Free speech?

Language like that has no place in any public protest, I have words with anyone who swears around my children and if that was waved anywear near them I’d of taken it off her shredded it and binned it. It’s not the message that’s the issue it’s the timing and method of delivery that’s quite frankly a disgrace.
 
The whole point of a protest is to get maximum coverage.. surly when all eyes are in you is the best time to do that?

Agree the crass language is not needed.

However as the establishment don’t want to see it and therefore you or I. So she gets arrested. Bit like Putin and a anti-war protester.
 
It's all about the context, is it likely to cause someone alarm or distress? Under the circumstances I think it probably is.

Not surprised she was arrested, give she's almost certainly broken the law.
 
I've said it before: this sort of behaviour harms the republican cause.

I'm not sure the link between monarchy and imperialism is historically justified.

The French republic was as aggressive an imperial power as Europe has seen on the back of the revolution

They and the republic of Portugal were fighting wars to hold onto their colonies into the 60s and 70s respectively. Transition from British rule was more peaceful.
 
Last edited:
JM14 said:
Until you fancy attending a peaceful protest and get arrested for it
Click to expand...
Be surprised if she was charged.

She was probably arrested to take her away from the situation, she`ll have accepted the arrest for the publicity she got

If I was her I`d have thought it as job done
 
JM14 said:
The fact that someone was arrested for holding up a sign speaks volumes, even if she wasn’t charged it’s still police using their powers incorrectly
Click to expand...
Agreed

Unfortunately the Public Order Act can now be interpreted to whatever end that helps the police get the result they want

I`d say we'll all be walking on egg shells eventually, but then they`d probably arrest you for that.

Like you say, very worrying direction we are heading
 
Frozen Horse said:
I'm not sure the link between monarchy and imperialism is historically justified.

The French republic was as aggressive an imperial power as Europe has seen on the back of the revolution

They and the republic of Portugal were fighting wars to hold onto their colonies into the 60s and 70s respectively. Transition from British rule was more peaceful.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point, but if you are one of the majority of Jamaicans (who seem likely to remove King Charles as their head of state) not one that will convince. The Crown was the titular head of an exploitation machine that has sought to continue its influence via soft power. By contrast, once the French and Portuguese were gone, they were gone; their writ no longer ran (at least officially)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top