
> ...


 
yeh, but please let's not let the truth get in the way of a good royal scare story


----------



## peterkro (Dec 12, 2010)

suburbia, did you see how the white Jag (I think) responded,for instance did it drive through the crowd with it's doors open?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Charlie boy was waving at the crowd shortly beforehand, the knob. Now it seems Camilla was poked with a stick. Should have been a barge pole.


 shurely 'a pike'


----------



## 8ball (Dec 12, 2010)

past caring said:


> I think the thing that needs emphasising or publicising when we're talking to others about this who may not be quite so on side is the Met's revelation that royal protection officers were "seconds away" from using their firearms . . . To my mind, that really lays bare what class privelge means and the role of the state when push comes to shove.


 
You know, I think people who are 'not quite so on side' accept this as 'the way things are' and would never dream of questioning it.  Most people can simulataneously deny that a class system exists in one breath and accept the presence of armed officers ready to fire on the great unwashed in the very next.

That's what I think cheered me up about the protest, it's highlighted that this doublethink isn't _quite_ universal.  Yet.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 12, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i wouldn't expect tears from you, you're the sort of person who'd revel in the poverty of other people.


 
i don't think crybaby does, i think it's more about crawling up the arses of the rich and powerful and even more about slagging off the left on here. i expect he feels tortured and guilty about the poor but then sends some old clothes down to oxfam and feels assured of his place in heaven.


----------



## suburbia (Dec 12, 2010)

peterkro said:


> suburbia, did you see how the white Jag (I think) responded,for instance did it drive through the crowd with it's doors open?



It was the silver Jag immediately after the royal car that I saw ramming into the back of people.

The passenger side door was slightly open at first (possibly so the passenger could jump out quick if needed, which was understandable), but as it was ramming, the door was opened either nearly or all the way without the passenger getting out. I would say this was deliberate as had I not pulled someone out of its way, they would have been taken out pretty badly.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2010)

Off with their heads!!!


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 12, 2010)

suburbia said:


> It was the silver Jag immediately after the royal car that I saw ramming into the back of people.
> 
> The passenger side door was slightly open at first (possibly so the passenger could jump out quick if needed, which was understandable), but as it was ramming, the door was opened either nearly or all the way without the passenger getting out. I would say this was deliberate as had I not pulled someone out of its way, they would have been taken out pretty badly.



Awwwww diddumsy widdumsy...............


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> 80% of the worlds population live on less than ten dollars per day
> 
> More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day
> 
> ...


 
So what - we could sort all that in an eyeblink if everyone who spends dosh on feeding a "pet" and buying it toys for Xmas sent the money to a venally corrupt 3rd world boghole instead.

For the vast majority of folk, it's just not a priority - Fido needs his doggychox at Xmas.


----------



## suburbia (Dec 12, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Awwwww diddumsy widdumsy...............


 
Is that aimed at me? I'm not trying to put any slant on it, just reporting what I saw.

I was discouraging people from violence, as was the person I was helping and did so right from Parliament Square. Many more people had my back on that, but you won't see any of it in the media.


----------



## 1%er (Dec 12, 2010)

suburbia said:


> This is accurate and furthermore, Charles and Camilla seemed absolutely fine before their drivers started ramming into the back of people, and it was only then that the crowd turned on the convoy.


----------



## little_legs (Dec 12, 2010)

suburbia said:


> Is that aimed at me?



take no notice, he's the forum's cancer.


----------



## suburbia (Dec 12, 2010)

1%er said:


>


 
My bubble burst, or theirs? Not sure I've ever had one _to_ burst, not for quite a few years anyway...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 12, 2010)

little_legs said:


> take no notice, he's the forum's cancer.


 
You can cure cancer. He's more like AIDS.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 12, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> So what - we could sort all that in an eyeblink if everyone who spends dosh on feeding a "pet" and buying it toys for Xmas sent the money to a venally corrupt 3rd world boghole instead.
> 
> For the vast majority of folk, it's just not a priority - Fido needs his doggychox at Xmas.



I assume you can provide a link to the paper on this.


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> They exist as an institution which justifies and perpetuates the brutal class divisions and inequality that allows the above to happen. They are a symbol of privilege. That's its purpose. The monarchy is an institution that says, inherited wealth and inequality is the natural order of things. Know your place. We are rich and you are poor because we are better than you. It's a myth that serves class society well. A myth perpetuated by forelock tugging idiots like  you.




All very true and Higher Education has its part in those brutal class divisions too. Scabby bastards on here who support the idea of giving subsidised higher education to x public school pupils are just as bad as any pro monarchist twats in my less than humble view.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

jer said:


> As stated earlier, I don't care for the royals but all of the above has nothing to do with the 2 elderly people attacked on the way to a night out.
> 
> No tears from me, sunshine.


bollocks, they're the royals, and therefore a completely legit target


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Dec 12, 2010)

Dunno what horseface is complaining about I reckon thats the first poke she got this year....


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2010)

Old people are exempt from hate because they are old.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 12, 2010)

Off with their heads.


----------



## past caring (Dec 12, 2010)

'Orf withtheir heads!


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I've tugged my forelock dry


 
Off with their heads!


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 12, 2010)

camilla getting "poked with a stick" quite blatantly necessitates the use of firearms in response


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 12, 2010)

8ball said:


> I assume you can provide a link to the paper on this.


 
No need - how much is spent in this country on totally pointless crap like dog/cat/gerbil food?

If you need a dog, you can feed it on scraps.

If you don't need a dog or cat, you don't need to buy Winalot/Kittywhalelungmeat etc. - Billions upon billions available to save the third world - erm - no, I'd rather have a bit of fur to stroke.

QED


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 12, 2010)

Why is a thread about beheading Camilla and feeding her corpse to the hounds being derailed by a discussion about pet food?


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 12, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Why is a thread about beheading Camilla and feeding her corpse to the hounds being derailed by a discussion about pet food?


 
Because some dweebs think that wevol-ootion is about saving peepuls not just 'avin a ruck.


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

Charity just provides a cover for the rich. If you're serious about social justice, you don't campaign for voluntary donations, you campaign to make the rich pay their way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Why is a thread about beheading Camilla and feeding her corpse to the hounds being derailed by a discussion about pet food?


 
Cobbles has probably been playing "soggy biscuit" with his Chihuahua.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> Charity just provides a cover for the rich. If you're serious about social justice, you don't campaign for voluntary donations, you campaign to make the rich pay their way.


 
And if/when they refuse to, you expropriate their wealth.

So Cobbles won't have to worry, because only real wealth will be expropriated, not fantasy wealth, or fantasy Bentleys.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 12, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> And if/when they refuse to, you expropriate their wealth.



