Eight stabbed and man held in 'major incident'

[Nearly Sane]

I read this in the paper this morning and while I'm not sure a personal appearance is expected, he is the head of state - where else would the head of state be completely silent (regardless of whether they have executive role or ceremonial) in the face of a significant challenge to the fabric and social cohesion of a country. Surely it is the job of a head of state to be seen and heard in response to such events.

But sadly our head of state only does half a job.

Don't disagree but I don't think the team 'cowardly absense' is any more than prickery  in the situation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Don't disagree but I don't think the team 'cowardly absense' is any more than prickery  in the situation.

Yup - step too far, but I have long considered that our head of state is absent too often under circumstances where you'd expect a head of state (including ceremonial ones) to speak on behalf of the country and to be seen. The words needn't be poltical but if someone claims to be the head of state then surely it is their job to act as that 'head'.

I think the first time this really struck me was after 9/11 - I can't remember the full details but there was a key memorial ceremony in New York where many countries were represented to show their grief and support for the victims and their solidarity with the USA. Other coutries were represented by their heads of state - our head of state was absent - Blair was there, but he wasn't head of state. Sometimes the monarchy needs to recognise that it is wants to be credible as a head of state (rather than some kind of theme park ride) then you have to do the head of state-y stuff.

[Nearly Sane]

Yup - step too far, but I have long considered that our head of state is absent too often under circumstances where you'd expect a head of state (including ceremonial ones) to speak on behalf of the country and to be seen. The words needn't be poltical but if someone claims to be the head of state then surely it is their job to act as that 'head'.

I think the first time this really struck me was after 9/11 - I can't remember the full details but there was a key memorial ceremony in New York where many countries were represented to show their grief and support for the victims and their solidarity with the USA. Other coutries were represented by their heads of state - our head of state was absent - Blair was there, but he wasn't head of state. Sometimes the monarchy needs to recognise that it is wants to be credible as a head of state (rather than some kind of theme park ride) then you have to do the head of state-y stuff.

The problem being if you do 'head of state-y' stuff, it immediately makes the monarchy obviously too political to have its fairy tale bits.

It's a mass of contradictions, and a massive contradiction.i think I prefer the Irish approach generally, as both US and the French approaches don't work for me for reverse reasons to our's.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not trying for a last word here bit of you're going to go on about what I mean by random after it's been explained multiple times, I'll leave you to it. There's been a horrendous atrocity that has lead to frightening bouts of violence which we both condemn, and I think we are discussing how best to deal with that. And yet, and I say this because I cannot see how to avoid moving the discussion on properly without our, I feel as if you are caught in a pattern of behaviour related to previous disagreements, and that we rub one and other up the wrong way generally. I may, if course, be incorrect in that, but given what this is about I'm not going to indulge any further because I'm perfectly well aware that what I have just said about you applies to me as well.

Sure we've had our run ins and sometimes that is a bit of good old fashioned to and fro debate.

But I genuinely feel you have trivialised the levels of organisation and the sub-culture that have driven the rioting. To dismiss the levels of organisation and even to use the word random in relation to someone who chose to travel 20 miles, march on a mosque and commit violoence against the police (and probably against those attending the mosque had the police not intervened) seems both naive and complacement to me. And he was one of hundreds (if not thousands who did the same over several nights up and down the country).

What we saw over the past few nights was organised and was not random. If we want to understand and prevent similar events occuring in the feature we need to recognise  just that - they the events were organised and not random.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem being if you do 'head of state-y' stuff, it immediately makes the monarchy obviously too political to have its fairy tale bits.

Other countries manage it - including ones with monarchies.

[Nearly Sane]

Sure we've had our run ins and sometimes that is a bit of good old fashioned to and fro debate.

But I genuinely feel you have trivialised the levels of organisation and the sub-culture that have driven the rioting. To dismiss the levels of organisation and even to use the word random in relation to someone who chose to travel 20 miles, march on a mosque and commit violoence against the police (and probably against those attending the mosque had the police not intervened) seems both naive and complacement to me. And he was one of hundreds (if not thousands who did the same over several nights up and down the country).

What we saw over the past few nights was organised and was not random. If we want to understand and prevent similar events occuring in the feature we need to recognise  just that - they the events were organised and not random.

And I genuinely think that you've overestimated the organisation, and that creates a problem in how you deal with it because it leads to trying to takes actions that won't work.

As already covered, It's my fear that this leads to the wrong strategy that is motivating here. So I don't see that's complacency.

[Nearly Sane]

Other countries manage it - including ones with monarchies.

And other countries also screw it up badly as the rest of my post covered.

