>15:11

>Signs that something serious going on, says former royal correspondent

Hold your horses, lad.

Look at her hands in the BBC website's picture of her. They're practically purple. She must be freezing. Bloody energy companies.

Doesn't quite seem like she's dead. More like a developing media frenzy.

Old people can take their time. My grandad had a fainting seizure once, he was in and out of consciousness for over two hours and we really thought that was it, but he recovered from it pretty much fully. He had some heart problems, but it wasn't a heart attack as such. Doctors were slightly puzzled. Gave us a right scare. He then held on for about another year before dying peacefully in his sleep.

Nah, she's gone lads. Probably in her sleep or early on today. There's long been speculation that they wouldn't drop the news with a bang, so instead what we're seeing is a drop feed to set people up for the official announcement.

All the family are on their way to Balmoral. They interrupted Bargain Hunt for the bulletin. Huw has his black tie on. The way Liz Truss and Keep Starmer were informed was definitely a big giveaway.

Fuck it she probably never even met Liz Truss on Monday, it was just CGI like Carrie Fisher in The Last Jedi.

>>453908

Didn't figure they'd keep us hanging like that on the day.

You can't deny that something's up.

I think we're in the "morphine and wait" part of her dying. Well, she's getting the morphine, everyone else is waiting.

>>453909
People don't necessarily die that quickly, it could take a few days yet.

CNN just posted that she's gone, before rapidly deleting.

To those who say she's already dead: remember when you media geniuses were sure Boris was on the way out when at no point was he even put on a ventilator?

Useful reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge

>>453913
No, because that was fucking forever ago. I can't remember what I posted here two days ago, let alone two years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_London_Bridge
Don't be expecting a bank holiday lads.

>>453901
So we all agree this is really it?

>>453916

>The media would be informed by announcement to PA Media and the BBC through the Radio Alert Transmission System (RATS) and to commercial radio on the Independent Radio News through a network of blue "obit lights" which will alert presenters to play "inoffensive music" and prepare for a news flash,

So... Radio 2 will be even more bland than usual?

>>453917
The odds of a full recovery are, in my opinion, negligible. I think she is still alive now, and I expect she will die over the weekend. But I'm not any sort of insider. She could already be dead or she could, potentially, even turn out to be fine. But I doubt she's fine. If I was a betting company, I would stop accepting bets on her dying.

>>453918
I tuned into Radio 2 earlier when I first heard she was ill, to see what sort of music they played. It was the news, and it was even other news stories, but then the first song they played was Sing by Travis, and I thought, that's bad-news music if ever I heard it.

>>453920
This BBC coverage of a fucking gate is just ridiculous.

>>453921

Protocol dictates that the official announcement will be made by a footman attaching a notice to the gates. The BBC are clearly expecting it.

>>453918

We expect that they'll switch to a wholly instrumental playlist with no DJ chatter in between songs, so it might be an improvement.

RIP

She's gone lads.

RIP ARE LIZZY

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61585886

Every radio station on my FM dial is currently playing an obituary, with the exception of 106.9 Silk FM, which has gone straight from the traffic to "Relight My Fire" by Take That.

Called it.

Are Lass owes me a tenner now, get in.

>>453921
I thought that at the time, how daft.

RIP.

Was it even a year after her husband? This decade has been quite morbid so far. The death of the queen was definitely one of those "[Shigeru] Miyamoto will die in your lifetime" things that I would often see people say. Now, it's here.

Fuck. I had just given up waiting because Radio 1 was playing some hard dance rave shit. I can't believe they would mislead me like that.

I've always heard Prince Charles wouldn't be King Charles, and would use another name. What will he be? Can I call him King Charles?

>>453926
Yeah, but she's only got money from last season. You really want a tenner with the new players on it.

It’s Graham Potter I feel for.

LONG LIVE THE KING.

RIP Liz ;_;

>>453928
There's a good chance she'll not be the only British monarch dead this decade.

>>453934
Modern drugs can keep these freaks alive forever.

bloody hell lads!

>>453928
Phillip died April 2021

>>453934

Andy will have an accident in the carpet-bagger wing?

I'm more sad than I like to admit.

The other Liz is speaking right now.

Hah.

>>453939
This. I have issues with the whole ridiculously rich and elite business, but it's the ruddy Queen.

Hell of a year eh fellas

>>453939
There can be only one Liz.

Though it's quite funny that noted republican Liz Truss gets to announce a new king. As a bonus, it appears that she announced "Charles III" about 20 minutes before Clarence House confirmed it.

>>453935
Evidently not

>>453938

He'll just end up quadrispazzed on a lifeglug.

>>453943

Succession is automatic at the moment of the old monarch's passing. With no objection to be expected from Charles, it was fair to assume even before the announcement came.

I wonder if we'll get any official confirmation as to what happened.
A 70 year reign brought to an end by tripping over a dog?

>>453946
That's great Mr Witchell but everyone else was talking about the name Charles would adopt upon his accession, not whether he would become king.

>>453947
The rumours are to do with the colouration of her hands and it being a sign that her heart was packing it in.

>>453946
For years there has been talk that he wanted to be George VII, and normally the name wouldn't be officially decided until the morning after.

I'm guessing that, Liz Truss being Liz Truss, she came out and said it, ruined the moment Charlie had been waiting for his entire life, and then he had to get Clarence House to announce that name.

Every statement from Buck House to this point had referred to simply "the King".