Not even in Narnia - feel free to dream on after you've had your Horlicks kiddies............


----------



## little_legs (Dec 12, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> No need - how much is spent in this country on totally pointless crap like dog/cat/gerbil food?
> 
> If you need a dog, you can feed it on scraps.
> 
> ...


----------



## 8den (Dec 12, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> No need - how much is spent in this country on totally pointless crap like dog/cat/gerbil food?
> 
> If you need a dog, you can feed it on scraps.
> 
> ...


 

If I decide to spend some of my spare income/time on A pet that is my choice. I want to. If I want to do this in addition to the money I donate to charities like Oxfam. 

However I don't have a choice whether I donate money to the royal family, I am legally obliged to. Your argument is both null and void. 

I want to spent money on my two lovely dogs, so I choose to do so. I don't want to spend money on giving two over privileged cunts a police escort in their private limo to their own concert but I am forced to support them, because I don't have a choice otherwise. 

Your argument is null and invalid and you are just a stupid fucking cunt.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> No need - how much is spent in this country on totally pointless crap like dog/cat/gerbil food?
> 
> If you need a dog, you can feed it on scraps.
> 
> ...


 
Is this the argument you are reduced to?


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 12, 2010)

8den said:


> If I decide to spend some of my spare income/time on A pet that is my choice. I want to. If I want to do this in addition to the money I donate to charities like Oxfam.
> 
> However I don't have a choice whether I donate money to the royal family, I am legally obliged to. Your argument is both null and void.
> 
> ...


 
But if you really gave a toss and cared *more* about starving kiddies than a couple of ambulatory main courses (I've eaten dog in Vietnam - OK-ish but then they'd kill for a couple of nice lumps of protein in North Korea no matter how bad it tastes such is the parlous state of food provision in the workers "paradise") then you'd give them up and stop wasting the dosh that you spend on them.


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

No, if he really cared he'd be out hanging people like you from lamp-posts.

Looking forward to seeing it ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2010)

something to fill the time between doing a glitter eh.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2010)

Can Cobbles second throw in the towel now?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Not even in Narnia - feel free to dream on after you've had your Horlicks kiddies............


 
It's happened before, Walter. It'll happen again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Can Cobbles second throw in the towel now?


 
He doesn't have a second. he's the original Billy No-Mates.


----------



## 8den (Dec 12, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> But if you really gave a toss and cared *more* about starving kiddies than a couple of ambulatory main courses (I've eaten dog in Vietnam - OK-ish but then they'd kill for a couple of nice lumps of protein in North Korea no matter how bad it tastes such is the parlous state of food provision in the workers "paradise") then you'd give them up and stop wasting the dosh that you spend on them.


 
 puerile argument it's like saying "oooohhhh you don't really care about starvation if you don't eat rice porridge three meals a day and donate all your food budget to a third world charity"


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 13, 2010)

8den said:


> puerile argument it's like saying "oooohhhh you don't really care about starvation if you don't eat rice porridge three meals a day and donate all your food budget to a third world charity"


 
Ah, but is it as puerile as imagining that "_if we cause a bit of a ruck, the Government's gonny dae whit weeze want?_".

No, nothing's as stupid as imagining that a few twats causing a bit of vandalism here and there is going to affect policy ho ho.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Ah, but is it as puerile as imagining that "_if we cause a bit of a ruck, the Government's gonny dae whit weeze want?_".
> 
> No, nothing's as stupid as imagining that a few twats causing a bit of vandalism here and there is going to affect policy ho ho.


 
I bet Caucescue and Marcos thought it would all blow over but they were wrong eh...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Dec 13, 2010)

Marcos got a hand from his mate Reagan.  His wife had to leave her shoes behind though.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Ah, but is it as puerile as imagining that "_if we cause a bit of a ruck, the Government's gonny dae whit weeze want?_".
> 
> No, *nothing's as stupid as imagining that a few twats causing a bit of vandalism here and there is going to affect policy ho h*o.



You do yourself a gross injustice.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Ah, but is it as puerile as imagining that "_if we cause a bit of a ruck, the Government's gonny dae whit weeze want?_".
> 
> No, nothing's as stupid as imagining that a few twats causing a bit of vandalism here and there is going to affect policy ho ho.


how the FUCK do you think every revolution and overthrow in history first started, otherr than strikes and people taking to the streets?


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Ah, but is it as puerile as imagining that "_if we cause a bit of a ruck, the Government's gonny dae whit weeze want?_".
> 
> No, nothing's as stupid as imagining that a few twats causing a bit of vandalism here and there is going to affect policy ho ho.


 
can you name 1 time that peaceful protest has overturned a political decision in the UK?


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> can you name 1 time that peaceful protest has overturned a political decision in the UK?


 
Fuel protesters and the Suffragettes mostly as well? Abolition of slavery?


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> can you name 1 time that peaceful protest has overturned a political decision in the UK?


 
Never - whether peaceful or violent, protest is just onanism.

Politicians are only interested in elecftions - protest groups just don't count (especially when they're teeny-weeny).


----------



## TopCat (Dec 13, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Fuel protesters and the Suffragettes mostly as well? Abolition of slavery?


 
Abolition of slavery? The UK navy certainly used force to put a stop to it.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> ...peaceful or violent *onanism* especially when they're teeny-weeny...


 
That's right play to your natural 'strength'.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Suffragettes


 peaceful?

You sure about that?


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> peaceful?
> 
> You sure about that?


 
I thought they were mostly apart from acts of vandalism that they knew would have an economic effect. Was it much more than that?


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

So it was peaceful appart from the acts of violence?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 13, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> I thought they were mostly apart from acts of vandalism that they knew would have an economic effect. Was it much more than that?


 
They used letter bombs.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Fuel protesters and the Suffragettes mostly as well? Abolition of slavery?


You what? What did the fuel protesters achieve? The suffragettes used arson and bombs all over the shop. And I guess you never heard of the slave uprisings or the American Civil War?

Bloody hell. Even fucking Gandhi eventually accepted that violence was a necessary part of the struggle.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> So it was peaceful appart from the acts of violence?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Politicians are only interested in elecftions - protest groups just don't count (especially when they're teeny-weeny).


oh yeah? Ever heard of the suffragettes? the anti-poll tax campaign? How the hell do you think TUs got established? Protest - especially the Direct Action type - has _always_ changed things, you tool.


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> You what? What did the fuel protesters achieve? The suffragettes used arson and bombs all over the shop. And I guess you never heard of the slave uprisings or the American Civil War?
> 
> Bloody hell. Even fucking Gandhi eventually accepted that violence was a necessary part of the struggle.