[ProfessorDavey]

On a lighter note, a nurse friend of mine said that A&E on Saturday in the BRI treated nine people with dog bites. Many of them were in handcuffs.

Went for a endoscopy a couple of years ago and I think it was prisoner appointment day!! Seemed everyone else waiting was in handcuffs with two prison security staff. I guess you need two in case one needs to go to the toilet!!

Anyway - long wait for everyone and watching the developing interaction between the prison staff and the prisoner was interesting. Started with virtuall no interaction - only the prison staff talking to each other, but I guess boredom took over from professionalism and the banter increased as the hours rolled by.

[Nearly Sane]

Good that he's been suspended but wtaf!

https://news.sky.com/story/kent-labour-councillor-ricky-jones-suspended-after-telling-walthamstow-protest-fascists-need-to-have-throats-cut-13193298

[ProfessorDavey]

And I genuinely think that you've overestimated the organisation, and that creates a problem in how you deal with it because it leads to trying to takes actions that won't work.

As already covered, It's my fear that this leads to the wrong strategy that is motivating here. So I don't see that's complacency.

Quite the reverse - I think I (and it seems the police and other posters here) seem to understand these event were organised, using 2024 (rather than 2000 or 1980s) style organisation. And it is exactly that recognition that allows the police and others to prevent them now and in the future. You seems to be trivialising the levels of organisation as you seem to be using a benchmark from decades ago about what organisation looks like.

[Nearly Sane]

Went for a endoscopy a couple of years ago and I think it was prisoner appointment day!! Seemed everyone else waiting was in handcuffs with two prison security staff. I guess you need two in case one needs to go to the toilet!!

Anyway - long wait for everyone and watching the developing interaction between the prison staff and the prisoner was interesting. Started with virtuall no interaction - only the prison staff talking to each other, but I guess boredom took over from professionalism and the banter increased as the hours rolled by.

Doctor:
Can you fill that up for me?

Fletcher:
What, from here?

[Nearly Sane]

Quite the reverse - I think I (and it seems the police and other posters here) seem to understand these event were organised, using 2024 (rather than 2000 or 1980s) style organisation. And it is exactly that recognition that allows the police and others to prevent them now and in the future. You seems to be trivialising the levels of organisation as you seem to be using a benchmark from decades ago about what organisation looks like.

And I think it's the exact opposite. You're using the term 'trivialising' to imply that I don't think this is important or dangerous. I've made clear that I think the complete opposite in many posts including the one you've just replied to. The whole point is that it's easy, not that it's trivial.

[ProfessorDavey]

And I think it's the exact opposite. You're using the term 'trivialising' to imply that I don't think this is important or dangerous. I've made clear that I think the complete opposite in many posts including the one you've just replied to. The whole point is that it's easy, not that it's trivial.

Yet at every turn you dismiss the level of organisation that went into organising the disturbances. Your go-to word being 'overestimating'. What do you want - every attendee to have been sent a little 'I marched on a mosque' badge and informed of the time and place in a monthly newsletter sent by post from a mailing list held by the membership secretary, a guy called John in Royston!!

[jeremyp]

The problem being if you do 'head of state-y' stuff, it immediately makes the monarchy obviously too political to have its fairy tale bits.

It's a mass of contradictions, and a massive contradiction.i think I prefer the Irish approach generally, as both US and the French approaches don't work for me for reverse reasons to our's.

Our head of state is supposed to be completely apolitical. If he started commenting on the situation with anything more than the usual platitudes he'd get into serious trouble. I do not blame him for his silence. In this country, it is the job of the prime minister to do the leading and the pulling together and so on.

[Nearly Sane]

Our head of state is supposed to be completely apolitical. If he started commenting on the situation with anything more than the usual platitudes he'd get into serious trouble. I do not blame him for his silence. In this country, it is the job of the prime minister to do the leading and the pulling together and so on.

Aren't the 'usual platitudes' by default political, even if like an old coin worn down with usage?

Political heads of govt have a problem uniting countries on most occasions because they are political.

[ProfessorDavey]

Our head of state is supposed to be completely apolitical. If he started commenting on the situation with anything more than the usual platitudes he'd get into serious trouble.

But that is a bit of a movable feast isn't it. We often get platitudes when they are perhaps not needed, but words from the head of state when there is a threat to the social cohesion of the ... err ... state then words, even rather bland platitudes, are surely appropriate rather than silence.

I do not blame him for his silence. In this country, it is the job of the prime minister to do the leading and the pulling together and so on.

