It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Prince Charles's car attacked

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by maintainright
 


Sorry but do you understand how 'kettling' works? Leaving when it gets rough isn't half as easy as you make it out to be, especially when the police say one way is clear for exiting, only to reinforce that area, batter anyone trying to leave and then send in the cavalry.

As for charles, seems like yet another tasty media opportunity to me. Are the royal security so inept and incapable of liaising with the police farce that they can't find a protest free route to their little party? I lolled hard at his womans face. Perhaps they don't 'deserve' it per se, but they don't deserve any of their hereditary entitlements as far as I'm concerned.




posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Look at this interesting coverage. I'd be interested in hearing from our UK ATSers to get their impressions of both the source and the material in the article:

www.thisislondon.co.uk...



The Duchess of Cornwall was physically attacked through an open car window as thugs rampaged in London, the Standard can reveal today.

[...]

A police source said one of the car's rear windows was opened in error as tuition fee protesters moved in.


How strange is that?! Can these people be that incompetent or were they panicked?? They are very lucky no one was hurt, particularly the protesters.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


This really upset me, and I am no fan of the royal family. I find the OP very insulting.

You wouldn’t have wrote “yay look old people being threatened by yobs” so why is this any different.

It was the picture of the Prince of Whales holding Camilla’s hand that started to pull at my heart strings, they really don’t have anything to do with the new universities fees bill. The only thing these students have done is make all of the rest of us students in the UK look like mindless thugs.

Sadly the events of yesterday showed this to be true, these students have gave us all a bad name how can we change anything when we behave like football hooligans.

These new fees are bad for everyone and its just a really bad idea. But what is also a equally bad idea is starting a riot, that’s not going to help our cause.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jonskie
 


Clearly you don’t have a university education, no problem with that myself but you really are in no position to judge us

However i will tell my fellow “layabout scum student” friends to ignore you next time you go into A&E with a heart attack, need a lawyer, a house built, need a social worker, need a financial adviser, need a teacher for your kids , need a engineer and so on. Society needs university educated people, this is a privilege for both the individual receiving the education and society, this privilege should not just be available to the rich elites but to all individuals who deserve it. Regardless of how rich mummy and daddy are.

People like you need to realise that you need graduates and these new fee’s are going to hurt everyone in the long run.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I don't think you guys understand how incompetent the British are when it comes to VIP protection. While they do have dedicated security it pales in comparison to our US Secret Service. The London Metropolitan Police Royalty Protection Branch only has about 600 officers as opposed to almost 5,000 US Secret Service special agents and uniformed officers. That's 600 officers responsible for everything from close protection for 20+ members of the Royal Family and uniformed officers manning gates, guard posts, security control rooms, etc in a dozen different Royal residences. The motorcade is provided by a separate group pf Metropolitan Police officers from the Special Escort Group. All officers assigned to both groups are armed with Glock 17 pistols, batons, CS spray, etc. Heckler & Koch G36 rifles and MP5 submachine guns are available for use in emergencies.

If you look closely at the video you will see that his car is being followed by a 2nd car; that car was filled with Royalty Protection officers, additionally the driver and front seat passenger in the Prince's car were also Royalty Protection officers. Why they reacted so horribly (lowering windows, not hitting the gas and speeding off, etc) is beyond me. It's pretty obvious that they need to take a few lessons from our Secret Service as well as a massive increase in manpower (they need at least 1,000 officers up from the current 600). I feel that the British Army's Household Division and the SAS also need to play a role in Royalty security as well. Currently the police protect the persons of the Royal Family while the Army protects the buildings/grounds and the institution of the monarchy.
edit on 10-12-2010 by ChrisF231 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


Yeah because if this happened in America, your secret service guys would have shot and killed all the rioters only making things worse.

No we’re not incompetent we only have the ability to show restraint.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


kevinunknown

Good to see you on here !!!

I hear what you say about 'Graduates' in society but I am seriously wondering if maybe there are too many wanting to study for degrees ? Is the increase in degree level education Diluting the level of knowledge acquired....

As I have said on another post somewhere........ Why should a student not Expect to invest in their future education as an entreprenuer would invest his / her own money to create wealth, employment and a source for taxation......?

Regards

PDUK

edit on 10-12-2010 by PurpleDog UK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 


Well hello.

I am still about on ATS but ironically enough most of my time has been tied up at Uni.

I agree that there are some university courses that society could probably do without, for example we have thousands of people studding photography, but no jobs for photographers so what is the point in spending money training them. Also I don’t think a photography degree is as advantageous for society compared to say a nursing degree or a engineering degree. As i see it we should reduce the number of people going to university to study subjects that don’t have a direct benefit for society.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


kevinunknown

Couldn't agree more with what you said..

