What is wrong with these people?

  • News
  • Thread starter Evo
  • Start date
  • #1
Evo
Mentor
23,923
3,251
What is the point of this?

Muslim radicals plan royal wedding demo

MAC said on its website its aim was to disrupt the April 29 wedding.

"We find that one of the biggest advocates of British imperialism, Flight Lieutenant Prince William, wishes to enjoy an extravagant wedding ceremony, ironically at the expense of the tax-payer," the website says.

"We promise that should they refuse, then the day which the nation has been dreaming of for so long will become a nightmare."

Last month, Emdadur Choudhury, 26, a member of MAC, was fined 50 pounds for burning a poppy on Armistice Day and shouting "British soldiers burn in hell" during rival protests by MAC and the EDL outside London's Royal Albert Hall.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_britain_wedding_police [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Lacy33
253
1
Personally I blame Peter O'Toole for even thinking he was better looking than Omar Sharif
or a better horseman. (Didn't O'Toole ride side saddle?)
Anyway, now that there has been an anouncement of pending doom. I think not a single flower peddle will be out of place and every big mouth will have a personal guard on them. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Proton Soup
214
1
sounds like he's trying to be ominous without making an actual threat. so a nightmare of busy work for security folk.
 
  • #4
Well Evo, the first two words of the article you're quoting are: "Muslim radicals" - I think THAT might be what's wrong with them! :smile:
 
  • #6
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,035
623
It sounds very Westboro-Baptist-Church-ish to me.

Maybe they use the same PR company :rolleyes:.
 
  • #7
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,025
297
... during rival protests by MAC and the EDL outside London's Royal Albert Hall.

Actually, letting a bunch of suicide bombers take out the EDL could solve two problems at the same time.

As for the IRA, one word: NORAID.
 
  • #8
rootX
465
4
It sounds very Westboro-Baptist-Church-ish to me.

Maybe they use the same PR company :rolleyes:.

:rofl:

I find this quite comical.
 
  • #9
alt
Gold Member
222
0
"We find that one of the biggest advocates of British imperialism, Flight Lieutenant Prince William, wishes to enjoy an extravagant wedding ceremony, ironically at the expense of the tax-payer," the website says.

LOL .. what's wrong with these people is, amongst other things, their boundless hypocracy and chauvinism.

I was witness to an Islamic wedding ceremony years ago, of a minor Kuwaiti royal, at the Ramses Hilton in Cairo.

The extravagance was breathtaking. The manner in which they treated the poor locals (cordoning off the whole block, beating boggle eyed destitute onlookers with sticks) and even the staff at the hotel, was appalling.

Later, I got talking to a couple of, ummm, wedding guest sheiks. They were boasting how the entire profligate affair was paid by the royal family, and how the cost was, well, didn't matter.
 
  • #10
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,216
22
It sounds very Westboro-Baptist-Church-ish to me.

Maybe they use the same PR company :rolleyes:.

Funny that you say that, considering this:

2unvdax.jpg


Something tells me the British people won't like these Americans telling them that God hates them and their queen.
 
  • #11
cristo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,140
74
Something tells me the British people won't like these Americans telling them that God hates them and their queen.

Hardly; the Queen is the head of the Anglican church, so I don't see how God can hate her. Oh, unless of course they're talking about a different God...
 
  • #12
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,216
22
Hardly; the Queen is the head of the Anglican church, so I don't see how God can hate her. Oh, unless of course they're talking about a different God...

Nah, they're talking about the Baptist God, not the Anglican God. I'm not sure on the differences, though. It's confusing having so many Gods around.
 
  • #13
Evo
Mentor
23,923
3,251
Funny that you say that, considering this:

2unvdax.jpg


Something tells me the British people won't like these Americans telling them that God hates them and their queen.
Maybe the UK won't be as afraid as the US to take action against these hate mongerers?
 
  • #14
JaredJames
2,817
22
Maybe the UK won't be as afraid as the US to take action against these hate mongerers?

Well I'm surprised they're being let in given the circumstances. They blocked that preacher who wanted to burn the quran.

They won't last two minutes if the EDL are there (English Defence League) - racist bunch of lager louts who will start a fight between members if there's no one else to kick off with. Finally a use for them.
 
  • #15
jhae2.718
Gold Member
1,182
20
Why is it that all the religious nuts want to go back to the 12th century?
 
  • #16
JaredJames
2,817
22
Why is it that all the religious nuts want to go back to the 12th century?

That's the only era they get to rule things.
 
  • #17
Jimmy Snyder
1,095
19
The British Royal family has devolved into little more than a tourist attraction. Even so, in my opinion it is a dangerous one. After all, disdain for kings and aristocracy is not surprising in an American. As for the wacko organizations horning in on the publicity, so what? Who isn't.
 
  • #18
JaredJames
2,817
22
The British Royal family has devolved into little more than a tourist attraction. Even so, in my opinion it is a dangerous one. After all, disdain for kings and aristocracy is not surprising in an American. As for the wacko organizations horning in on the publicity, so what? Who isn't.

I'm against the Royal Family, but as long as they bring the money in (and they have no power anyway) I let it go.

If they start costing more than we get out of them, it's time to give them the boot.
 
  • #19
WhoWee
210
0
Why is it that all the religious nuts want to go back to the 12th century?

The Crusades?
 
  • #20
JaredJames
2,817
22
Just read that the members of the WBC are banned from entering Britain. Anyone else seen this?

EDIT: I know it's a while back, but apparently it still stands.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Banned_from_entering_the_UK

Plus they need a permit to protest.

