I saw the news today...oboy!

I saw that Prince Charles was smacked across the face with a carnation by a woman protesting against the War in Afghanistan! The police took her away. They said the Prince was not hurt!

I could almost imagine that the protester could have been tracey! ;)

Edit [It was a carnation and not a rose!]

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: skywalker ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:
I saw the news today...oboy!

I saw that Prince Charles was smacked across the face with a rose by a woman protesting against the War in Afghanistan! The police took her away. They said the Prince was not hurt!

I could almost imagine that the protester could have been tracey! ;) <hr></blockquote>

It was Tracey, and she trod on his foot with her pointy boot as well, thus giving the purrrfect demonstration of peaceful protest in action.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:
I saw the news today...oboy!

I saw that Prince Charles was smacked across the face with a carnation by a woman protesting against the War in Afghanistan! The police took her away. They said the Prince was not hurt!

I could almost imagine that the protester could have been tracey! ;)
<hr></blockquote>

Just curious, has the Royal Family done more than offer sympathy to the American people? I haven't seen anything about their outright support of the war in Afghanistan. I don't doubt it given the official position of the government, but I haven't seen it.

Seems PM Blair or elected officials would be the one(s) they wanted to "carnation".

Isn't the Royal Family just a figure head of the government, with no true power? (no offense intended)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Just curious, has the Royal Family done more than offer sympathy to the American people? I haven't seen anything about their outright support of the war in Afghanistan. I don't doubt it given the official position of the government, but I haven't seen it.

Seems PM Blair or elected officials would be the one(s) they wanted to "carnation".

Isn't the Royal Family just a figure head of the government, with no true power? (no offense intended)<hr></blockquote>

The Royal Family are more a tourist attraction than anything else, these days!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


The Royal Family are more a tourist attraction than anything else, these days!<hr></blockquote>

Why the negative reaction? Have the Royal's come out in favor of military action in Afghanistan?

Is it that they are the "figure heads" of government or have they actually spoken out in favor of the actions?

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Why the negative reaction? Have the Royal's come out in favor of military action in Afghanistan?

Is it that they are the "figure heads" of government or have they actually spoken out in favor of the actions?

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]<hr></blockquote>
It's not a negative reaction Ronn. The Royals are meant to be apolitical. They are the figurehead of the country rather than of the government. They certainly have no power - we fought a Civil War to achieve that. Lizzie has spoken out about terrorism but in reality she has to say what Tony tells her to say.

their main purposes are to be a tourist attraction and to represent the country rather than the government of the day. That way dodgy foreign politicians can be received without it seeming that Britain endorses them. Likewise foreign leaders can make a state visit to the
Queen without it looking like they are dealing with the government.

BTW the sixteen year old girl that whacked Charlie was in Latvia. She faces a prison sentence of up to 15 years for injuring a foreign dignitary.

That's just sad. A 16 year old going to prison for making a political statement that did not hurt him. She'd be 31 when she gets out. I hope the don't seriously prosecute this girl. That would be a gross injustice IMO.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


It was Tracey, and she trod on his foot with her pointy boot as well, thus giving the purrrfect demonstration of peaceful protest in action.<hr></blockquote>

Seriously? It was Tracey?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:
That's just sad. A 16 year old going to prison for making a political statement that did not hurt him. She'd be 31 when she gets out. I hope the don't seriously prosecute this girl. That would be a gross injustice IMO.<hr></blockquote>

Skywalker, aren't politicians, royals and public personas entitled to protection from the public - nuisance, pain, shock and murder?

If adequate deterrants were in place perhaps we'd still have John Lennon and Versace for a start. Granted it's harsh. I doubt she'll get 15 years if anything at all, but what person would attempt even a mock assault of a public figure in these times?

It's asking for trouble.

If I were Charlie I wouldn't want to have to anticipate a carnation in the eye or a pie in the face every time I met people; and if I had a problem with him, I wouldn't touch him with anything.

That said, I think the concept of a royal family and aristocracy is pretty lame. One step away from casteism... ;) :D

C'mon Donut. :D How are those ribs?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Yorick:


Skywalker, aren't politicians, royals and public personas entitled to protection from the public - nuisance, pain, shock and murder?

<hr></blockquote>

Huh. That one works both ways. I'd like some protection from creeping Blair's creeping bloody privatisation program, personally... The way it's going, by the time I'm 60, medical care will consist of a handup into the nearest dustbin, unless I happen to strike it rich, that is...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Neb:


Seriously? It was Tracey?<hr></blockquote>

hehe, no, but I bet she wishes it had been her........ :)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:


Huh. That one works both ways. I'd like some protection from creeping Blair's creeping bloody privatisation program, personally... The way it's going, by the time I'm 60, medical care will consist of a handup into the nearest dustbin, unless I happen to strike it rich, that is...<hr></blockquote>

C'mon Cheetah! Not the same thing. You yourself said one man doesn't constitute a nation. ;) Privatising your health care isn't the same thing as being toffed on the face. It's a governmental policy and you know it.

Australia has been heading towards that direction for a while. There are arguments for and against privatisation. I lean towards public ownership but heck. I'm a part of a society. No way I'm going to hit those poor suckers we vote in, in the face with anything. Better them in the thankless job than me.

