Two Powder Missiles thrown at PM @ House of Commons

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...135936,00.html

Fathers 4 Justice claim responsibility.

[Ramrod]

Wow! How cr*p is their security?
edit....http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...portaltop.html

[Chris W]

just heard on news24 that the powder was benign... i am sure that it will all be forgetten about by tomorrow!

[Flubflow]

I found it ironic that on TV, Sky News, broadcasting to millions of people, took an early dismissive stance against Farthers 4 Justice in that this kind of thing it would not help their cause. They have been going on about the whole episode the last hour. Later, once the fuss about security and potential terrorism has died down, I expect the news channels to be interviewing representitives of Fathers 4 Justice thus I think proving that it was a very worthwile stunt indeed.

Surely, doing something harmless but very high profile is much better than sending letter bombs to people (and other sick things like what the Animal Rights people do)?

[Enterian]

Wasn't Russ was it?

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by Flubflow

I found it ironic that on TV, Sky News, broadcasting to millions of people, took an early dismissive stance against Farthers 4 Justice in that this kind of thing it would not help their cause.

Well it won't. The government are making a big deal right now about parent's rights and will be having some high profile meetings with representatives of some of the pressure groups that lobby for father's rights. All this does is effectively block this group from any such discussions - which means they are pretty useless as a lobby group.

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by andygrif

Well it won't. The government are making a big deal right now about parent's rights and will be having some high profile meetings with representatives of some of the pressure groups that lobby for father's rights. All this does is effectively block this group from any such discussions - which means they are pretty useless as a lobby group.

and back on topic , the scary thing is , it could have anthrax or anything , not worried about blair , more worried about the police etc around him

Originally Posted by andygrif

Well it won't. The government are making a big deal right now about parent's rights and will be having some high profile meetings with representatives of some of the pressure groups that lobby for father's rights. All this does is effectively block this group from any such discussions - which means they are pretty useless as a lobby group.

I beg to differ. Fathers 4 Justice has mounted a prolonged and highly visible publicity campaign that has begun to focus public attention on their issue. They have done so by causing disruption, yet without putting anyone's life in danger, thus not alienating public opinion. Our modern political system is highly sensitive to public opinion and media attention. The politicians may whinge that these tactics will only result in them being excluded from the table, but history shows otherwise. The Suffragettes took similar direct action (and more extreme measures in many cases) and in the end they got what they wanted. I don't see this as any different. The threats and warnings about excluding F4J from any talks are really quite a clumsy attemt to get them to put a stop to their really rather effective pubilcity campaign.

[punky]

I side point, but probably worth a mention, as I forgot to post it before (but I did blog about it). But does anyone remember at the London Marathon this year, when they interviewed a runner? As soon as he said he was from F4J, the feed mysteriously cut out, and never went back to him? I don't rememeber any other feeds cutting out, and it was the beeb, who tried to vilify the spiderman guy on Tower Bridge. Funny coincidence, isn't it?

I think they did lose a lot of public support though, mostly men because they were trying to drive through the city, because of that stunt. Which is heart-breaking because they deserve everything they are campaigning for.

[zovat]

Originally Posted by towny

I beg to differ. Fathers 4 Justice has mounted a prolonged and highly visible publicity campaign that has begun to focus public attention on their issue. They have done so by causing disruption, yet without putting anyone's life in danger, thus not alienating public opinion. Our modern political system is highly sensitive to public opinion and media attention. The politicians may whinge that these tactics will only result in them being excluded from the table, but history shows otherwise. The Suffragettes took similar direct action (and more extreme measures in many cases) and in the end they got what they wanted. I don't see this as any different. The threats and warnings about excluding F4J from any talks are really quite a clumsy attemt to get them to put a stop to their really rather effective pubilcity campaign.

I would have to agre with you on this Towny, whilst the government will make a fuss, and say that they will exclude the group from future talks, there is little that they can realisticly do.
The group has not caused harm, nor has it broken the law (I could be wrong here, as technically it could be classed as an assault ). Therefore the government has no real grounds to exclude them.
This group has done more in recent months to bring the issues of fathers rights into the public eye than any other group. It would be political suicide to exclude them from discussions on this issue.
In recent times, the only groups that have been excluded from talks are those that have publicly and unrelentingly aligned themselves with "Terrorist" (or illegal paramilitary - to use another name) organisations.

As always my 2c

[paulyoung666]

apologies if i am wrong , is this thread about fathers for justice or ther security of the PM , just wondered

Originally Posted by punky

I side point, but probably worth a mention, as I forgot to post it before (but I did blog about it). But does anyone remember at the London Marathon this year, when they interviewed a runner? As soon as he said he was from F4J, the feed mysteriously cut out, and never went back to him? I don't rememeber any other feeds cutting out, and it was the beeb, who tried to vilify the spiderman guy on Tower Bridge. Funny coincidence, isn't it?

I think they did lose a lot of public support though, mostly men because they were trying to drive through the city, because of that stunt. Which is heart-breaking because they deserve everything they are campaigning for.

I wan't aware of that. But on the issue of the London Bridge stunt, it's worth recording that he was acquitted by a jury of causing a nuisance, and the police notes of the incident made clear that their decision to close roads was based on building a case against the protestor, rather than public safety. Disgraceful behaviour by the police, IMO.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3715273.stm

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

apologies if i am wrong , is this thread about fathers for justice or ther security of the PM , just wondered

Fathers for Justice has claimed responsibility for the incident during PMQs. Therefore it's about both.

There appears to be several issues here into this incident one that is being highlighted the most is the fact that this is a major security breach - one which is obvious is that it could of been anything within the powder which was thrown in the chamber at the House of Commons.

What some MP's and media are now saying is, that the chamber should not of been emptied so quickly until investigations were carried into the substance that was thrown. Instead MP's were asked to leave the chamber, which could of resulted in the spread of harm, if what was thrown to be something of a threat to MP's lives.

Fathers 4 Justice, in my opinion - has done the government a favour today in demonstrating that lessons need to be learnt, as we could of been looking at a PM assassination rather than what is now being said as just a protest.

[zovat]

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

apologies if i am wrong , is this thread about fathers for justice or ther security of the PM , just wondered

I think you might be right Paul