Can't tell which side you're on based on this comment... is the number of potentially offended people greater and so it's a worse crime or is it more of a public event where the public should be entitled to express themselves?
While this isn't at all objective, my feelings on it all started to change when the BBC begun sneaking in pure praise for Charles/monarchy without any balance, having softened us up with the same thing but with the Queen for a few days, knowing no-one would disagree with that. It now feels political.
> Can't tell which side you're on based on this comment
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to pick a side first.
I have no involvement, don't know the facts, haven't followed the discussion. From this thread, I gathered that people are being obnoxious and so they whipped out an ancient law to round them up for. Is selective enforcement good? Probably not. Is it good to stop people from being obnoxious at any funeral? Generally yes. Is the situation GP was posing comparable (random funeral vs. the queen's funeral)? No. Is royalty good? I don't know, I've heard pros (stable face of a country, for foreign relations, without the same person always being in power) and cons (costs).
I'd rather argue about merit and facts than "sides" you're on
...but probably that doesn't fit in a comment anyone is going to read and upvote, so alas.
Sometimes I toy with the idea of having difficult discussions (best example might be nuclear fission energy) in the form of a wiki, where the contents embody the current best known facts, with conclusions logically following from facts. When you change a fact, it cascades and the "thus"es are marked as needing an update. If you don't care for the whole discussion, you can just read the conclusion and find a "because" that you think is wrong somewhere and argue about that. But then, who'd find that enjoyable?