Matter of fact I'm off to vote now.

I'm pretty sure Australia will have at least 95% voter turnout. ;)

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: Yorick ]</p>

The Liberal Party/National Party coaltion romped home fot their third term.

The minority party "The Greens" improved their share! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Labor, though governing every state, remain in opposition.

The racist "One Nation" look decimated.

The Australian Democrats, led by a female GenXer remained static.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:
I saw the news today...oboy!

I saw that Prince Charles was smacked across the face with a carnation by a woman protesting against the War in Afghanistan! The police took her away. They said the Prince was not hurt!

I could almost imagine that the protester could have been tracey! ;)

Edit [It was a carnation and not a rose!]

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: skywalker ]<hr></blockquote>

Apparently she misunderstood him. What he actually said was 'all I want in life is a CORONATION'

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:
That's just sad. A 16 year old going to prison for making a political statement that did not hurt him. She'd be 31 when she gets out. I hope the don't seriously prosecute this girl. That would be a gross injustice IMO.<hr></blockquote>

Sad yes, but so are political statements made using violence :(

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Sad yes, but so are political statements made using violence :( <hr></blockquote>

This was violent?

It could have been a Black Jack and not a carnation. ;)

The girl had no right to strike at the Prince.

The Prince should be smarter than to make himself available for target at such close range during these trying times for everyone.

Still, I am with you on the lenience side of "punishment".
More than 6 months would be harsh.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:


This was violent?<hr></blockquote>

Yes! Physical assault is violent. Even worse when you only want to make a point.

If someone walked up to my wife and hit her in the face, regardless of their reason, I would be happy to show them what violence can lead to.

Maybe not as deadly as an unexploded cluster bomb, but is this ok? Because they're making a point? I don't think so.

Has the Royal Family come out in support of the bombing in Afghanistan? I still haven't heard. If they have, it's still not anyone's right to target them for something they have no control over. If they haven't, then isn't he an unjustly attacked innocent?

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

Excuse me! She was 16 years old. I think a little perspective has been lost in this particular incident.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:
Excuse me! She was 16 years old. I think a little perspective has been lost in this particular incident.<hr></blockquote>


It still doesn't change things. If she was old enough to understand why she was doing it (which I seriously doubt), she should be old enough to face the consequences. Maybe she should have been taught somethings are unacceptable.

I don't want to see her in prison until she's 30, but I also don't want any adolescents inspired by her actions.

Is what she did ok because she's 16? Is it ok because of the "weapon" she chose? Is it ok at all? When do protests become violent?

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

Would 6 months mere probation deter from taking another possibly more forceful shot later in her life?
I think 6 months in a detention center, with the knowledge of what she faces in an adult prison ought to clue her in. To know that she is facing 30 years, 6 months should be a relief!
If she had hit him with brass knuckles or stabbed him, would it be the same because of her age?
I was 16 once and I remember being old enough to know I was responsible for my actions. I probably would have done it myself. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Donut:

...They are the figurehead of the country rather than of the government. They certainly have no power - we fought a Civil War to achieve that....<hr></blockquote>

Sorry Donut, but you are wrong there. You need to study our constitution a little more. The queen still retains some impressive powers which, amongst other things, include:
a) the unilateral right to suspend/dissolve parliament
b) the right to 'fire' the prime mininster
c) the right to refuse a newly elected prime minister his office
d) the right to grant a pardon for all crimes (including treason)
etc. etc. etc...

The monarchy still has a lot of serious powers. Simply because they havn't been exercised for a long time does not mean that they don't exist...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Skunk:


Sorry Donut, but you are wrong there. You need to study our constitution a little more. The queen still retains some impressive powers which, amongst other things, include:
a) the unilateral right to suspend/dissolve parliament
b) the right to 'fire' the prime mininster
c) the right to refuse a newly elected prime minister his office
d) the right to grant a pardon for all crimes (including treason)
etc. etc. etc...

The monarchy still has a lot of serious powers. Simply because they havn't been exercised for a long time does not mean that they don't exist...<hr></blockquote>

She may have these powers but if she ever tried to exercise any one of them she would be sacked.

A quick update. The girl has been now been charged with the lesser charge of hooliganism following a personal appeal from Charlie. She now faces a sentence of two years if found guilty.

I posted this in another thread but I think the following comment sums it up. Found it in a very odd magazine:

Latvian president has accused the girl of being mentally unstable. In the bad old days of Latvia dissidents would be locked away and declared to be suffering from mental illness. Lebedyeva is facing a 15 year prison sentence. Funny how things turn out.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Donut:
A quick update. The girl has been now been charged with the lesser charge of hooliganism following a personal appeal from Charlie. She now faces a sentence of two years if found guilty.<hr></blockquote>


Glad to see Prince Charles did the right thing.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:



Glad to see Prince Charles did the right thing.<hr></blockquote>

Well of course he did - it's all in breeding you know ;)

Here's an update on the 15 year old Latvian girl who "carnationed" Prince Charles.