>>45394747

I watched my nan die in an old people's home. She was 90. There were no obvious causes, she wasn't gravely ill besides being frail in the way you can expect a person that age to be. But one day, she simply woke up very unwell. When we went to visit that day, I was shocked at the state she was in, and I asked one of the nurses if there was nothing they could do, but she just told me that my nan had "begun to let go," and that we should just allow it to happen. Of course they probably saw that kind of thing unfold every other week at that home, but it was pretty disturbing for us to witness.

So anyway, at that age, you don't always need a distinct cause of death as such. You just die.

I've never seen memes come out this quickly, it's pure gold.

>>453951
I wonder how many times Liz the lesser will come out with a variation of "The power given to me by our beloved late Queen." in the coming weeks.

Right, I'm bored of it now. Thank fuck for streaming, Nicholas Witchell puts me right off my dinner.

>>453954
I feel like this is the first major instance of essentially the entire internet community saving up memes in preparation for months, ready to post at a moment's notice. A notable event for meme historians, I would say.

>>453954

Stable Diffusion humbly offers this tribute to Her Majesty.

Prompt: a portrait of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in the style of Lucian Freud

>>453959
Rest In Peace, Liz.

>>453959
The mods can't handle an x-ray of a USB wire. No way will they stomach a painting of the royal bosom.

So do you think they'll get Brian May to play God Save The Queen at the funeral?

>>453961
That boy's coinpurse was extremely visible, you need your eyes checked.

>>453963
So was his cock; it was the tangled up part.

Is it because he was a teenager? There's definitely an x-ray of Andy Murray's cock on /spo/ that didn't have people reaching for the smelling salts.

A dignified (and very flattering) portrait by Stable Diffusion in the style of Botticelli.

>>453964

>Is it because he was a teenager?

Yes, obviously. I don't think there's any legal precedent on whether an x-ray of a 15-year-old's gentleman vegetables is indecent, but I doubt that the mods want to be the test case.

>>453939
I always knew I'd be sad. I was genuinely angry at work that we didn't all get sent home, and she wasn't even dead yet. In fact, I'm surprised at how fine I am. I didn't think I'd be used to King Charles so quickly.

>>453967
Just wait until it's his face on the money and stamps. That's when it'll get weird, although we'll probably hear God Save the King before then.

Should we start saving bank notes and coins so we can flog them in 50 years time when they're valuable?

Might be a solid investment to just stick a few fivers in photo frames considering the way inflation is going.

>>453969
Have the mint got Charlie coins & notes lined up?
Are we going to get current raddled old Charles, or jug-eared younger Charles?

>>453970
They'll have some drafts lined up, but formally the Royal Mint have to send designs to Charles and the Chancellor to sign off. Most likely these will be based off a new royal portrait.

The new coins will have Charles facing to the left as they alternate this each time there's a new monarch.

F

>>453969

>Should we start saving bank notes and coins so we can flog them in 50 years time when they're valuable?

Given that they have been around for 70 years, there's absolute tons of them in circulation. They will probably not become rare enough in a meaningful way for a long time.

If Charles only reigns for a few years, then his notes and coins could be more valuable in 50 years time than those with his mother.


Even Google is toning it down tonight.

>>453973

The new plastic ones have barely been around a decade. Doesn't the BoE take note out of circulation and destroy them anyway? I was under the impression that's why they end up rare, it's not just like vinyl records or something.

>>453974

>Doesn't the BoE take note out of circulation and destroy them anyway?

They do, but loads of people will keep theirs in the same belief that they'll be worth something someday.

>>453975>>453973
I still get 1971 1 & 2p's in change now and again.
When you think of how many hands they must have passed through.

>>453977

>>453977

>When you think of how many hands they must have passed through.

Did you swab them for cocaine traces?

You've been warned. No wanking until after the funeral, you hear?

>>453980

It's what ARE LIZ would have wanted.

Do you reckon Casualty will be on this Saturday?

Tbh I'm waiting to see what Kunt does in tribute.

Even if she's wearing a really ugly green suit.

News coverage is getting repetitive by now.

Been sort of watching Sky News in the background here the last two hours or so while doing some work stuff, and they're now just showing the same segments over and over.

>>453973
>>453975

Well, according to a quick google what I done, a fiver from 1972 is worth £73 in today's money.

Nevermind if it becomes collectible or not, at that rate I can just shove a grand under a pillowcase, and by 2072 I'll have £15k. Why has nobody else figured this out? Jesus, savings accounts are for mugs.

I'm such a genius.

>>453985
Suppose all they can really do is wait for new official happenings.

>>453987

Well she's not going to die again, is she.

>>453986
Are you just calculating inflation and thinking that a £5 note from the 70s will mean you have £73 quid? Mate...

>>453991

>>453983
I think you need to take a break from shoehorning Kunt into everything. He's been phoning it in for years now; he hasn't released a genuinely good song since c. 2015.

If he does find his creative spark again let us know, but otherwise this is the equivalent of someone constantly bringing up Rick Edwards when they're an irrelevance these days.

So when's Charles going to start campaigning for his firmly held beliefs? He's been waiting for this for so long, and doesn't really have long to get stuff done.

also, which is going to be the first country to ditch him as head of state, having been holding on 'cos Liz was a good old bird...

>>453998
are there many left? As long as Canada/Aus/NZ are still in the flock, I couldn't give a rats ass otherwise.

She's much beloved in Virginia.

>>454000
There are 56 member states in the Commonwealth, with Tuvalu and Nauru being the smallest.

72 nations competed in the Commonwealth Games this year, which includes the likes of Jersey, the Falklands and Norfolk Island. There was not a single competitor representing South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Lads, we know what we have to do.

Getting ready for a Teams meeting right now.

>>453997
Constitutionally, I don't think he can. That's part of why he was always so into these things as a prince.

