News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:No, the King doesn't own all the swans in Britain by moremetadata on Sunday April 30, 2023 @10:53PM (#35768614)
But all politicians swear allegiance to the crown.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/swe...

So are british politicians representing the people who put them in office or once in office now represent the head of state, that is purely symbolic except when its not.

Plus God doesnt exist so yet again unelected people, namely religions have an undue influence and control over the laws of the land and science can prove this!

Everything about the control of society and individuals is so criminally deceitful but this doesnt just go on in the UK, it goes in one form or another ie difference religions in other countries.

Religions need to relinquish control and science needs to step up to the plate in a more meaningful matter.

What people dont realise is they are currently living through one of the most changable periods of human history what with all the scientific discoveries etc and its for this reasons that everyone gets spied on with their tech whethere they like it or not...

The king owning all the swans is profile raising as the british royal family and state will be looking to capitalise on the coronation so besides the ludicrous offer for people around the world to swear allegiance to the king exploiting the todays technology to reach so many gawkers, these preposterous stories of the british monarchy will continue in frequency in the lead up to the coronation.

Its a truly awful global event, on a par with the US presidential elections or the sexist pope getting voted in by a load of other sexist male influencers.

Some heriachies should cease to exist imo because they are out of date and past their sell by date!

Re:No, the King doesn't own all the swans in Britain by judge2020 on Sunday April 30, 2023 @11:14PM (#35768737)
> Plus God doesnt exist so yet again unelected people, namely religions have an undue influence and control over the laws of the land and science can prove this!

Their cover is that their power is vested from God.

Reality is that the power structure is the result of centuries of "biggest army diplomacy", ie. you get to conquer anything you want if you have the largest, most capable army. Even if you fail to see it, every country in the world grew and is operated based on their military prowess, and less that, their economic value to those with a large military (The US doesn't spend $2T a year on their military for nothing, even if a lot of it is funneled into US businesses).

Re:No, the King doesn't own all the swans in Britain by ElFitz on Monday May 01, 2023 @01:02AM (#35769262)
It’s always amusing to realise how few understand that laws and rules only apply to those they can be enforced upon.

It may not be the spirit of these rules and laws, but it is what happens in practice.

International law is the best example of that.

Re:No, the King doesn't own all the swans in Britain by anonymouskimmer on Monday May 01, 2023 @01:11PM (#35775882)
> International law is the best example of that.

The best example is what's happening in your own back yard. And there are plenty of examples there.

Re:No, the King doesn't own all the swans in Britain by ElFitz on Monday May 01, 2023 @03:11PM (#35777645)
My back yard?
Re:No, the King doesn't own all the swans in Britain by anonymouskimmer on Monday May 01, 2023 @05:32PM (#35779466)
In case you aren't English-native, this is a figure of speech: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+one%27s+own+back+yar...

Meaning that legal corruption or unfair application of the law probably exists within one's city or region. You don't have to look to international events. Seeing the corruption close by is more shocking than hearing about it far away.

Re:No, the King doesn't own all the swans in Britain by ElFitz on Tuesday May 02, 2023 @02:36AM (#35784128)
Oh!

I thought you perhaps were making assumptions about where I could be from and had some specific event from my supposed city / country in mind that I would have completely missed.

You intended a more generic meaning than that.