Yep Gandhi did.....and i am not arguing against the use of violence.....and yeah even tho im not a teacher i had heard of the american civil war but it did not take place in the uk....far as i know.
The fuel tax protesters achieved a massive uturn in transport policy that we are all paying the price for......


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 13, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Was it much more than that?


much, much more


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2010)

balders, its worth remembering that the fuel protesters were able to put the shits up the general populace and the gov by threatening access to precious precious fucking petrol.


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 13, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> balders, its worth remembering that the fuel protesters were able to put the shits up the general populace and the gov by threatening access to precious precious fucking petrol.


 
Yes and they had powerful and broad based support....They were very effective and showed what any progressive govt are up against.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 13, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> balders, its worth remembering that the fuel protesters were able to put the shits up the general populace and the gov by threatening access to precious precious fucking petrol.



Whereas the "students" are just a bunch of knobs running around vandalising things with no potential benefit to the wider populace in prospect.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2010)

I hear the wet slap-shuffle of someone jacking off.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 13, 2010)

The fuel protesters were tacitly supported by the fuel companies, who felt it a little bit too dangerous to have their tankers drive past the picket lines (lower fuel tax means more profit for them)


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 13, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I hear the wet slap-shuffle of someone jacking off.



I just hope your posting from your bedroom and not at work.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> The fuel protesters were tacitly supported by the fuel companies, who felt it a little bit too dangerous to have their tankers drive past the picket lines (lower fuel tax means more profit for them)


 
Ask why that situation came about then. Ask why and how self-employed people have had costs that would previously be part of their employers costs imposed on them. You know, think a bit politically or critically.


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> You what? What did the fuel protesters achieve? The suffragettes used arson and bombs all over the shop. And I guess you never heard of the slave uprisings or the American Civil War?
> 
> Bloody hell. Even fucking Gandhi eventually accepted that violence was a necessary part of the struggle.


 
thing is with clear achievable goals....I think a combination  of tactics violent and non violent are the best way....
I think the present anti coalition movement has an outside chance of doing something the way there going.....But its still really a shit cross class alliance that wont call for cuts to the pay of public sector bosses or full fees for old etonians.....Just think its a hopeless re-run of all the tactics that failed in the 80s......


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> thing is with clear achievable goals....I think a combination  of tactics violent and non violent are the best way....
> I think the present anti coalition movement has an outside chance of doing something the way there going.....But its still really a shit cross class alliance that wont call for cuts to the pay of public sector bosses or full fees for old etonians.....Just think its a hopeless re-run of all the tactics that failed in the 80s......


 
The problem is not pay for public sector bosses, it's pay in the private sector and privatisation of public sector functions that are driving up pay for a tiny handful, whilst most of the public sector are paid very poorly by comparison to their equivalents in the private sector. You need to change the record.



> No public sector executive should earn more than 20 times the salary of the lowest-paid employee. This is the advice of the Hutton Fair Pay Review, undertaken at the behest of David Cameron and George Osborne. For the sake of fairness, the important thing is not a pay cap, but "pay dispersion" across an organisation.
> 
> Functionally, the suggestion is unnecessary: people in the public services don't earn that much to start with. The average pay multiple in Whitehall departments is 10:1. The most outlandishly well paid public servants are the Russell Group university heads, at 19:1. Civil service salaries at the top have been going down for five years, bless their starchy, rule-bound hearts.
> 
> ...


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> The problem is not pay for public sector bosses, it's pay in the private sector and privatisation of public sector functions that are driving up pay for a tiny handful, whilst most of the public sector are paid very poorly by comparison to their equivalents in the private sector. You need to change the record.


 
Its not a problem for people who believe in top down socialism no. But for anybody who believes in real social change it is a huge problem.
The anti cuts movement that would rather see an alliance with public sector bosses on over £100,000 rather than the people constantly let down by public services will remain largely irrelevant.
The reason for these cuts is ideology driven by Class politics....to oppose them means opposing the vast pay differences in the public sector which are seen by most people ( id guess) as totally wrong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> I thought they were mostly apart from acts of vandalism that they knew would have an economic effect. Was it much more than that?


 
Just a little bit. Let's just say that they took a leaf out of the Fenian play-book. 
Some of them (bearing in mind that there wasn't just the one stream of suffragette thought) also deliberately provoked arrest in order to publicise their movement and the treatment of members of their movement.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I hear the wet slap-shuffle of someone jacking off.


 
You sure it's masturbation you hear, and not the sound of a mop being used?

A mop would fit in with my suspicion that Cobblers is actually an office cleaner who spends most of his non-work hours fantasising about money and Bentleys.


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 13, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You sure it's masturbation you hear, and not the sound of a mop being used?
> 
> A mop would fit in with my suspicion that Cobblers is actually an office cleaner who spends most of his non-work hours fantasising about money and Bentleys.


 
Pass the tissues quick time.....


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Its not a problem for people who believe in top down socialism no. But for anybody who believes in real social change it is a huge problem.
> The anti cuts movement that would rather see an alliance with public sector bosses on over £100,000 rather than the people constantly let down by public services will remain largely irrelevant.
> The reason for these cuts is ideology driven by Class politics....to oppose them means opposing the vast pay differences in the public sector which are seen by most people ( id guess) as totally wrong.


 
I have repeatedly argued for a 3:1 differential between maximum and minimum wage. I don't disagree with that. But you do no good agitating for restraint in the public sector when it is the private sector that has driven incomes so high for the top 1%. They took around 8% of all income in the 1970s and 23% now. That is nothing to do with public sector pay, even at the top - only tiny numbers of public sector bosses are in the top 1% and most of those are in semi-privatised bits of it.

You've got the wrong target. Achieving fairness in the public sector will do nothing to force it in the private sector - it will just weaken the public sector by making it even harder to recruit and retain talent than it is now. We need a maximum wage, enforced by punitive taxation on any income above it, and which applies to all income no matter how it was derived.


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> You've got the wrong target. Achieving fairness in the public sector will do nothing to force it in the private sector - it will just weaken the public sector by making it even harder to recruit and retain talent than it is now. We need a maximum wage, enforced by punitive taxation on any income above it, and which applies to all income no matter how it was derived.


 
Thats just plain wrong and defeatist. The effect of ever rising salaries for high paid bosses in the public sector is less money for front line services and demoralisation for front line staff.
Its just more of the same all or nothing politics to argue that we either need a maximum wage for all or don't campaign for one in the public sector. A huge amount of people work in the public sector and loads work for suppliers and companies charities etc who rely on the public sector for most of their money.
You need an alliance between ordinary workers and people who use services....