When and how many bank holidays do we get?

>>454008
I read that the day of the funeral will be a public holiday, but it'll probably be on a weekend so no luck, I'm afraid.

>>454008
The funeral is on the 19th so I expect we'd get that and the coronation off, but no guarantees.

oops. That's a lot of caterers and show stands fucked...

Went out into town and up to Asda this morning. Things seemed surprisingly normal.

>>454010
Is there a long time between the coronation and funeral?

Do you think the Queen will get more flowers outside Buckingham Palace than Princess Diana did? I certainly hope so, but people did go utterly mad for Prinny D.

>>454012
I saw huge amounts of traffic this morning on my way to work. I wonder if everyone has taken a day off to drive around in grief.

>>454013
The Queen became queen in 1952 and the coronation was in 1953, and Edward VIII was king for only a few months and never had a coronation at all. So I don't think the coronation of King Charles III will happen for a while yet.

>>454013
The Queen was coronated about 16 months after she ascended the throne, largely to do with planning and protocol.

Bit much, all those gun salutes across the country.

So what are we going to call the new age now. I've heard it floated that it'll be known as a new Caroline Age, but one of my mates says it should the Charlesian Age.

>>454018
I thought Charles ages were Carolingian rather than Caroline, but perhaps this is why he always thought about using his middle name.

>>454019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_era

>The Caroline era refers to the period in English and Scottish history named for the 24-year reign of Charles I (1625–1649).


The Carolingians were a distinct Frankish dynasty founded by none other than Charlemagne. Which has little to do with our Royal Family, besides quite likely a few common ancestors a few centuries up the family tree.

I think it should be an age where there is a republic.

I don't know why this insanely melodramatic headline is so hilarious to me, but it is.

>>454022
https://www.annsummers.com/ this is my favourite.

The Tour of Britain has been cancelled. The Paris-Roubaix still ran in 1919, despite most of the course having been destroyed by shelling. Bollocks to this.

>>454024
Yeah, the more and more I'm told this is a devastating loss, the more I see sobbing women kissing King fucking Charles' hands the more and more I want to say fuck off to the whole bizarre affair.

>>454025

In 1969, the Queen didn't give her usual Christmas message. The BBC had broadcast a 90 minute documentary about the royal family earlier in the year and she felt that the British people had seen quite enough of her for one year.

Look up to the sky, take your mind off things.

It'll be interesting to see how the popularity of the monarchy now fares in the Commonwealth.

Us, we're very clearly all going to die under a king.

>>454025

It's one for the women, isn't it.

It's a form of escapism to follow up on the Royals and fantasize about being part of a less shit life than your dowdy middle class existence, where there are kings and queens and fairytales and princesses. And slain dragons.

How many lads do you know who soak up all the royal gossip with the degree of commitment as many wimmins do.

>>454029
I take it you didn't see the Meghan Markle thread on /iq/. Lads can certainly be like a bunch of old fish wives at times.

This is getting a bit tiring. I can't seem to escape it. Why must it be everywhere, all the time?

>>454033

Give it a few days.

The people in the back rows inside St. Paul's Cathedral look surpisingly ordinary, like they were literally picked off the street. Anybody know how they were selected?

>>454029
It’s definitely not just women, there are plenty of blokes thicker than two short planks going ape. We laughed at those Nirth Koreans shouting about the radiant brilliance of their WW2 surplus gear, but we’re, collectively, not so far from that kind of batshittery.

>>454033
It’s propaganda. I know I sound like the most annoying man in the pub saying this, but what else can I call a situation in which the hereditary title of head of state is passed from mother to son and any dissent is wholly forbidden? It’s horrible.

All I'm seeing now are BRILLIANT fucks. They kept their mouths shut yesterday, but now everyone sounds like you lot. I haven't seen a single person behave in a way I consider to be an overreaction. Perhaps you should all just stay off Mumsnet and the Daily Mail website for 48 hours.

I still think it's disgraceful that the Queen died on Thursday on purpose so we could all have Friday off work, and then I didn't. Bloody government. The wrong Liz died.

Honestly, at this stage, I'm not sure which is worse - the sycophantic flag-shagging cunts going on about how we should all be nice to the old dead lady, or the annoying pseudo-intellectual takes from people who don't understand the concept of "constitutional monarch" all about how maybe she could have done something to stop all those atrocities various governments committed in her name.

>>454048
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

>>454048

I'm hardly what you'd call a staunch royalist, but those people with an anti-monarchy hate boner have always annoyed me far more than any of their opposite counterparts.

They are so often just inherently annoying smug cunts, a lot like vegans or fisherpersons. Fundamentally agreeable on an ideological level, but so insufferable I find myself sympathising with their opponents.

>>454049

so... is this Queengate?

>>454049

The monarch has the constitutional duty to supervise and advise the government, but the monarch's power of veto should only be used in the most dire circumstances. No, our constitution isn't written down because we aren't Yanks.

>>454048

>They are so often just inherently annoying smug cunts, a lot like vegans or fisherpersons. Fundamentally agreeable on an ideological level

I'm not sure that they're even particularly agreeable on an ideological level. Relatively few countries are constitutional monarchies, but they're almost all the kind of places you'd want to live - Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands and Canada obviously spring to mind. There are plenty of disastrous republics, but Lesotho is the only genuinely shit constitutional monarchy that I can think of and I'm not sure that it counts. Empirically, constitutional monarchy delivers exactly what it promises. Chesterton's fence etc.

