Who here enjoyed seeing charles and camilla squirm?

Poll

Did you enjoy seeing Camilla and Charles squirm

lawbot

I hate hippies, i hate socialists. And yet, for one small minute i supported them as they made those rats squirm!

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Prudy

As a friend of mine said: notwithstanding their royal status, it was an elderly couple that were attacked, and that just ain't cricket.

Reply 2

paniking_and_not_revising

I don't really like Charles and Camilla but I actually felt sorry for them. They're not responsible for the rise in tuition fees. They have nothing to do with it. They shouldn't have been treated like that.

Reply 3

spazman21

I found it mildly funny... but I certainly don't get any bizzare gratification from seeing people in a potentially harmful situation.

Just because they were born into royalty doesn't mean you should have anything against them.... this kind of discrimination is on the same level as enjoying seeing a black man in the same situation.

Reply 4

Einheri

Shame it wasn't a bomb.

Reply 5

ginger.with.envy

not me. dont see why you would tbh

Reply 6

W.H.T

The way that the media are over-reacting over the fact that a protestor 'made contact' with Camilla is just :facepalm:

- words cannot describe the cringe

Reply 7

veelon

Original post by Prudy

As a friend of mine said: notwithstanding their royal status, it was an elderly couple that were attacked, and that just ain't cricket.

Here, here! They looked terrified and there was no need for it!

Reply 8

Time Tourist

No pleasure in seeing an elderly couple being scared and intimated by a bunch of pricks.

Reply 9

Aurora.

Well done for having no option on your poll for people who just got no enjoyment out of seeing people terrorising an elderly couple for no good reason.

Reply 10

Aj12

Bloody ignorant morons. The monarchy had nothing to do with the fee rise. Plus those idiotic protesters came within seconds of looking down the barrel of a whole load of guns

Reply 11

meenu89

They are the innocent party in all this, so my answer is No.

Reply 12

Jarlsberg

I felt a little sorry for them but really, why would in the hell would you drive through that area knowing fine well there were protests set for that day? It's like a zebra cantering into a pack of lions - you're just asking to get mauled.

Reply 13

Howard

I don't care for either of them much but I can't say I got a hard on when hearing that Camilla got poked with a stick through the window.

Yes, they're a complete waste of space and the country would be none the worse if they didn't exist - but they're basically a couple of harmless old farts - we're not talking about Nicolae and Elena Ceaucescu here. They are not public enemy number 1 so how about some perspective?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 14

Architecture-er

Original post by lawbot

I hate hippies, i hate socialists. And yet, for one small minute i supported them as they made those rats squirm!

Reply 15

CharlieBee_90

So you if you don't support unprovoked violence against two innocent people it means you are a rich goth. Interesting.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 16

Deadly Lightshade

I dislike the monarchy, because I dislike the cult of celebrity, and the fact that their story, on the BBC took precedence over the story of the student who had to have brain surgery after being beaten by the police.

I know it's not their fault they were born into the royal family.

Even so, I vaguely want a dove to **** on Kate Middleton's tiara.

Reply 17

Struggle

Original post by paniking_and_not_revising

They were not treated 'like that' because of the tuition fee's. They were treated like that because of what they represent and who they are.

We live in a society which is claimed to be civilised. We live in a society which is supposed to condemn injustice and backwardness. Do people like yourself not ask why Britain is one of the very few societies left with a monarchy? Is it correct that somebody should be born into power, illustrious wealth, having an armed guard, and being sustained through the tax payer without anybody having a choice whether there should or should not be a monarchy?

Reply 18

gladders

Original post by Struggle

Is it correct that somebody should be born into power, illustrious wealth, having an armed guard, and being sustained through the tax payer without anybody having a choice whether there should or should not be a monarchy?

Firstly, Charles is the Head of State to be. It's the same as the US Vice president.

Secondly, we've had as much choice about having a monarchy as people in the US have had a choice about being governed by the US Constitution. Both were ratified by people centuries ago and altered and adjusted here and there every now and then; but nobody in living memory has had a vote on any of them.

Reply 19

Struggle

Original post by gladders

Because monarchy isn't anything to do with backwardsness or lack of civilisation. Has it not occurred to you that most of the countries considered most democratic and with the high quality of life and narrowest wealth gap are monarchies?

Firstly, Charles is the Head of State to be. It's the same as the US Vice president.

Secondly, we've had as much choice about having a monarchy as people in the US have had a choice about being governed by the US Constitution. Both were ratified by people centuries ago and altered and adjusted here and there every now and then; but nobody in living memory has had a vote on any of them.

First of all, you will not find me defending the United States. Any system based on class-division cannot have a genuine democracy.

"In a world marked by profound class divisions and social inequality, to talk about 'democracy'— without talking about the class nature of that democracy and which class it serves—is meaningless, and worse. So long as society is divided into classes, there can be no 'democracy for all': one class or another will rule, and it will uphold and promote that kind of democracy which serves its interests and goals." - Bob Avakian

Depending on ones definition of 'backward';
The monarchy has everything to do with backwardness. The very reason it was restored was because of nationalism and the notion of following tradition; both using no context of progression. - If one does not reach out to progress, one can only go backward.

"Has it not occurred to you that most of the countries considered most democratic and with the high quality of life and narrowest wealth gap are monarchies?"

Please source this, as I think you are simply speculating.

Standard of life is usually measured by life-expectancy rate, and unfortunately, your claims are not backed up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
And before you rightfully dispute Wikipedia, all the statistics have been backed up in the bibliography.