*Not between the rich and the poor....*


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

I'm not disagreeing with (much) greater equality of wages from top to bottom in the public sector, but that only accounts for less than a quarter of the workforce, and a sector which is much better paid at the bottom than is the case in the private sector. I'm suggesting you should be a little more ambitious with your vision, that's all. Economic justice for all, not just the minority in the public sector.


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> I'm not disagreeing with (much) greater equality of wages from top to bottom in the public sector, but that only accounts for less than a quarter of the workforce, and a sector which is much better paid at the bottom than is the case in the private sector. I'm suggesting you should be a little more ambitious with your vision, that's all. Economic justice for all, not just the minority in the public sector.


 
I am more ambitious though. And i think you start from where you are most likely to have an effect ie win. You then put pressure on local authorities when they tender services to have awkward questions on pay differentials etc.....Its the domino or snowball effect which actually works not the all or nothing approach which seldom does....


----------



## kabbes (Dec 14, 2010)

The only way to drive equality in wages is a radical overhaul of the entire corporate and fiscal system.  As long as there are public limited companies, the idea is doomed.  The first thing that has to go (for this and many other reasons) is the whole idea of the plc.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

I was trying to think when/what this was a sort of copy-event of for ages and the famous cartoon - this.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I was trying to think when/what this was a sort of copy-event of for ages and the famous cartoon - this.


 

At least then, the proportionate response could be a decent sabre charge from the Yeomanry!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, those were the days.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 14, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Ah, those were the days.


 
And there it is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> At least then, the proportionate response could be a decent sabre charge from the Yeomanry!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Ah, those were the days.


 

Followed by the decent response of the mob chasing the tossers out of london to cower in thier country estates.


----------



## 8den (Dec 14, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> At least then, the proportionate response could be a decent sabre charge from the Yeomanry!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Ah, those were the days.



Did any of the students unload a shotgun at the royal couple? 

Um no so your talk of proportional response is just fucking bullshit

Charles and Camilla met a section of their public who aren't fetlock tugging "g'war bless g'nuv" and not all about giving them flowers and paying 14 quid for a jar of his organic fucking honey, he'll renounce his throne and go back to fucking bee keeping.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 14, 2010)

And with a bit of luck, the genetically modified swarm he's acquired from South Africa will sting him to death


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> And with a bit of luck, the genetically modified swarm he's acquired from South Africa will sting him to death


 
Slowly.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

past caring said:


> To my mind, that really lays bare what class privelge means and the role of the state when push comes to shove.


An out of control mob, in a situation where random symbols of the State and capitalism have been attacked and ransacked without warning (or specific reason), outnumbering and overwhelming police officers, attacking and breaking their way into a private vehicle, chanting "Off with their heads" and starting to use physical force ... if you _really_ think that that would be insufficient grounds to seriously fear for the safety of the targets of the mob you're a mug.  If they had got into the vehicle and if they had then started trying to pull them from the vehicle I have absolutely no doubt that officers _would_ have opened fire (and that no court in the world would have convicted them of doing anything unlawful).

It is _fuck all_ to do with class privilege.  It would have applied no matter who the two targets of the mob were.


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 19, 2010)

I only heard the voice of one bloke saying off with their heads tbh......and he sounded a bit of a middle class knob......so probably not too much to worry about. Especially when you consider that the Royals have more than enough money to end starvation across the world if they sold off land,homes and art collection.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 19, 2010)

it's everything to do with class priviledge. if they hadn't been priviledged wealthy royal personages, they wouldn't have had armed bodyguards and a baying mob out to get them


----------



## Random (Dec 19, 2010)

> It is fuck all to do with class privilege. It would have applied no matter who the two targets of the mob were.


The police will open fire on anyone who pulls anyone else from a car? Please! Love your constant use of the word 'mob' btw, keeping it real, keeping it 18th century!


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

8den said:


> Did any of the students unload a shotgun at the royal couple?


Proportionality has _nothing_ to be with the _means_ of the threat.

People can be killed and very seriously injured with _any_ weapon, including weapons obtained and improvised on the spur of the moment ... or without the use of any weapon at all.

The attack was rapidly approaching the point where there would have been more than reasonable grounds to fear for the personal safety of the couple and the use of fatal force, by shooting, would have been justified in law as being "reasonable and necessary".


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> it's everything to do with class priviledge. if they hadn't been priviledged wealthy royal personages, they wouldn't have had armed bodyguards and a baying mob out to get them


That wasn't the point being made.  The point being made was that the fact that fatal force to protect them mnay have been seconds away was purely because they were upper class royal twats.

It wasn't.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

Random said:


> The police will open fire on anyone who pulls anyone else from a car?


That is not what I said, is it?

Simplistic prick.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 19, 2010)

i don't have armed police escorting me everywhere. Anyone else?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2010)

The police are more usually doing the breaking into the car to ty to kill people. Just ask Stephen Waldorf.


----------



## Random (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That is not what I said, is it?
> 
> Simplistic prick.


 
Potty mouth, you should be ashamed!


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The police are more usually doing the breaking into the car to ty to kill people. Just ask Stephen Waldorf.


 
When was that again?


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That wasn't the point being made.  The point being made was that the fact that fatal force to protect them mnay have been seconds away was purely because they were upper class royal twats.
> 
> It wasn't.



"Upper class royal twats"? Surely a tautology. Non?


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That wasn't the point being made.  The point being made was that the fact that fatal force to protect them mnay have been seconds away was purely because they were upper class royal twats.
> 
> It wasn't.


 but it was.


----------



## JimW (Dec 19, 2010)

I was in with history back at post #22; where's me prize (and cheque from the Grauniad)?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> i don't have armed police escorting me everywhere. Anyone else?


 
I do, but only when they let me out of prison for weddings and funerals.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> When was that again?


 
Early 1980s, IIRC.

Doesn't mean it can't/won't happen again, just because Waldorf happened 25+ years ago, just as we can't say another de Menezes or Tomlinson won't happen.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Proportionality has _nothing_ to be with the _means_ of the threat.
> 
> People can be killed and very seriously injured with _any_ weapon, including weapons obtained and improvised on the spur of the moment ... or without the use of any weapon at all.
> 
> The attack was rapidly approaching the point where there would have been more than reasonable grounds to fear for the personal safety of the couple and the use of fatal force, by shooting, would have been justified in law as being "reasonable and necessary".


 
Boat Happy.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> [...] in a situation where random symbols of the State and capitalism have been attacked and ransacked without warning (or specific reason), [...]