>>454052
>The monarch has the constitutional duty to supervise and advise the government, but the monarch's power of veto should only be used in the most dire circumstances.
Quite. The institution of power is the Crown. The current King or Queen is just a meatpuppet, and the government shoves its hand up their arse when it wants them to say or do something. If the monarch expects people to do what they say while the government doesn't have its hand up their arse, then that's no longer in the realm of constitutional monarchy. That's absolute monarchy, and we fought a very bloody civil war over that.

I'd happily do away with the monarchy if we could figure out what to replace it with. Last time we tried, we ended up with a theo-fascist dictatorship. I don't even know who we'd tolerate as a British President.

>>454054

>I'd happily do away with the monarchy if we could figure out what to replace it with. Last time we tried, we ended up with a theo-fascist dictatorship.

That doesn't mean the concept of a presidential republic is flawed as such. It all hinges on the fine print, and on the person that is in charge. Just look at the U.S.. Good presidents have done very remarkable things. But yeah, then there have also been Bush junior and Trump.

I'd rather keep our monarchy though. It has served us well, and it is something special to have. It's good that it's not an absolute monarchy anymore, but as a ceremonial head of state, with some real powers, a king or queen can't do much harm.

>>454052
>The monarch has the constitutional duty to supervise and advise the government, but the monarch's power of veto should only be used in the most dire circumstances.
What does that have to do with reality?

>>454022

I'm surprised that they didn't splash "HISTORIC COLLECTABLE EDITION" on it somewhere - as if it were an article of hand-painted ceramic tat - like the Mail do.

>>454022

I was just looking at the covers of the main newspapers, and most of them are shockingly bad. It's not like they were somehow rushed, I'm sure most of them had a front page waiting to be used for months by now.

I think probably the Mirror had the best one.

Charles is a strong supporter of climate action and has spoken out against the Rwanda thing. As far as monarchs go, he could be worse.

This could go three ways, as I see it: He's going to have to step back from public life, the Murdoch media are going to have to get behind those things, or they'll have to turn on him.

>>454059
Anyone who's seen House of Cards could have told you that.

BANK HOLIDAY FOR THE FUNERAL.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62862225

>>454055
The easiest change for us to make would be to a parliamentary republic, which would basically just substitute a non-executive president for the monarch, but I still can't imagine who we'd actually have in that position.

>>454062

The Germans have a parliamentary democracy and elect their President every five years in what they call the Federal Assembly, which is comprised of all members of the Bundestag parliament and an equal number of delegates chosen from the general public each time. Competing candidates are put in the running by the Bundestag's various different parties.

Candidates tend to be known senior political figures or somebody who has otherwise held an important public office, but they oftentimes seem to be somewhat random, so they don't really overthink who should be President. It's just a ceremonial role, as the real power lies with the Chancellor and his or her government.

If you want to get rid of the monarchy it'd be fairly simple to do.

Andrew is eighth in line for the throne. Wipe out Charles' descendants and he'd be our next monarch. Even if he abdicated because nobody wants King Andrew, one of his ghastly daughters would be next. It'd be the most surefire way of turning the public against the concept of having a monarchy.

>>454052
>No, our constitution isn't written down because we aren't Yanks.
Look at this statement.

This thread is amazing. I was confused why people would hate democracy and would want a dictator in some study that was posted recently. But it looks like we are half way there already. Bloody morons.

>>454065

>Look at this statement.

If you don't understand the arguments against a written constitution, you don't understand the British constitution.

American constitutional law is concerned solely with the meaning and intent of their written constitution - not what is right or fair, not what is compatible with international human rights law, but what is meant by a document written in 1787 by a group of mostly drunk slave owners.

Do you have a right to carry a handgun? Do you have the right to have an abortion? Well, that depends mostly on whether the most recently deceased Supreme Court justices died during a Republican or Democratic presidency. Writing down their constitution doesn't actually safeguard anyone's rights, but it does lock their system in a perpetual power struggle that only ever moves in spasms and judders.

Other countries with more malleable written constitutions don't see any real benefit either. In 2020, 78% of the Chilean electorate voted to establish a Constitutional Convention to replace the old Pinochet-era constitution. Last year, Gabriel Boric was elected president, largely based on his promise to deliver a new constitution. This week, 62% of the electorate voted against enacting the new constitution that had voted massively in favour of writing. The Chilean people are ostensibly desperate to replace their fascistic constitution, but don't actually seem in a particular hurry to replace it.

A written constitution is a sign of systemic failure. If the institutions that interpret and enforce the constitution don't function properly, then it's just a meaningless bit of paper. If they are functioning properly, then they'll interpret the document in the interests of the people in light of contemporary circumstances and so it doesn't really matter what's on the bit of paper. At best a written constitution is useless; at worst it causes more harm than good.

Meaningful protections cannot be imposed by fiat - they have to be encoded into the structure of the political and legal system. The mechanisms by which we prevent the abuse of power have evolved over the course of 800 years and embody vast amounts of institutional learning. We have carefully divided out symbolic and practical power to prevent any one individual from gaining absolute control. Writing some political affirmations on a fancy scroll won't make our judiciary more learned, the Speaker of the House more even-handed or our civil service more independent.

Our current political difficulties are in no way the fault of our constitution, which has been tested and proven to be satisfactory by the many efforts of Boris Johnson to subvert it. We got exactly what we voted for, and will continue to get it hard, with no lube until we vote for something different.

>>454065
People hate democracy because the voters keep electing shitty leaders.

>>454075

And also because the choices you are given are basically Pepsi and Coke, except not even pepsi and coke, it's Ben Shaw's and Panda Pop.

