What is wrong with these people?

  • News
  • Thread starter Evo
  • Start date
In summary: That's the only era they get to rule things.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.
  • #1
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
24,017
3,337
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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
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
It sounds very Westboro-Baptist-Church-ish to me.

Maybe they use the same PR company :rolleyes:.
 
  • #7
... 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
lisab said:
It sounds very Westboro-Baptist-Church-ish to me.

Maybe they use the same PR company :rolleyes:.

:rofl:

I find this quite comical.
 
  • #9
"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
lisab said:
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
Char. Limit said:
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
cristo said:
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
Char. Limit said:
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
Evo said:
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
Why is it that all the religious nuts want to go back to the 12th century?
 
  • #16
jhae2.718 said:
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
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
Jimmy Snyder said:
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
jhae2.718 said:
Why is it that all the religious nuts want to go back to the 12th century?

The Crusades?
 
  • #20
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
Evo said:
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
I also vaguely recall students who attacked the royal car are banned from the wedding place.
 
  • #23
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
If they had invited President Obama - the US would have greatly enhanced security.
 
  • #25
WhoWee said:
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
JaredJames said:
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
i'm still trying to figure out what is wrong with all these nuts going gaga over the royals and their weddings.
 
  • #28
WhoWee said:
If they had invited President Obama - the US would have greatly enhanced security.

You realize 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.

Proton Soup said:
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
cristo said:
You realize 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
WhoWee said:
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
cristo said:
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
Proton Soup said:
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
JaredJames said:
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
Proton Soup said:
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
if it were confined to one channel, i would have no quarrel.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top