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> Boat Happy.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 20, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Especially when you consider that the Royals have more than enough money to end starvation across the world if they sold off land,homes and art collection.



So how would that work?

Would they have enough money to purchase a "feed everyone" magic wand or would 90% of the cash just end up in the numbered accounts of the members of corrupt "governments" that western aid is currently flushed into?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 20, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> So how would that work?
> 
> Would they have enough money to purchase a "feed everyone" magic wand or would 90% of the cash just end up in the numbered accounts of the members of corrupt "governments" that western aid is currently flushed into?


 
Just seize all their wealth and get on with it.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 20, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Just seize all their wealth and get on with it.



Get on with what?

Let's say that in a fire sale, you could get £10 Billion from the sale of all property and artwork - what kind of dent would that make? - after all, the UN manages to achieve the square root of bugger all on something like 2 bilion a year.

I suppose you could use the cash to raise a mercenary force and use it to get rid of dictators like Mugabwe who starve their populations but the cash would run out before you even got half way through Africa......


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It is _fuck all_ to do with class privilege.  It would have applied no matter who the two targets of the mob were.


yeah, I can really see that degree of police protection being allocated to 2 kids from a council estate in Brixton!
e2a; in mirror-similar circumstances


----------



## TopCat (Dec 20, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Get on with what?
> 
> Let's say that in a fire sale, you could get £10 Billion from the sale of all property and artwork - what kind of dent would that make? - after all, the UN manages to achieve the square root of bugger all on something like 2 bilion a year.
> 
> I suppose you could use the cash to raise a mercenary force and use it to get rid of dictators like Mugabwe who starve their populations but the cash would run out before you even got half way through Africa......


 
Render their bones down for glue.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> An out of control mob, in a situation where random symbols of the State and capitalism have been attacked and ransacked without warning (or specific reason), outnumbering and overwhelming police officers, attacking and breaking their way into a private vehicle, chanting "Off with their heads" and starting to use physical force ... if you _really_ think that that would be insufficient grounds to seriously fear for the safety of the targets of the mob you're a mug.  If they had got into the vehicle and if they had then started trying to pull them from the vehicle I have absolutely no doubt that officers _would_ have opened fire (and that no court in the world would have convicted them of doing anything unlawful).
> 
> It is _fuck all_ to do with class privilege.  It would have applied no matter who the two targets of the mob were.


 
That's just bullshit dribble...  poor black kids from eg Tower hamlets, B & D etc are never afforded that level of protection, they are not deemed 'worthy'. If you can't see that you're blind.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 20, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> but it was.


 
Yup. Nobody else had an escort going to the theatre that night, certainly no ordinary people.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 20, 2010)

I didn't even have an invite!


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 20, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Get on with what?
> 
> Let's say that in a fire sale, you could get £10 Billion from the sale of all property and artwork - what kind of dent would that make? - after all, the UN manages to achieve the square root of bugger all on something like 2 bilion a year.
> 
> I suppose you could use the cash to raise a mercenary force and use it to get rid of dictators like Mugabwe who starve their populations but the cash would run out before you even got half way through Africa......


 
The Royal art collection is worth over £15 billion alone and how much do you think all the royal palaces, the duchy of cornwall,loads of british coastline etc is worth....I am not talking about beheading the Royals cobbles......just privatising them.....a sort of pragmatic socialist privatisation.....
The billions could be spent on tarnsforming the lives of some of the poorest people on the planet.....it could mean that the UK would rightly be admired by people across the world.....and as its all my idea i would be able to get off wiv any burd i wanted for ever and ever.....thing is though id probably just stick to the one ive got now.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> yeah, I can really see that degree of police protection being allocated to 2 kids from a council estate in Brixton!
> e2a; in mirror-similar circumstances





The Black Hand said:


> That's just bullshit dribble...  poor black kids from eg Tower hamlets, B & D etc are never afforded that level of protection, they are not deemed 'worthy'. If you can't see that you're blind.


 
We were not talking about the degree of police protection there initially - _obviously_ not everyone gets that level of protection as a matter of routine - how the _fuck_ can you be so fucking stupid as to think that is what I was saying... 

We were talking about the potential use of fatal force if there happened to be armed officers there for some reason.

Similar levels of force _have_ been almost used (and used on some occasions) in dealing with kidnap situations when the people being threatened were total criminal scum let alone "two kids from a council estate in Brixton".


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> We were not talking about the degree of police protection there initially - _obviously_ not everyone gets that level of protection as a matter of routine - how the _fuck_ can you be so fucking stupid as to think that is what I was saying...
> 
> We were talking about the potential use of fatal force if there happened to be armed officers there for some reason.
> 
> Similar levels of force _have_ been almost used (and used on some occasions) in dealing with kidnap situations when the people being threatened were total criminal scum let alone "two kids from a council estate in Brixton".



No, we were talking about armed escorts.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

Have another doughnut piggy...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Have another doughnut piggy...


Oh look ... multi-thread content free abusive trolling ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> No, we were talking about armed escorts.


I suggest you (a) learn to read and (b) go back and read the posts from which this discussion arose ...


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

You don't get it do you piggy? Many here and elsewhere would be very happy if the_ royal _couple got dragged out of their car and strung up....


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I suggest you (a) learn to read and (b) go back and read the posts from which this discussion arose ...


 
Yes, I have.  Which is why I know we were talking about armed escorts.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 21, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> The billions could be spent on tarnsforming the lives of some of the poorest people on the planet...



How?

Billions and billions are squandered by the first world on the third world every year and it makes no difference as it never gets past the shifty buggers who float to the surface of such cess-pools.

If we were to liquidate the Royal Family's assets, then why not spend the money building some nice new motorways and extra snow-proof airport runways - that way, at least the UK economy would see a benefit.

Anyway, if HMG did decide to unload a pile of Vermeers, Tintorettos and gawd wnows what else onto the art market, I think you'd find that overall proices would plummet so the concept of "valuation" would merely be speculative at best.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> How?
> 
> 
> 
> If we were to liquidate the Royal Family's assets, then why not spend the money building some nice new motorways and extra snow-proof airport runways - that way, at least the UK economy would see a benefit.


 
I would prefer to up the Christmas bonus for pensioners myself.


----------



## Wilson (Dec 21, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> How?
> 
> Billions and billions are squandered by the first world on the third world every year and it makes no difference as it never gets past the shifty buggers who float to the surface of such cess-pools.
> 
> .



don't worry they'll be squandering it on shit from BAE systems


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> I would prefer to up the Christmas bonus for pensioners myself.


 
If Cobble*r*s had his way, fewer members of "the lower orders" would reach pensionable age.