>>454080

Knock it off mate. Either you're too young to remember the 90s, or you're so old that you can't remember what you had for breakfast. The Blair government poured record amounts of money into public services and the effects were clear to see in every part of society. The middle way worked, it was glorious and we were all too spoiled to appreciate it. We used to take for granted that schools would have enough staff, that an ambulance or a police car would turn up if you called 999, that disabled people would get enough benefits to live on, that the council would collect your bins every week and look after the elderly.

We can have all of that back, but some people (mainly middle-class people who don't bear the brunt) would much rather be miserable contrarians who argue that anything short of a Glorious Socialist Revolution is a waste of time. New Labour delivered massive positive changes for practically everyone in Britain; those who would prefer a "principled" Labour opposition to a pragmatic Labour government are just Tory stooges.

>>454085

Well, yes, I actually agree, but Kier isn't even Tony Blair is he. If New Labour were Abba, current Labour is Steps.

Anyway don't worry, they'll walk it at the next election, my lazy public sector arse will get the pay rise I finally deserve, I'll have a mortgage by then and politics will be all fine and dandy. But the point is, it's easy to see why zoomers don't give a shit.

>>454085
They delivered all of that, but all some cunts seem to obsess over is that damn war.

>>454085
Come off it. One of the first acts of the Blair government was to cut benefits for single mothers and a subsequent act (I think technically implemented under Brown, but started under Blair) was to create the work capacity assessment system. I could go on, but I don't really care - the bleeding heart angle is boring and irrelevant.

Blairism was a failure. You can tell it was a failure because Labour has been out of power for the best part of a decade, and the real project of Blairism wasn't to kick single mothers, to bugger up the structure of NHS England or to build a big dome in London while blowing one up in Ice Town. It was to make Labour the natural party of government, which it isn't and probably never will be. Blair thought you could win by courting Tory voters. He missed the real lesson of Thatcherism: If you really want to win you don't court the other side's voters, you've got to either capture them or destroy them.

Thatcher saw that home owners are more likely to vote Tory and council tenants more likely to vote Labour, then threw council houses at their tenants to buy new voters with state money. She saw shareholders were more likely to vote Tory, then did the same again. She saw trade unionists were more likely to vote Labour, then crippled the unions. Turfing half Labour's manufacturing vote out onto the dole, where they're less likely to vote, was probably just a happy accident but it worked all the same. Blair was never that smart - he was all tactics and no strategy at best and an ideologue at worst - doing his little third way dance because he though it'd be best for the country without properly considering party political interest.

>>454085
What are you on about? I took his post to mean that one of the biggest complaints about our democratic system is that it's a two-horse race where nobody else stands a chance, and you chime in with "But ackchually both horses win sometimes." So what?

>>454091

Then you misread his post. He was clearly arguing that the choice we are offered is a false choice between two near-identical options. Our two main political parties are not indistinguishable fizzy brown liquids and your choice does matter.

I'm an advocate for electoral reform, but we aren't going to get it until the boomers all die, because the two-party system suits their interests. For the foreseeable future, we have two choices - Labour or Tory. That is a profound, life-changing decision for many millions of people. We can have a Labour government if we arse ourselves to go out and vote, but people aren't going to bother if we perpetuate the nonsense that a centre-left party is no better than the most radical right-wing government in British history.

>>454092

You misread my post, in that it was a hyperbolic and tongue in cheek argument that I don't even really believe myself. It was, in short, a joke.

In fact I was recently banned from r/greenandpleasant for making this exact argument, which in their eyes is presumably betraying the cause or something. I am convinced every lefty subrudgwick is operated by spooks, because it feels far too coincidental to me that as soon as Labour start leading in the polls, all the online lefty spaces start screeching about how you're not a real leftist if you dare vote for them. You can tell me that's tinfoil paranoia and the sad truth is leftists really are just that thick, or that it has been crippled run by hipster wanker students, whose only interest is in being on the moral high horse of opposition, never in seizing power and certainly never helping anyone; but no, I think someone had to instigate their brain rot.

Anyway, if I was making any point at all it was more that they're both cheap knock-offs, shite versions of something somebody else established. Neither party is at the top of it's game in terms of talent, so it's easy to understand why people feel that way.

>>454089
>Can I get a cheese burger and a medium banana milkshake please, Your Majesty.
On my visit to Derby's Derbion yesterday all the advertising screens where this image or something very similar too. Also, watching ITV3 the day after she kicked the bucket, I noticed there were no ads. I don't know why exactly, but if the Queen's death has ended all advertising everywhere then I might have to do a 180 on my opinion of her.

>>454094
Eagle Centre represent.

>>454093
>as soon as Labour start leading in the polls, all the online lefty spaces start screeching about how you're not a real leftist if you dare vote for them
I, for one, was advocating left-wingers to vote elsewhere when they weren't leading in the polls.

>>454092
>>454093
Why do sympathisers of the Labour right and centre like to pretend that Labour's problem is whining left-wingers not turning out to vote, rather than that we're a country full of well-to-do geriatric Tories who know exactly what side their bread is buttered on?
Half of Starmer's Blair re-enactment crew desperately want him to piss off the left, to have them go out and tell people Labour isn't really Labour anymore, because they think it'll help them win over Tories when they cry about how he ditched energy nationalisation or whatever. Iceland's finest clause-4 moment. Yet at the same time these people who never tire of going on about how Corbyn only appealed to the lefty party faithful and couldn't win (which, indeed, he never did - even in 2017) suddenly turn around and lay the groundwork for blaming the not-so-faithful party faithful for Labour's loss in the next election because they wouldn't just shut up and smile.

We'll get another chart like this and people will insist it's the 18-29 year olds calling Starmer 'Keith' on furry twitter wot lost it.

