You Can Stick Your "Royal" Wedding Where the Sun Don't Shine.

Don't get your panties in a bunch..

It's the Royal Wedding I am watching it right now. I am happy for them both and I hope they have long lasting happy marriage. I don't care what you or anyone thinks of the royal family, I have always liked Prince William. He is like his mother and he deserves to be happy to..He has been through a lot in his life. He didn't ask to be born into royalty. Imagine how he feels. Imagine how she feels. Imagine having you life in the public eye forever and everything you do or say scrutinized! I have read all about William and Kate through the years and they really do have a fairy tale relationship and well I wish them all the best...


Why do you feel the need to rant so much about it?

Also do you not know the amount of people who have traveled there? That mean money is being brought IN so that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me...Increased tourism is a good thing even if you don't like the reason those people are there.

Heck if I could have gone I would.



Good luck William and Kate!

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
Don't get your panties in a bunch..

It's the Royal Wedding

I am watching it right now. I am happy for them both and I hope they have long lasting happy marriage. I don't care what you or anyone thinks of the royal family, I have always liked Prince William. He is like his mother and he deserves to be happy to..He has been through a lot in his life. He didn't ask to be born into royalty. Imagine how he feels. Imagine how she feels. Imagine having you life in the public eye forever and everything you do or say scrutinized! I have read all about William and Kate through the years and they really do have a fairy tale relationship and well I wish them all the best...


Why do you feel the need to rant so much about it?

Also do you not know the amount of people who have traveled there? That mean money is being brought IN so that doesn't seem like a bad thing to me...Increased tourism is a good thing even if you don't like the reason those people are there.

Heck if I could have gone I would.



Good luck William and Kate!



I am sorry I just came back from the toilet

To far gone, all is lost..

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours

The Royals have the right to murder you, if you commit treason

No they don't, stop spouting such nonsense. Aside from any such powers resting with the government and judiciary the maximum sentence for treason is life imprisonment as set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours

 

The Royals have the right to murder you, if you commit treason

No they don't, stop spouting such nonsense. Aside from any such powers resting with the government and judiciary the maximum sentence for treason is life imprisonment as set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

No you are wrong. The Royals of England have that right under their belt.

Three things you can still be hanged for in England, plus one offense still punishable with death by longbow. Way back in the deep and murky past of the late 20th Century, the British Government wisely decided to stop executing people. Public hangings were at one time a form of free entertainment for the masses, but in more enlightened times hangings became private and then… stopped. Understand the important distinction here that the death penalty was not “abolished”; it was just stopped, in a typically polite and English way. Rather than change the law, it was mutually decided by the authorities that they should stop with the hanging. There are still three offences in the UK that could, potentially see a person dancing the Tyburn Jig on the end of a rope. 1. Piracy of the High Seas Believe it or not, British sea captains both military and civilian still have the right to hang pirates from the yard arm. This means the off-and-on row over fishing rights in the Irish Sea with Spanish fishermen could one day turn quite suddenly nasty. 2. Attempt to Assassinate Royal Family Member High treason attempted (or indeed, successful) Assassination of a member of the Royal Family still carries the death penalty in the UK. 3. Blasphemous Libel This offence concerns implying or stating in any recorded medium or public performance that Jesus was gay. It pops up every few years in connection with arty theatrical productions concerning Himself, and there have on occasion been calls from the religious right in England for writers, directors and producers to be hanged. Fortunately, the English religious right are considerably weaker than their American counterparts and the offending plays are usually banned, without recourse to the noose. Read more: socyberty.com...

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours


There’s your problem, you’re getting your education from blogs.

www.legislation.gov.uk...

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours

 

There’s your problem, you’re getting your education from blogs.

www.legislation.gov.uk...

edit on 29-4-2011 by Mike_A because: (no reason given)

That' not my problem. My problem is the time spending on finding the original source just for people like you.
Search yourself.

And you did


(4)In section 1 of the M8Treason Act 1814 (form of sentence in case of high treason), for the words “such person shall be hanged by the neck until such person be dead”, there shall be substituted the words “ such person shall be liable to imprisonment for life”
They are liable for Hanging or Life imprisonment??

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours

That' not my problem. My problem is the time spending on finding the original source just for people like you.

Sorry, what?

You post bull#, you expect a blog to be taken seriously, I correct you with actual UK legislation and somehow you’re the one who’s going out of your way to educate me?

You do now accept that your claim “The Royals have the right to murder you, if you commit treason” is utter bull# yes?

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours

 

That' not my problem. My problem is the time spending on finding the original source just for people like you.

Sorry, what?

You post bull#, you expect a blog to be taken seriously, I correct you with actual UK legislation and somehow you’re the one who’s going out of your way to educate me?

You do now accept that your claim “The Royals have the right to murder you, if you commit treason” is utter bull# yes?

I edited my previous comment and added the words. And so you did (that should cover it)
And I posted 2 question marks, therefore not understanding the actual UK legislation word for word.

How do I interpreted this?