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 21, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> How?
> 
> Billions and billions are squandered by the first world on the third world every year and it makes no difference as it never gets past the shifty buggers who float to the surface of such cess-pools.
> 
> ...


 
Thing is its like that Tanzania deal with bae, approved by Blair. There is corruption in governments in rich and poor countries.....But you could set up a process where govts and other organisations had to bid for money for specific projects. And then you would know that the money was not being siphoned off to swiss bank accounts. The problems of corruption in poorer countries are related to the support the western govts always gave the most shit corrupt regimes....Dont forget how they supported Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein etc etc.......


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> No, we were talking about armed escorts.


No.  Please do not lie.  The issue arose simply around the use of force to protect people.  It was _nothing_ to do with the existence of otherwise of armed bodyguards.  The sequence of posts went like this:



Cobbles said:


> At least then, the proportionate response could be a decent sabre charge from the Yeomanry!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Ah, those were the days.


 


8den said:


> Did any of the students unload a shotgun at the royal couple?
> 
> Um no so your talk of proportional response is just fucking bullshit
> 
> Charles and Camilla met a section of their public who aren't fetlock tugging "g'war bless g'nuv" and not all about giving them flowers and paying 14 quid for a jar of his organic fucking honey, he'll renounce his throne and go back to fucking bee keeping.


 


detective-boy said:


> An out of control mob, in a situation where random symbols of the State and capitalism have been attacked and ransacked without warning (or specific reason), outnumbering and overwhelming police officers, attacking and breaking their way into a private vehicle, chanting "Off with their heads" and starting to use physical force ... if you _really_ think that that would be insufficient grounds to seriously fear for the safety of the targets of the mob you're a mug.  If they had got into the vehicle and if they had then started trying to pull them from the vehicle I have absolutely no doubt that officers _would_ have opened fire (and that no court in the world would have convicted them of doing anything unlawful).
> 
> It is _fuck all_ to do with class privilege.  It would have applied no matter who the two targets of the mob were.


 


Orang Utan said:


> it's everything to do with class priviledge. if they hadn't been priviledged wealthy royal personages, they wouldn't have had armed bodyguards and a baying mob out to get them


 


Random said:


> The police will open fire on anyone who pulls anyone else from a car? Please! Love your constant use of the word 'mob' btw, keeping it real, keeping it 18th century!


 


detective-boy said:


> Proportionality has _nothing_ to be with the _means_ of the threat.
> 
> People can be killed and very seriously injured with _any_ weapon, including weapons obtained and improvised on the spur of the moment ... or without the use of any weapon at all.
> 
> The attack was rapidly approaching the point where there would have been more than reasonable grounds to fear for the personal safety of the couple and the use of fatal force, by shooting, would have been justified in law as being "reasonable and necessary".


 


detective-boy said:


> That wasn't the point being made.  The point being made was that the fact that fatal force to protect them mnay have been seconds away was purely because they were upper class royal twats.
> 
> It wasn't.



So how about an apology for lying, _despite_ being given an opportunity to back down?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So how about an apology for lying, _despite_ being given an opportunity to back down?


 not that you'd ever lie, would you.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  Please do not lie.  The issue arose simply around the use of force to protect people.  It was _nothing_ to do with the existence of otherwise of armed bodyguards.  The sequence of posts went like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, which is clearly about having an escort.  You fucking loon.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 21, 2010)

nobody gives a fuck, this is about how we laughed to see the equine consort given a prod.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 21, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, which is clearly about having an escort.  You fucking loon.


 
you even quote Orang Utan - "it's everything to do with class priviledge. if they hadn't been priviledged wealthy royal personages, *they wouldn't have had armed bodyguards* and a baying mob out to get them"

you dishonest loon


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 21, 2010)

now about that apology...


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> nobody gives a fuck, this is about how we laughed to see the equine consort given a prod.


 
This oh yes..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> nobody gives a fuck, this is about how we laughed to see the equine consort given a prod.


 
Thanks for the less-than-charming piece of mental imagery that gave me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2010)

you just know she grips the ears while doing him up the bournville with a strap on. Thats how the aristos roll.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 22, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> now about that apology...


You quote Orang Utan.

It is plain from my _response_ to him that the subject was the use of force not the presence of an armed bodyguard.

Why are you so persistently dishonest?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 22, 2010)

i'm lost for words really i am. How can you in all seriousness post that? When it's there right in front of you? I even bolded it for you. Your bare faced lying is incredible. Either you're genuinely mental or you _are_ here to disrupt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You quote Orang Utan.
> 
> It is plain from my _response_ to him that the subject was the use of force not the presence of an armed bodyguard.
> 
> Why are you so persistently dishonest?




if there's anyone who's persistantly dishonest here, it's you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> i'm lost for words really i am. How can you in all seriousness post that? When it's there right in front of you? I even bolded it for you. Your bare faced lying is incredible. Either you're genuinely mental or you _are_ here to disrupt.


 
perhaps both


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 22, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> i'm lost for words really i am. How can you in all seriousness post that? When it's there right in front of you? I even bolded it for you. Your bare faced lying is incredible. Either you're genuinely mental or you _are_ here to disrupt.


 
Orang Utan missed the point that we were NOT discussing the presence of an armed bodyguard when talking about the privileged elite (which plainly WOULD be true) but that we were talking about the use of force to protect ANYONE in a vehicle if they were subject to attack (which has NOTHING to do with privilege and applies equally to us all).  He made the post you keep quoting as if it has some talismanic relevance.

I immediately responded:



detective-boy said:


> *That wasn't the point being made.*  The point being made was that the fact that fatal force to protect them may have been seconds away was purely because they were upper class royal twats.
> 
> It wasn't.


I have emphasised the bit which proves (a) I am not lying and (b) you have missed the plot entirely.  Just to help like!!


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 22, 2010)

wow, you really are barking


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 22, 2010)

this discussion has gotten boring


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2010)

Rarely see such blatant lying.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Rarely see such blatant lying.


 
Look, it's perfectly simple.  Any one of us, regardless of wealth or social standing, would, if were to find ourselves in the protection of armed bodyguards trained and paid for by the State, be eligible for protection with any level of force, up to and including lethal force, if attacked by a bunch of third party assailants.

I think that's db's point.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 22, 2010)

lol


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 23, 2010)

Meanwhile on the BBC Webby 





> Scotland Yard has said no officers will face disciplinary action after the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall were caught up in the fees protests.
> 
> Their car was attacked by protesters and "contact" was made with the duchess in London's West End on 10 December.
> 
> ...