>>454093
>I was recently banned from r/greenandpleasant

I don't know why you'd visit there in the first place. It's an echo chamber for complete lunatics.

>>454094
Ma'am lovin' it.

>>454098

This appears to be a rebuttal to an argument nobody was making, so I'm not sure what to make of it.

>>454099

>I don't know why you'd visit there in the first place. It's an echo chamber for complete lunatics.

Well, that's rather the point, in my experience of online lefty communities, it was (up until quite recently) by far one of the least mental. There were even plenty of people on there who agreed idpol is cancer, which has become my personal measuring stick for how in touch with reality someone's politics are.

>>454100
It's the implied argument of a statements like
> but people aren't going to bother if we perpetuate the nonsense that a centre-left party is no better than the most radical right-wing government in British history.
and
>it has been crippled run by hipster wanker students, whose only interest is in being on the moral high horse of opposition, never in seizing power and certainly never helping anyone
Which places agency on those who say Labour is no better than the Tories, or those who have no interest in sizing power. It implies that if those people behaved differently, Labour would be in with a chance.

As I always do, I over-wrote things and stuck in tangents about other groups because I'm incapable of brevity, but my main point is that internet lefties are irrelevant to Labour's prospects. Nothing they do or are likely to do could shift the outcome of the next general election.

>>454101

Yeah, to an extent, I suppose.

But I think there's some truth to the idea that infighting is an obstacle to preventing generally left wing governments taking power, not just Labour. And I hardly think it's on par with moon landing conspiracies to suggest that spooks, propagandists and wreckers operate with the express goal of stoking the tensions.

Just look at that moderator in >>454099. Calling Jeremy fucking Corbyn a "cowardly liberal", while proudly displaying their idpol brainworms. It couldn't be an more eye-rollingly predictable. I know a bad faith opinion when I see one, and that's every bit as dishonest as the PMC journo ghouls who were calling him an anti-semite a couple of years ago. People like that are on someone's payroll and I refuse to believe otherwise.

>internet lefties are irrelevant to Labour's prospects

So, to clarify, Keith is right to ignore them and their whinging? Because I mean, I agree, but the first half of your post sort of sounded like you were coming from the other direction.

Never knew you could fill an entire afternoon of news coverage just watching a hearse travel down roads and motorways. And voice-over commentary from various people whose connection to the events at hand is often remote at best.

>>454103
>So, to clarify, Keith is right to ignore them and their whinging?
He's right to ignore them in that they're irrelevant and don't need to be won over, but wrong in that much of what they say is correct. (Even if accidentally.) So it's a wash really.

I tend to look at most apparently bad faith opinions like that are natural evolutions of the way websites are laid out. In a case like that I'd look far more at what's likely to get someone attention, or show them off as more-radical-than-thou, rather than for who's paying them. People are often just responding to incentives. (Though they don't usually notice it. After all, we lie best when we lie to ourselves.)

>>454105
I'm sure some people will complain, but watching a helicopter follow some traffic for ten hours is pretty much what the coverage of the Tour de France is, and people watch that.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-62867569

>Antigua and Barbuda will vote on whether to become a republic following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the country's prime minister has said.

>Gaston Browne said a referendum could take place within three years - but emphasised that the move was "not an act of hostility".


Ungrateful cunts.

>>454103
>I know a bad faith opinion when I see one, and that's every bit as dishonest as the PMC journo ghouls who were calling him an anti-semite a couple of years ago. People like that are on someone's payroll and I refuse to believe otherwise.

Looking from the outside, I think what matters most to them is being the underdog. They want to be in the minority. They want to be the downtrodden victim. They want to be in the position where there is no accountability for their beliefs because there's no realistic prospect of them being popular; they want to complain about how shit things are, safe in the knowledge it's everyone else's fault.

That said, the invasion of Ukraine confirmed the sub is full of tankies.

>>454107

>is pretty much what the coverage of the Tour de France is, and people watch that.

Yes, but with the Tour de France, you can at least expect something interesting to happen. Short of somebody dropping ARE LIZ's coffin at the end and her corpse falling out, there weren't going to be any unforeseen events.

>>454098

>Why do sympathisers of the Labour right and centre like to pretend that Labour's problem is whining left-wingers not turning out to vote, rather than that we're a country full of well-to-do geriatric Tories who know exactly what side their bread is buttered on?

We are a country full of geriatric Tories, but your graph is missing some very important data. Young people and poor people are much more likely to support Labour, but much less likely to actually turn out to vote. Old Tories certainly do not believe that there's no point in voting because they're all the same.

>>454105
Any minute now Harry will appear from the back to make a break, but the hearse will have chased him down with 10km to go.

>>454114

The hearse's driver pilot again on top form today, despite not getting any practice at all for the last 70 years. It's almost in the bag for him now.

>>454115
At this stage, someone further back is going to need to fire a blue shell at him.

>>454116

But, as we've just been informed, all shells were needed for the many gun salutes up and down the country, and are out of stock now.

https://news.sky.com/story/mourners-asked-to-stop-leaving-paddingtons-and-marmalade-sandwiches-as-queen-tributes-12695109

>Stop leaving Paddingtons and sandwiches as Queen tributes, mourners told

>>454120
We can't even do hapless serfdom properly.

>>454121

>>454122
I don't get it.

Did anyone else have that really creepy talking E.T. toy as a child? The one with the red hoodie? There was something horrible about that little thing.

>>454123

No, I have never owned any sort of toy ET.

https://www.flightradar24.com/KRH21R/2d6ecad1

>#1 Worldwide
>Tracked by 116K

ARE CHARLES on his way to Edinburgh

>>454128
I thought he was well into his climate change and stuff, yet here he is on what must be his third domestic flight in less than a week.