After his request for leniency, she won't be charge with anything, but could face disciplinary measures. I didn't want her to go to jail for 15 years, which she faced on the charge of assaulting a foreign dignitary, but I certainly hope she doesn't go unpunished.

Full Story from The Guardian.

Saturday December 15, 2001 2:17 PM

A Latvian teenager who slapped the Prince of Wales across the cheek with a carnation will not be charged with assault.

Sixteen-year-old Alina Lebedeva lurched at Prince Charles with a bunch of flowers during his recent visit to the Baltic state.

She was arrested and spent three days in custody before being released to her parents.

Alina had been shouting her opposition to the war in Afghanistan and to Latvia joining Nato. Police said she might be charged with assaulting a foreign dignitary, which carries a sentence of up to 15 years in jail.

Prince Charles made a plea for lenience.

The Latvian president, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, who was with the prince in Riga at the time, immediately apologised. Lebedeva and her family also sent letters of apology to Prince Charles.

A spokesman for the Latvian prosecutor general's office said the teenager would not be charged, although she could still face disciplinary action.

Sanctions she could face include being sent to a special reform school.

This is the kind of thing that really gets me. People inspired to act out, but not inspired to act out using reason. What did Charles have to do with Afghanistan or NATO?

I can't believe you seriously want a young girl punished when she obviously did not have a full understanding of what she was doing. She was trying to make an anti-war statement by showing her disgust for a symbol of Britain, not trying to hurt olf charli boy. I'm sure most of us British found it pretty funny anyway.

And by the way Donut, there is only one club in north London....Enfield. I hope you follow the ryman league as coming from Aldershot I enjoy watching them beat Enfield on a regular basis.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Smeagol:
I can't believe you seriously want a young girl punished when she obviously did not have a full understanding of what she was doing. She was trying to make an anti-war statement by showing her disgust for a symbol of Britain, not trying to hurt olf charli boy. I'm sure most of us British found it pretty funny anyway.

And by the way Donut, there is only one club in north London....Enfield. I hope you follow the ryman league as coming from Aldershot I enjoy watching them beat Enfield on a regular basis.<hr></blockquote>

I can't believe you wouldn't want someone punished for assault. Just because someone has a cause doesn't mean they can do anything they want. What if she wanted to make a point by slapping your mother? Would that be ok?

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


I can't believe you wouldn't want someone punished for assault. Just because someone has a cause doesn't mean they can do anything they want. What if she wanted to make a point by slapping your mother? Would that be ok?

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]<hr></blockquote>

Ronn, it was a flower in the face. Charlie will probably just about survive the experience. What Smeagol meant was that punishing her will serve no purpose, she is far too young IMO to have thought it out fully. That much is plain simply in her choice of target.

Nice to see you back here BTW! :D

I know what he was trying to say, but I have to ask, should she go unpunished? Is that really ok? Because she's young? I don't think so.

Obviously Charles will survive, and even asked for leniency. As the article states, she will not be charged, but is there really anything wrong with punishment for wrong doing?

Thanks for the "welcome back". The holidays really took time to recover from..lol. Sad to see the forum's closing though :(

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

You've definately got a point that there should be punishment for wrong doing Ronnybaby, but I just thought peeps were going way over the top, saying she should go to a detention center for 6 months. I don't really think it was that big a deal (I'm sure it just bounced off his stiff upper lip) and allthough I think we should keep our mums out of this, I'm pretty sure my mum wouldn't press charges if she was "Carnationed".

P.S. I hope you don't object to being called Ronnybaby, I just feel it's less formal.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Smeagol:
allthough I think we should keep our mums out of this, I'm pretty sure my mum wouldn't press charges if she was "Carnationed".
<hr></blockquote>

I think my one would! (ummm - lets properly explain the comedy in that shall we. Everyone, meet my brother Smeagol. Smeagol, meet the IW crowd.)

I don't see what purpose a punishment can serve in this instance. It can't be to help the girl in question - seeing as she was on the front of every major newspaper across the globe she must have realised it was the wrong thing to do.

Possibly it might serve a purpose in deterring others. But really are there that many people who are going to go out and hit the Prince of Wales in the face with flowers to protest about a war he has nothing to do with?

Basically I think there would be no gain to punishing the girl, and it might seriuosly effect her life due to the criminal record etc that goes with it. So in general I don't think punishment is a good idea.

"ronnybaby" doesn't bother me at all :D

But the idea that anyone can commit a violent act without punishment does. As I stated in the thread, I don't think she she should face the maximum sentance (or anything close), but I also don't think she should be completely forgiven.

Having your picture on the cover of the paper isn't really punishment.

The fact that most the world thinks she's a fool that didn't know what she was doing is punishment enough though.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Smeagol:
The fact that most the world thinks she's a fool that didn't know what she was doing is punishment enough though.<hr></blockquote>

What she's caused people to think about her, quite honestly, isn't punishment enough. We all have to live with our actions and their consequences. If she'd been caught shoplifting, the embarrassment of being caught wouldn't be enough punishment.

Again, as I've said in this thread, I didn't want her to serve any time and was glad to see Charles ask for leniency. The charges being dropped didn't bother me either, but I do think she needs some sort of punishment like community service and probation.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>