No surprise there then...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 23, 2010)

8ball said:


> Look, it's perfectly simple.  Any one of us, regardless of wealth or social standing, would, if were to find ourselves in the protection of armed bodyguards trained and paid for by the State, * or if some armed officers just happened to be there by coincidence, or for some other reason,* be eligible for protection with any level of force, up to and including lethal force, if attacked by a bunch of third party assailants.
> 
> I think that's db's point.


With the addition of the bit in bold for extra clarity, that is _exactly_ my point.  Thank you.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2010)

Thank God for highly trained (usually ex military) protection professionals - just think what could have have happened if your average gun ho pig were assigned to royal duties.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Thank God for highly trained (usually ex military) protection professionals - just think what could have have happened if your average gun ho pig were assigned to royal duties.


 
Now now, Bish, you're being anti-police and pro-military. You know how much that upsets d-b.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 23, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Thank God for highly trained (usually ex military) protection professionals - just think what could have have happened if your average gun ho pig were assigned to royal duties.


The armed protection officers are ALL police officers.  Not private security.  I _really_ do think that you should find out what you are talking about before gobbing off ... but hey, why break the habit of a lifetime ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The armed protection officers are ALL police officers.  Not private security.  I _really_ do think that you should find out what you are talking about before gobbing off ... but hey, why break the habit of a lifetime ...



I know they're plod. I didn't say otherwise. You've mentioned private security, not me.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> With the addition of the bit in bold for extra clarity, that is _exactly_ my point.  Thank you.


 
Right, so your point is one completely disconnected from what is under discussion?  Glad we got that sorted then.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2010)




----------



## detective-boy (Dec 24, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I know they're plod. I didn't say otherwise. You've mentioned private security, not me.


So what the *fuck* was this drivel all about then ...  


Mr.Bishie said:


> Thank God for highly trained (usually ex military) protection professionals - just think what could have have happened if your average gun ho pig were assigned to royal duties.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 24, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Right, so your point is one completely disconnected from what is under discussion I've made up?


Corrected for you ...


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 24, 2010)

yes you do keep making shit up


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So what the *fuck* was this drivel all about then ...


 
What do you find difficult?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 24, 2010)

I think he finds life difficult


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 24, 2010)

My heart bleeds purple piss.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 24, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What do you find difficult?


It's not difficult.  

Your post states that it is a good job that "highly trained (usually ex-military) protection professionals" were involved in this incident rather than "gun ho pigs".

What the fuck did that mean if it didn't mean, er, that you were saying that "highly trained (usually ex-military) protection professionals" were involved in this incident rather than "gun ho pigs"?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 24, 2010)

SO14 do SAS training courses etc - one of my dad's rock climbing mates was in SO14 in the 80's


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's not difficult.
> 
> Your post states that it is a good job that "highly trained (usually ex-military) protection professionals" were involved in this incident rather than "gun ho pigs".
> 
> What the fuck did that mean if it didn't mean, er, that you were saying that "highly trained (usually ex-military) protection professionals" were involved in this incident rather than "gun ho pigs"?


 
What?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So what the *fuck* was this drivel all about then ...


 
He means that many of the police officers who do royal protection duties are ex-military.

It wasn't *that* difficult to understand.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 24, 2010)

As an example - Harry Stanley & Jean Charles were executed by 'gun ho pigs', governed by a total lack of intelligence.

Thank fuck that SO14, RDPD & SEG are highly trained (usually ex military) officers.

Do you understand?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 24, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> It wasn't *that* difficult to understand.



I suspect it was!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I suspect it was!


 
To be fair, I meant "it's not that difficult to understand if you aren't filtering everything you read through industrial-grade paranoia", Bish.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 24, 2010)

He's on meth?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> SO14 do SAS training courses etc - one of my dad's rock climbing mates was in SO14 in the 80's


And SO14 are, er, cops ... which is what I have been saying all along ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What?


Don't fucking "what?" me like I am the one talking fucking shite.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> As an example - Harry Stanley & Jean Charles were executed by 'gun ho pigs', governed by a total lack of intelligence.
> 
> Thank fuck that SO14, RDPD & SEG are highly trained (usually ex military) officers.
> 
> Do you understand?


If that is what you meant ... then you need to go on some fucking "clarity in writing" lessons.

And, for your information, the protection officers are far *LESS* likely to be ex-knuckledragging squaddies than the crews of ARVs and, particularly, the specialist firearms officers of SO19 ... (in fact, of the ten or twelve protection officers I know only _one_ was ex-forces (and he was an ex-Major ...)

Let's face it - you haven't got the _faintest_ fucking idea what you are talking about, your posts are _entirely_ based on prejudice and you take no notuice whatsoever when someone who knows better tries to educate and inform you ...


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And SO14 are, er, cops ... which is what I have been saying all along ...


 
No shit Sherlock


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Don't fucking "what?" me like I am the one talking fucking shite.


 
lol 

you cock


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Let's face it - you haven't got the _faintest_ fucking idea what you are talking about, your posts are _entirely_ based on prejudice and you take no notuice whatsoever when someone who knows better tries to educate and inform you ...



ironic


----------



## Anonymous1 (Dec 26, 2010)

Fuck the royals, if there's one statement of the injustices we see it's that those parasites can be so oblivious to 
what's happening here. Although no doubt if they did know charlie-boy was still going to N-dubz regardless.

I'm still waiting to see how much the leeching royals' have to tighten there belt due to "austerity measure"
It would be nice so know seeing as they recieve the most "benefits" on offer.

CUNTS.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Let's face it - you haven't got the _faintest_ fucking idea what you are talking about, your posts are _entirely_ based on prejudice and you take no notuice whatsoever when someone who knows better tries to educate and inform you ...



You are funny. Funny peculiar, not funny ha ha, btw.

It seems to me that you have created a narrative for yourself as someone who is intellectually superior, more considered in their thinking and, importantly, someone who is *right*; being right is very important to you isn't it? It validates you, particularly now you're not a serving officer and don't have the status afforded to you by dint of your job title. You have created the idea of a _collective_, in your head, and as a result, you start most of your posts from a position of 'the other' [the collective] being the enemy. This kind of divisive thinking is prevalent in lots of organisations, however, I'd suggest it's particularly prevalent in the police force.

You're not great at reading the more nuanced aspects of many of the posts here, preferring to throw facts and legalese at people - it's not about people disagreeing with _you_ necessarily, often it's about people disagreeing with the way the establishment operate, the nature of law, and the way laws are passed through parliament, and then implemented, often with considerable bias towards agents of the state. You're not great on the idea of perception either, and don't seem to be able to engage in abstract thinking around particular issues - this renders you the concrete thinker I've always had you down for.