>>454129

Well he wasn't just going to hop on a Megabus, was he.

>>454130
I mean, it's not like he's got an entire Royal Train, which includes both a sleeper and a lounge car that he had fitted out to his own spec, or anything.

>>454131

Then again, having an entire train mostly to yourself isn't going to do wonders for your carbon footprint either.

>>454130

An Embraer 145 variant is pretty much the Megabus of private jets, though they're pretty economical (relatively).

I'm sure his is kitted out nicer than most bizjets, but still. Why not get a BAe 125, lovely British jet that. Or a Bombardier, keep it in the commonwealth at least. Are King can't be flying about in a foreign plane.

>>454131
Tbh if I was Kinglad i'd want a proper Steam Engine to pull the Royal Train. Ready to go 24/7.

>>454133

>Are King can't be flying about in a foreign plane.

Are LIZ was in the back of a Mercedes hearse.

But I guess when you're dead it doesn't matter.

>>454135

Definitely she should have had a range rover hearse, like Phil's landy one.

I just don't see how we're supposed to respect the monarchy when they can't even do basic branding.

Prop her up in the front of one of these.

>>454137

Better yet.

God I wish they'd shut the fuck up about these privileged posh cunts now.

Has there been a song yet? Candle in the Wind sold five million copies and wasn't even about Diana.

>>454140

Different circumstances.

There she goes.

The Queen's last flight.

https://www.flightradar24.com/KRF01R/2d73086f

>>454147
So write new lyrics like Elton John did. Here; I've already found the perfect tune.

https://youtu.be/WKUa46dEmVM

>>454149


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jtpf8N5IDE


It'll probably be a while till you'll hear that song played again.

It's not on the radio that often, but a while ago, Radio 2 used to play it late at night occasionally.

Monarchists are sub-apes.

I've noticed a lot of republicans are Catholic.

Strikes me as a tad hypocritical that does. The crown got nothing on the church.

>>454152
They don't appreciate the competition.

>>454152

Probably goes back to Tudor times. Catholics never fully forgave Henry VIII for starting his own church.

I've always been a monarchist, and I'm agnostic. Probably got it from my parents who are also monarchists, but I think while Mars and Earth align, we can do with a bit of tradition. Especially when it's something that has been part of our cultural identity for over a thousand years. It's probably a good thing that it's not an absolute monarchy, but I'd like to see us maintain the status quo. I really hope Charles will do well as King.

>>454151

That's the whole point, you fool. The monarchy is a honeytrap for deranged nationalists, a distraction tactic to contain the weird impulses of people who want to worship an unelected national figurehead. If it wasn't for their acculturated sense of deference and obedience, they'd all be out starting the Fourth Reich. Is that what you want?

>>454155

>The monarchy is a honeytrap for deranged nationalists, a distraction tactic to contain the weird impulses of people who want to worship an unelected national figurehead.

Oh lad.

>Center Parcs has been criticised by customers after it said it planned to close its five UK sites on the day of the Queen's funeral, turfing holidaymakers out for 24 hours.

>Complaints started to flood in via its social media pages after the company said it would shut sites from 10am on the day to allow staff "to support our Queen on her final journey".

>It said that all holidaymakers who would be affected would receive an email on Tuesday to explain their options. They include a full refund if guests want to cancel their breaks.

>Those partway through seven-day holidays - which generally cost more than £1,000 for a family of four at this time of year - will be forced to spend the night elsewhere or go home early. They could leave belongings in their living accommodation if they wished, the statement added.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/center-parcs-faces-backlash-for-turfing-out-guests-on-day-of-queens-funeral-12696487

How utterly mental. Imagine going away for a week and then being told you've got to fuck off elsewhere for 24 hours.

>>454158

Nobody has been cancelled yet for being insufficiently respectful, so everyone's starting to get a bit paranoid. Until someone takes one for the team and acts as a hate magnet, things will just keep getting weirder. You would have thought that Corbyn would have said something grossly inappropriate by now, but he won't even insult the queen if it might mean accidentally doing the right thing.

>>454158

Center Parcs are shite anyway.

>>454159

The royalist fawning by NPCs reeks of that Stalin Clapping anecdote.

Have people posted the video of that one woman that queued to view the queen's corpse 7 times like it was Space Mountain yet?

>>454158

Center Parcs will be open on Monday. I repeat Center Parcs will be open on Monday.

I don't give a shit because I holiday at Pontins like a normal person. But I'm sure all you Barbour-wearing, SUV-driving, Grouse-beating, book-reading homeowners will be well pleased.

>>454163

Honestly I went to a center parc once, it was at Woburn Forest, and it was complete shit. Mediocre weather the whole time, which wasn't their fault, but also, there were just young families with unruly sprogs everywhere. And the lake they had there was just a murky hole in the ground. The pools inside were disgusting, and there was mold around fixtures in a number of places.

The ignorant "if the monarch is powerless why are people getting arrested for criticising them?" takes from mostly Americans are getting tiresome.

They're getting arrested because the police are run by the Home Office and the Home Office is run by fascists.

>>454169

>They're getting arrested because the police are run by the Home Office and the Home Office is run by fascists.

They're getting arrested because there isn't an absolute right to protest in this country and there never has been. The Public Order Act gives the police extremely broad powers to nick people who are being a pain in the arse. Having been on the receiving end of public order policing, I am near certain that any arrest would have been preceded with a polite word along the lines of "Look, this isn't the time or the place, so just move on before one of these mourning royalist nutters decides to chin you."