A quote I liked from another forum:
Even if they got into the country ... even if they got a permit to protest ... do they really think the 1.2 million people who are expected to be there to watch the procession, wouldn't stop them the minute they tried to hold up a picket sign? Deluded, they are.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,025
297
Maybe the UK won't be as afraid as the US to take action against these hate mongerers?

We don't have a written constitution. Sometimes, being able to make up the rules as you go along is a big advantage.

Technically, any public demonstration that could be interpreted as causing offence to somebody is illegal in the UK, though mostly the powers that be use some common sense, and if the protesters disagree about the level of common sense that was applied, they can have their day in court later.

Somehow I don't think anybody trying to wave that WB placard would be around for more than a couple of minutes. The police would probably have to arrest them for their own protection, to stop the royalists who are already camping out on the streets to get the best view tearing them apart (literally).
 
  • #22
rootX
465
4
I also vaguely recall students who attacked the royal car are banned from the wedding place.
 
  • #23
JaredJames
2,817
22
Well there are reports that the police are taking a very hard stance on protestors.

It is guaranteed that they won't allow these people within the region of the wedding.

Those aside, the public won't stand for it. They're getting quite feisty lately and given it's the WBC it definitely won't go down well.
 
  • #24
WhoWee
210
0
If they had invited President Obama - the US would have greatly enhanced security.
 
  • #25
JaredJames
2,817
22
If they had invited President Obama - the US would have greatly enhanced security.

Really?

Bear in mind the army will be there as well anyway.

Would his bodyguards be allowed to carry weapons?

Aside from that, I can't see them doing much more.
 
  • #26
WhoWee
210
0
Really?

Bear in mind the army will be there as well anyway.

Would his bodyguards be allowed to carry weapons?

Aside from that, I can't see them doing much more.

I guess we'll never know?:smile:
 
  • #27
Proton Soup
214
1
i'm still trying to figure out what is wrong with all these nuts going gaga over the royals and their weddings.
 
  • #28
cristo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
8,140
74
If they had invited President Obama - the US would have greatly enhanced security.

You realise that the invitees include most ambassadors, the entire royal family, the prime minister and several MPs. You think that the security is lax, or that it would be greatly enhanced if your president was invited? Please, don't be so arrogant.

i'm still trying to figure out what is wrong with all these nuts going gaga over the royals and their weddings.

So, because you don't appreciate the royal family, or enjoy royal weddings, anyone who does must be nuts? That's a very narrow minded view.
 
  • #29
WhoWee
210
0
You realise that the invitees include most ambassadors, the entire royal family, the prime minister and several MPs. You think that the security is lax, or that it would be greatly enhanced if your president was invited? Please, don't be so arrogant.

The focus of this thread is security concerns. The US Secret Service would have added another layer to the existing security - and (perhaps I shouldn't have said "greatly"?) enhanced it.

In an effort not to be "arrogant" - I'll take away the word "greatly". However, I do maintain the US Secret Service would have enhanced security.
 
  • #30
JaredJames
2,817
22
The focus of this thread is security concerns. The US Secret Service would have added another layer to the existing security - and (perhaps I shouldn't have said "greatly"?) enhanced it.

In an effort not to be "arrogant" - I'll take away the word "greatly". However, I do maintain the US Secret Service would have enhanced security.

The home office doesn't allow people who visit the UK to carry firearms, or more specifically, they wouldn't allow anyone but the closest to the president to be armed.

The majority of security won't be armed on the day (this includes UK police), there will be armed squads there and of course royal security. Out of all of them, the royal security officers (there's a name for them, some police squad) will be covering the main event, close to all 'high value' targets.

Outside of those few, there wouldn't be much more in the way of security, unless you consider a bunch of guys in well pressed suits to be a significant improvement.

The UK services will be dealing with security, outside 'forces' will only be allowed to act with their permission and where they say - so aside form extra man power, it's not going to add much to what's already there.

There certainly wouldn't be a swarm of secret service officers covering the site like a US event.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Proton Soup
214
1
So, because you don't appreciate the royal family, or enjoy royal weddings, anyone who does must be nuts? That's a very narrow minded view.

very well. what is the appeal? i'm sure there must be an intelligent reason.
 
  • #32
JaredJames
2,817
22
very well. what is the appeal? i'm sure there must be an intelligent reason.

What exactly do you have against them?

If nothing else (and for me), they make a nice amount of money for the UK. Surely a yank understands the appeal from that viewpoint?

They're part of our history and heritage. Unfortunately, we're not all from America where history only goes back a few hundred years, so these things are well ingrained for us.
 
  • #33
Proton Soup
214
1
What exactly do you have against them?

If nothing else (and for me), they make a nice amount of money for the UK. Surely a yank understands the appeal from that viewpoint?

They're part of our history and heritage. Unfortunately, we're not all from America where history only goes back a few hundred years, so these things are well ingrained for us.

so it's entertainment? i would understand it more if they danced or sang or acted.

i don't so much have anything against the brits and their royal adoration, i just don't want my television flooded with that mess here in the US.
 
  • #34
JaredJames
2,817
22
so it's entertainment? i would understand it more if they danced or sang or acted.

i don't so much have anything against the brits and their royal adoration, i just don't want my television flooded with that mess here in the US.

Don't take my last post as support of them. For me, they're only useful when the cash is flowing. Otherwise they're just waste money.

Yep, pretty much entertainment these days.

Your television! We have "a day of live coverage" non-stop on one channel.

To quote an old lady a reporter was trying to interview on the subject:
It's a young couple getting married, so what?
 
  • #35
Proton Soup
214
1
if it were confined to one channel, i would have no quarrel.
 

Suggested for: What is wrong with these people?

  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
532
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
483
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
307
Replies
5
Views
331
Replies
8
Views
457
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
514
Replies
4
Views
228
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
517
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
326
Top