(4)In section 1 of the M8Treason Act 1814 (form of sentence in case of high treason), for the words “such person shall be hanged by the neck until such person be dead”, there shall be substituted the words “ such person shall be liable to imprisonment for life”

These are indeed my words, giving indeed the impression,like I teach you how it works.??
Was not my intention. Sorry for irritating you.

That' not my problem. My problem is the time spending on finding the original source just for people like you.

reply to post by budski


It's already in England, where the sun never shines.

What are you on about?

That bishop sounded like he was ushering in the idea of spirituality to me...wasit just me or was he keep going on about the coming change over the next century and the the new world of spirituality(his words). and I'm sure he said that the west has lost belief in god and spirituality will overtake soon....

...of course I could have just read too many Mayan/2012 theories and have heard what I wanted to hear

I walked through the room my gf's watching the wedding in and heard the priest open his speech with words to the effect of " be all that you want and set the world on fire", weird, what with all the antichrist Will speculation.

Re the argument above, the death penalty is not a sentencing option open to any UK civil judge, for any offence, just as you can't shoot with a longbow any Welshman east of the Klee Hills, I dare anyone to try.

Originally posted by Ethyrial Symphony
The whole thing is a joke.

Over here in Australia we have a comedy team on tv called The Chaser, non-Aussies might have heard of them from the APEC incident.

Anyways they had planned to do a live commentary on the Wedding, but some how the BBC & APTN managed to have it pulled from the ABC (A TV Station here in Australia) because they didn't want to risk any jokes made about the Wedding.

The BBC is apparently independent from direct government intervention, why and how have they had a show pulled from a TV station on the other side of the world is beyond me.

I just think it is rediculous.

edit on 28-4-2011 by Ethyrial Symphony because: (no reason given)

It was easy. The main media who has the rights to the event made it clear to other broadcasters under them, that if the ABC go ahead and allow the Chaser group in, that all footage of the event be withdrawn from ABC rights to use.

ABC would be left with nothing but the Chasers team and their scripted angle on this.

If the ABC had their own full angle coverage that is currently being shown, they would not have been squeezed into this position... but as 7, 9 and 10 all have extended god damned footage of this pomp, ABC wouldn't want to risk it.

Crap, channel 9 even has it on TWO of their channels, 9 and Gem. At least 10, 11 and ONE only have it on 10 and 7One and 7Mate and 7TWO only has it on 7One.

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours


Fair enough, I have a nerve that get’s irritated by blogs used as sources and I’ll admit you did graze it.

The highlighted sentence is the wording of the legislation that the C&D Act 1998 replaced. In other words from 1814 someone who was guilty of treason “shall be hanged by the neck until such person be dead”; this was the case until 1998 when the C&D Act replaced it. However the 1814 legislation, as it related to treason et al, fell out of use and was last used in 1946.

And although these powers are and were nominally held by “the crown”, the crown does not properly refer to the monarch in these cases but in the government and other bodies in which the powers of the monarch are vested. If the monarch ever did try to exercise these powers we’d have another 1642.

Originally posted by metodex
As i like to say "Meanwhile in Africa...."

Who's the gazelle and who's the lion in your 'meanwhile' Oo

Ahh friday night, a royal wedding... all that's missing is a stroke.

I completely agree that I wish the best for the happy couple.

BUT that is irrelevant to the issue. When the royal family is worth unimaginable wealth why is the public having to pick up any part of the tab? I am for them having whatever extravagances they want but only if they foot the bill...including the security tab.

When we get married the government doesn't offer to foot the bill for any part of our ceremonies. Why is it the rich get richer, off our backs, and so many think it's okay.

If we are so desperate for a break from the misery that our governments have created then they should foot the bill for an event we can all actively partake in.

reply to post by budski


I would take a million royal weddings over a war in Iraq , afghan , Lybia , possibly Syria
Second line.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours

 

Fair enough, I have a nerve that get’s irritated by blogs used as sources and I’ll admit you did graze it.

And I didn't need to wrote down : people like you. (That is attacking people with words, I really feel bad about it)

Thnx for clearing the air between us, and the explanation of the legislation. I am Dutch, so no knowledge in UK/laws and structures

edit on 29-4-2011 by TribeOfManyColours because: (no reason given)

More evidence of blocking any kind of protest at the wedding. It seems we are all too quick to give up our liberties in the justification for propping up social hierarchies. Still I imagine these 2 pensioners deserved to be locked up, who knows the chaos they could have caused.

reply to post by TruthFreedomNow


It was supposed to be something we could all "partake" in, by organising our OWN street parties, bunting, etc etc

What they forgot is that everyone is so skint, they either can't afford to, or simply don't want to and prefer to save whatever money they have for a holiday, new TV or whatever.

The government has totally misread the public mood on this politically sponsored sideshow.

A couple of lads near where I live have organised a "Champions League" party, and are showing re-runs of classic matches, in fact it sounds like they hooked the TV up to the stereo to blast the commentary out.

That's the extent of street parties here - a few lads getting drunk, and watching old Football matches.