Ironically, most of the (British) people complaining about anti-Monarchy protesters being arrested would be the first to demand that the police get involved if the Westboro Baptist Church were picketing a gay person's funeral. Arresting those arseholes would also rely on the Public Order Act.

>>454170
Sounds like Thailand, and you are giving it a sheen of British sensibility.

>>454172

>Sounds like Thailand, and you are giving it a sheen of British sensibility.

No. This isn't about the monarchy, it's about public order. If your church decides to hold a counter-protest at Gay Pride, you're probably going to get moved on or arrested. On any given Friday or Saturday night you'll see a few public order arrests in the town centre, likewise at any big football fixture.

You're only likely to be arrested if you choose to ignore a polite request to stop acting like a knob. If you are arrested, you'll almost certainly be released without charge unless you were doing something totally blatant or you kept acting like a knob after you were arrested. If you are charged, the maximum sentence under Section 5 is a fine of £1000, but you'd probably be offered a police caution or end up with a conditional discharge.

I don't think it's an Orwellian nightmare for the police to stop fights from breaking out at massive public gatherings. Genuine Republican activists have been protesting for years, largely without incident; most of them are sensible enough not to protest against the monarchy in front of a load of people who are upset about the recent death of a monarch.

Disclosure: I have been arrested under the Public Order Act on a number of occasions and the police were totally right to do so. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

>>454173
Just because you got arrested for acting like a knob, that doesn't mean all arrests are for acting like a knob. At least, acting like a knob is a relative thing and the issue is that its creep is being accelerated.

>>454173

I'm struggling to understand your point of view, here. From your description, the Public Order Act is too vague and far-reaching, and very much designed to be that way. Similarly, "acting like a knob" isn't and shouldn't be a crime.

I understand that people can incite or provoke violence, but that doesn't mean it's right to give the police sweeping powers to arrest whoever they think is "acting like a knob". Like in your example, the mourning monarchist is clearly wrong to hit someone protesting at an event.

The fact you've been arrested and that you agree with the decision (now? Back then? Were you protesting or just pissed?) doesn't really add much.

Anyone whose definition of "being a knob" includes calling noted teen sex abuser and teen sex trafficking client Prince Sweaty No[b][/b]nce Andrew a paedo needs to have some serious words with themselves.

>>454176

Call him a carpet-bagger all you want, and he is, but show some respect when his family who are present at that moment are dealing with far bigger things.


>>454173

>You're only likely to be arrested if you choose to ignore a polite request to stop acting like a knob.

That is largely my experience with police as well. They don't arrest people without good reason.

All this lying in state business has me wondering, isn't she just going to rot at some point? It's still five days till the actual funeral.

>>454175

>From your description, the Public Order Act is too vague and far-reaching, and very much designed to be that way.

It is vague and far-reaching, but it really isn't abused all that much. There are about 50,000 arrests per year on public order offences, covering everyone from protesters to pissheads to general arseholes. That's a remarkably low rate, relatively speaking. There's a broad spectrum of human behaviour that is almost impossible to precisely define, but would in the eyes of any reasonable person be seen as needlessly aggressive or provocative; that's the standard which our legal system upholds.

There's no way in a million years that I'd give American cops the same powers, but we don't have American cops, American courts or American politics. There are definitely issues with policing in this country, but our cops are overwhelmingly sensible and reasonable. The Met is a bit iffy, the TSG are genuine bastards and there's the odd bad apple who never got over being bullied in school, but your average copper is a decent bloke doing a horrible job for rubbish money because they genuinely care about public safety.

>The fact you've been arrested and that you agree with the decision (now? Back then? Were you protesting or just pissed?) doesn't really add much.

Protesting. I had a grudging acceptance at the time that it was just part of the game, but I've gained a far greater appreciation of policing in hindsight. I was arrested on dozens of occasions over the course of several years, involved in several court cases and was part of a community where that was the norm. My perspective is based on all of the stupid stuff I did in plain sight of the police that didn't end up with me in cuffs.

Arresting someone is a ballache, there's loads of paperwork, it's extremely boring and if you cock it up you might end up getting a massive bollocking and a black mark on your personnel file. It's just totally self-defeating for police officers to arrest people without good reason. They've got no incentive to do it and lots of incentives to not do it. Maybe once or twice I got snatched because an inspector just wanted to say that people had been arrested, but most of my arrests were a result of me absolutely taking the piss and ignoring several opportunities to de-escalate the situation, or being caught red-handed doing something that was too serious to be ignored.

Maybe some people think that you've got a basic right to be an absolute fucking nuisance, but as someone who used to be a full-time nuisance I can't agree with that. A lot of people involved in my movement genuinely cared about a social cause, but there were plenty of hangers-on who couldn't care less about the cause but just wanted an excuse to be antisocial. For those of us in the former camp, getting arrested was just an occupational hazard; for the latter, it was always a terrible outrage that proved how they personally were being victimised by a fascist state.

I think that protest is an important part of a democratic state, I think that sometimes protesters are entirely morally justified in breaking the law, but an absolute and consequence-free right to protest just gives free reign to total pricks and would ultimately undermine the value of protest.

>>454178

If she hasn't been embalmed, then her coffin will be stuffed with ice packs. It isn't rocket science to keep a lump of meat fresh for a week.

>>454177
I'm looking at the money I was paid in compensation for unlawful arrest and wondering what the fuck you're on about. They do it regularly enough that it's budgeted for, they even have the level of compensation worked out down to payments-per-hour spent falsely imprisoned, to streamline it out of court. Arrests for no good reason are utterly routine.

>>454179
It's changed since you were a teenlad.