Now I know this is a UK issue, but (as with my example on 9/11) there are times when the head of state needs to lead the state - in times of great trauma to other countries for example. Their heads of state (even ceremonial ones) tend to do this for us, yet ours too often seems to consider themselves above this. I think that comes across as rather arrogant I'm afraid.

The role of the PM is different and where there are other countries where their is a political PM-style leader and a ceremonial head of state their heads of state still seem to do stuff that ours won't.

[jeremyp]

Aren't the 'usual platitudes' by default political, even if like an old coin worn down with usage?

Maybe. If so, it's a good thing he isn't saying anything, isn't it.

Political heads of govt have a problem uniting countries on most occasions because they are political.

In this country, in times of great crisis, they usually manage to do it. The prime example would be Churchill during WW2.

[jeremyp]

But that is a bit of a movable feast isn't it. We often get platitudes when they are perhaps not needed, but words from the head of state when there is a threat to the social cohesion of the ... err ... state then words, even rather bland platitudes, are surely appropriate rather than silence.

I don't think the social cohesion of the state is under threat.

Now I know this is a UK issue, but (as with my example on 9/11) there are times when the head of state needs to lead the state - in times of great trauma to other countries for example. Their heads of state (even ceremonial ones) tend to do this for us, yet ours too often seems to consider themselves above this. I think that comes across as rather arrogant I'm afraid.

The role of the PM is different and where there are other countries where their is a political PM-style leader and a ceremonial head of state their heads of state still seem to do stuff that ours won't.

When we have a genuine existential crisis, I'll remember that.

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe. If so, it's a good thing he isn't saying anything, isn't it.In this country, in times of great crisis, they usually manage to do it. The prime example would be Churchill during WW2.

See 'on most occasions'

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think the social cohesion of the state is under threat.

I think the last week has suggested just that - we've seen a pretty major threat to social cohesion. Let's hope that this is temporary.

When we have a genuine existential crisis, I'll remember that.

Is that comment in relation to 9/11? But it isn't just existential threats though is it. I think there is a mismatch on attendance at major state events. Look at which heads of state (inlcuding monarchs) attended the Queen's funeral and then ask yourself - did the Queen attend an equivalent funeral of a head of state (including a monarch) when they'd died. And the answer is typically, no.

[jeremyp]

I think the last week has suggested just that - we've seen a pretty major threat to social cohesion. Let's hope that this is temporary.

I don't agree. I think we have witnessed a relative few people getting angry and violent. The response has generally been overwhelming. Threats to the fabric of society are just rhetoric from the people who wish to torment trouble.

Is that comment in relation to 9/11? But it isn't just existential threats though is it. I think there is a mismatch on attendance at major state events. Look at which heads of state (inlcuding monarchs) attended the Queen's funeral and then ask yourself - did the Queen attend an equivalent funeral of a head of state (including a monarch) when they'd died. And the answer is typically, no.

The Queen was pretty elderly by the time she died and wasn't really able to travel, but she would normally send a representative (typically the Prince of Wales).

[jeremyp]

The BBC has a summary of sentences handed out so far.

I think the man ewho was done for possession of cocaine was probably even more stupid than the rest. He took a class A drug to somewhere where he knew there would be a high police presence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm23y7l01v8o

[ProfessorDavey]

The Queen was pretty elderly by the time she died and wasn't really able to travel, but she would normally send a representative (typically the Prince of Wales).

She wasn't that old in 2001 - she was younger than Biden was when he attended her funeral in an official capacity as head of state.

But I think as a matter of (one sided) protocol, she (and I presume now Charles) do not attend the funerals of others in an official capacity, even if those 'others' are of equal status - i.e. also heads of state. So even though the presidents of USA, France, Germany etc, etc attended her funeral in an official capacity as head of state she wouldn't have attended theirs even if they had died in office and/or had a state funeral.

[Nearly Sane]

She wasn't that old in 2001 - she was younger than Biden was when he attended her funeral in an official capacity as head of state.

But I think as a matter of (one sided) protocol, she (and I presume now Charles) do not attend the funerals of others in an official capacity, even if those 'others' are of equal status - i.e. also heads of state. So even though the presidents of USA, France, Germany etc, etc attended her funeral in an official capacity as head of state she wouldn't have attended theirs had they died in office.

Not convinced 'she was younger than Biden when...' is the best of arguments generally

[Nearly Sane]

Good that he's been suspended but wtaf!

https://news.sky.com/story/kent-labour-councillor-ricky-jones-suspended-after-telling-walthamstow-protest-fascists-need-to-have-throats-cut-13193298

So anything from those claiming that the counter protests were OK?