You need to stop peddling your facts, knowledge and superiority as if they were desirable trinkets. They're not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Don't fucking "what?" me like I am the one talking fucking shite.


 
What, even though you are?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> ironic


 
Not if by "educate and inform" he means something along the lines of Christian Brothers-style browbeating and belittlement, Blagsta.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

sherpa said:


> It seems to me that you ...


... are a prick.

But thanks for sharing your bullshit thoughts with us anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ... are a prick.
> 
> But thanks for sharing your bullshit thoughts with us anyway.


 
Wow, fresh torrents of abuse heaped on posters, aren't you a clever lad!


----------



## Gingerman (Dec 26, 2010)

Poor old Big Ears and Horse-Face,and then they had to face the horror that was the Royal Variety Performance after that,other countries just chop their royal's heads off, we subject our lot to the RVP every year


----------



## grit (Dec 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ... are a prick.
> 
> But thanks for sharing your bullshit thoughts with us anyway.


 
With comments like this its amusing why you wonder why other posters here dismiss you.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 27, 2010)

Respect his authority!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I am the one talking fucking shite.


 
*corrected for you*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 27, 2010)

Gingerman said:


> Poor old Big Ears and Horse-Face,and then they had to face the horror that was the Royal Variety Performance after that,other countries just chop their royal's heads off, we subject our lot to the RVP every year


 
Waste no pity on them, comrade. the RVP is the least Chuck and Dobbin should suffer for burdening the world with their presence!


----------



## sherpa (Dec 28, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ... are a prick.



I'm actually closer to cunt than prick, but you assume away, as is your want.




			
				detective=boy said:
			
		

> But thanks for sharing your bullshit thoughts with us anyway.



You're welcome.

I take it I've hit a nerve, given your substance free response.

Again, I've refrained from personal insult, something you seem incapable of. Why is that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2010)

but answer came there none.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 29, 2010)

sherpa said:


> I'm actually closer to cunt than prick, but you assume away, as is your want.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hendon Police College.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 29, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Hendon Police College.


 ah!


----------



## sherpa (Jan 2, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Hendon Police College.


 
Is that where they send banned members?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 4, 2011)

New video footage released showing Charlie's car getting mobbed. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12113379


----------



## pk (Jan 4, 2011)

Pretty blurry, but the lass with the glasses is fucked...


----------



## pk (Jan 4, 2011)

Gawd, Kay Burley is such a vile witch...


----------



## TopCat (Jan 4, 2011)

Better footage here. The plod are still going to have a hell of a job given the shite footage of all but the pretty hero.


----------



## past caring (Jan 4, 2011)

pk said:


> Pretty blurry, but the lass with the glasses is fucked...



I would have her babies for sure, after that.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 4, 2011)

past caring said:


> I would have her babies for sure, after that.


 
I plight my troth firsted!


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 4, 2011)

Seems an awful lot of prime time tv news for a possible criminal damage charge.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

Bins in the air! A man taking a photograph! Slight damage to a car!

This is what police resources should be spent on!


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 4, 2011)

Hardly the mob the papers were on about


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 4, 2011)

Fancy driving straight into a potential riot.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 4, 2011)

***


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 4, 2011)

you can see the girl with glasses clearly but the rest are just blurs


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Seems an awful lot of prime time tv news for a possible criminal damage charge.


 
The hyperbole is beyond a joke too. Fucking BBC1 London news twatting on about "rampaging" students.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 4, 2011)

editor said:


> Bins in the air! A man taking a photograph! Slight damage to a car!
> 
> This is what police resources should be spent on!


 
You forgot "horse-faced woman pees in her drawers".


----------



## laptop (Jan 4, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Fancy driving straight into a potential riot.


 
Being driven


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 4, 2011)

laptop said:


> Being driven


 
Well somebody was at the wheel!


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Jan 4, 2011)

Oh dear the Beeb are doing the "evil" student protester thing yet again, but I have her


----------



## xes (Jan 5, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Well somebody was at the wheel!


 
somebody who knew what was going on, and I'm presuming was in liason with the police as to where a safe place to drive would be, considering there was a large scale protest in London that day........media oppertuinity set up anyone? (as I said when it happened)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2011)

xes said:


> somebody who knew what was going on, and I'm presuming was in liason with the police as to where a safe place to drive would be, considering there was a large scale protest in London that day........media oppertuinity set up anyone? (as I said when it happened)


 
according to the evening standard charles overruled royal protection officers and insisted on travelling along regent street


----------



## xes (Jan 5, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> according to the evening standard charles overruled royal protection officers and insisted on travelling along regent street


 
The Evening Standard may have printedthat, but is it true? This is media we're talking about, they're not known for their truth telling abilities.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2011)

xes said:


> The Evening Standard may have printedthat, but is it true? This is media we're talking about, they're not known for their truth telling abilities.


 
who is?


----------



## xes (Jan 5, 2011)

the media?


----------



## ohmyliver (Jan 5, 2011)

it all seems a bit 'man puts stick in fire, fire burns stick, man blames evil evil fire'.  Whoever decided that it was a good idea to drive the obviously Royal car in to a riot should be held responsible ultimately.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 5, 2011)

xes said:


> the media?


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 5, 2011)

xes said:


> somebody who knew what was going on, and I'm presuming was in liason with the police as to where a safe place to drive would be, considering there was a large scale protest in London that day........media oppertuinity set up anyone? (as I said when it happened)


 
I agree, all these protests have been 'with added hyperbole', arranged by a perverse holy trinity of self serving; politicians, police and media.


----------



## stethoscope (May 25, 2011)

Couldn't see any where else more relevant to add this, and doesn't warrant its own thread, but this made me chuckle in yesterday's Standard... Jimmy Cauty's got an art exhibition of protest scenes re-created in miniature


----------



## past caring (May 30, 2011)

Mate of mine has had charges dropped over this, which is good.


----------



## ymu (May 30, 2011)

stephj said:


> Couldn't see any where else more relevant to add this, and doesn't warrant its own thread, but this made me chuckle in yesterday's Standard... Jimmy Cauty's got an art exhibition of protest scenes re-created in miniature


 


Aceness. Loving the disinterested cops. _We're outnumbered, nothing to see here._


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 30, 2011)

xes said:


> The Evening Standard may have printedthat, but is it true? This is media we're talking about, they're not known for their truth telling abilities.


 
in fairness charles is a known idiot, and it sounds like the kind of thing he would do.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 30, 2011)

ymu said:


> Loving the disinterested cops. _We're outnumbered, nothing to see here._


----------