Cheers
PDUK



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
I don't think you guys understand how incompetent the British are when it comes to VIP protection. While they do have dedicated security it pales in comparison to our US Secret Service.


Tell that to Mr Lincoln, Mr Garfield, Mr McKinley or Mr Kennedy, I know we had Spencer Perceval back in 1812, but that's still 4 - 1 to you in failing to keep TPTB safe.

edit on 10/12/10 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I do not advocate the violence against the Royals.

The royals are useless and just suck up tax money to keep them afloat ... and the kiddies who egged them are just as useless for demanding entitlements from a broken government instead of going out to get jobs to pay for their own education. Both sides are wrong in their own way.

That being said, I saw the pictures of the incident and the look on Camella's face. Guess when she stole Diana's husband and slithered into the palace she didn't think she'd ever get egged.



Originally posted by Dorian Soran
You do realize that the royal family rules over NO ONE, correct?

If they live off your tax money ... they may not 'rule' you but they sure can make slaves of you.


edit on 12/10/2010 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


"oh a MASS RIOT you say??... oh Jolly Good.. what fun!.. ..say.. DRIVER... i say DRIVER.. could you be a dear chap and take a detour out through the violent masses in the midst of a ruthless riot clashing with the police?
what's that? oh our intelligence services have warned against traveling in the city.. in this area.. during this scheduled protest?
bah! let us see the sights! jolly good.. on through the crowd.. there we go...."


yeaaaaa right...

this is all theatrics.

and if you believe this wasn't planned for newsworthydom then i suggest you stop and say "hmmmm" to yourself and rethink what you're being fed.

-



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by prevenge
 
I very much agre with your comments. There are one hundred andone different roads they could have took but the police let drive into the demonstration. Lets be totally clear here. When you have an ultra-rich and privelidged couple flaunt theirselves in the face of those people who,rightly or wrongly as down-trodden what the hell did the police think would happen. A very, very good p.r. exercise. Object achieved. Threaten the royal family and put a downer on all protesters. I think most ATSers are american so think hard on why you fought for independence. I'll give you a clue. British Royalty.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   


think hard on why you fought for independence. I'll give you a clue. British Royalty.

Actually no. We were upset with the policies of the British government ex. "taxation without representation". Much like the modern British overseas territories we had no representation in the British parliament, but were still subject to certain acts of the British parliament.

Most Americans had nothing against the monarchy simply because King George III was a ceremonial figurehead - just like today. Most Americans dident even want to become independent, we just wanted to be treated as first class British subjects, instead of second class British subjects. In fact, many of the founding members of the Continental Congress proposed a system very similar to a modern British Commonwealth ream where the British monarch would remain head of state, but with an American prime minister as the head of government for the confederation of the 13 American colonies. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton in particular were opposed to a republic. Had you Brits simply let us elect people to Parliament it's very likely that the 13 colonies would have evolved into a constituent country like England, Scotland, or Wales.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 
Chris I agree with your reasoning but you make it too black and white,which it was not. I probably over simplyfied my statement about royalty. you must realise there is and never was a difference between the ruling class and monarchy ie the royal family is the head of the aristocracy. In England and the rest of Europe when people started moving to America was controlled by a cabal of aristocracies for the sake of this discussion I will callthem the privelidged. Without going into too much rhetoric, 90% of land and money was owned by this cabal, this equated to land +money=power=control through government. The vast majority of people moving to America were doing so to escape this cycle of tyrany ie at that time you either worked for the privelidged or worked servicing the other workers. There was no other alternative. Those people who moved to America, Which for now we'll call "the settlers", did so because they were in a no win situation. Were never paid enough money to buy land and better themselves. Even if they had enough money the cabal made sure no land was available. In moving to America thay could live not by the leave of the privelidged but by their own sweat carve a life for themselves. For a start the English rulers were'nt bothered but when it was seen America was vast in riches and land they wanted the ruling of it. So they claimed it for themselves (not withstanding the episode with the French) the settlers seeing that all their efforts would be for nothing. Not in a million years was the English government ie the aristocracy were ever going to allow any representation. So that was just a paper exercise.Believe me when I tell you the majority of settlers emigrated for the very reason to escape the yolk of this ruling cabal. I think in your country it's called "old money". Just as the settlers moved to America so did a section of the ruling class. These were the people that did'nt want a split from English rule and if you look real close you still have them ruling you.Appologies if I have been long winded but there were a lot more minor matters that went into the fight for independance but the overiding factor was freedom from oppressive rule.



new topics




 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join