Current Affairs King Charles III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lapeno77 said:
Beginning to think we might be in a spot of bother.

If you scroll through, there is a video of the encounter.
And the punchline is that the guy who made the post is a barrister ?
Click to expand...

Welcome to Toryland 2022 edition. In other news some people may be offended by the privilege and wealth of an outdated monarchy while the common folk struggle to eat and heat their homes, if they have one.
 
NilSatisOptimum said:
The absurdity of it, we have little serfs, running about annoying all and sundry with their fake, "oh I'm so sad and don't be disrespectful". Stupidity beyond words.
Click to expand...
The videos of Charles meeting the crowds with people tugging their forelock and shouting out 'all hail the king' combined with the fact that Rees-Mogg is now in charge of business, energy and industrial strategy makes me wonder if we've been collectively transported back to the 18th century.
 
Abertonian said:
The videos of Charles meeting the crowds with people tugging their forelock and shouting out 'all hail the king' combined with the fact that Rees-Mogg is now in charge of business, energy and industrial strategy makes me wonder if we've been collectively transported back to the 18th century.
Click to expand...
Stop complaining and get back to work!! Your lunch break has been taken away for your insolence.
 
Abertonian said:
The videos of Charles meeting the crowds with people tugging their forelock and shouting out 'all hail the king' combined with the fact that Rees-Mogg is now in charge of business, energy and industrial strategy makes me wonder if we've been collectively transported back to the 18th century.
Click to expand...
18th? We'll be lucky if we're out of the new dark ages once Count Duckula levels those sectors up.
 
LinekersLegs said:
Because of them there were even new laws passed by Congress to limit how close you could be to a funeral to protest.

However the Supreme Court found in their favor in being able to protest.

Snyder v. Phelps - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
“The case brought up the issue of whether or not the First Amendment protected public protestors at a funeral against claims of emotional distress, better known as tort liability. It involved a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, claimed by Albert Snyder, a man[2] whose son Matthew Snyder, a U.S. Marine, was killed during the Iraq War. The claim was made in response to the actions of the Phelps family as well as the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) who were also present at the picketing of the funeral. The Court ruled in favor of Phelps in an 8–1 decision, determining that their speech related to a public issue was completely protected, and could not be prevented as it was on public property.”
Click to expand...
Seems there is some overlap between the Spirit of the law and the Letter of the law and, as always there will be some who don't know where to draw the line nor which side of it they should be.

...and have forgotten the old sayings of - not speaking ill ofthe dead and...if you cant say owt nice best say nowt at all.
 
degsy said:
Seems there is some overlap between the Spirit of the law and the Letter of the law and, as always there will be some who don't know where to draw the line nor which side of it they should be.

...and have forgotten the old sayings of - not speaking ill ofthe dead and...if you cant say owt nice best say nowt at all.
Click to expand...
If you think about it they are two incredibly stupid sayings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top