Two Powder Missiles thrown at PM @ House of Commons

Originally Posted by Mick

Herself you mean towny - it appears to be a woman Lord who had signed them in.

you know, I just knew it would be as soon as I said 'him'

Now, the question is, did she have any idea of the affilliation of these two?

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by towny

Apparently the area of the Gallery that you have to be invited into is not screened, which is why the Lord who signed them in is being asked to explain himself...

now this could be interesting

i wonder if it was a plot , nah surely not

[andygrif]

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.

This is not the kind of stunt that any body that wishes to be taken seriously mounts - this is the kind of last ditch effort once they've got nowhere in their discussion - but the fact is that these meetings are due to take place soon - so why do this now?

It's childish and petty - but very funny, whilst being a serious security issue all at the same time - but the one thing is wasn't was clever.

Originally Posted by andygrif

This is not the kind of stunt that any body that wishes to be taken seriously mounts - this is the kind of last ditch effort once they've got nowhere in their discussion - but the fact is that these meetings are due to take place soon - so why do this now?

It's childish and petty - but very funny, whilst being a serious security issue all at the same time - but the one thing is wasn't was clever.

Again, I have to disagree. I think it was incredibly clever. Just look at the amount of worldwide media coverage they are getting right now:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...der/index.html

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...5E1702,00.html

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../85775/1/.html

And all without doing anything to threaten anyone's life.

Neither do I agree with your view that you would only engage in such tactics if you have failed to make a case through 'normal' discussion. Governments can be unbelievably intransigent on issues they don't think politically important - i.e. there aren't enough votes in it. In such cases, making it an issue that 'has votes in it', by direct action that makes the Government look incompetent or uncaring, is a shrewd tactic, but the first step any Government takes to counter it is to offer 'discussions' in the hope of neutralising the bad publicity. The last thing F4J wants to do now is to go quietly.

[andygrif]

What possible use is coverage in the US, Australia and Asia on a purely UK based story?

Also, if the government has decided that there are no votes in it, then why are they bothering to have some talks with the various F4J-esque groups in the first place. The discussions were already planned several days before this incident.

However, you're right that no-one was hurt, and this does widen the discussion into security arrangements at the HoP.

Originally Posted by andygrif

This is not the kind of stunt that any body that wishes to be taken seriously mounts - this is the kind of last ditch effort once they've got nowhere in their discussion - but the fact is that these meetings are due to take place soon - so why do this now?

To gain the highest amount of publicity possible. Apparently according to a spokesman for the fathers 4 justice - is that the man who threw the missiles met with Tony Blair months earlier to discuss issues that they had and Tony Blair had said he would do something about it - when nothing became of it - the man asked again and Tony Blair had gone back on his words (not something new with the PM there) making this man very angry and most likely desperate.

Originally Posted by andygrif

What possible use is coverage in the US, Australia and Asia on a purely UK based story?

Also, if the government has decided that there are no votes in it, then why are they bothering to have some talks with the various F4J-esque groups in the first place. The discussions were already planned several days before this incident.

However, you're right that no-one was hurt, and this does widen the discussion into security arrangements at the HoP.

As I said, the global media coverage illustrates that direct action can be a very clever way to get yourself to the top of the political agenda. Domestic media coverage will be of more direct use to F4J in this case and I have no doubt there will be tons of it on tonight's TV and radio and in tomorrow's papers. And if even one national paper runs a feature article on F4J within the next 2 weeks as a result of this, they will have gained a huge victory in their campaign. But having said that, never underestimate the vanity of a politician. Blair will be sorely peeved that the people he has to deal with on the world stage got to watch him being flour-bombed in his own back yard. These guys have hit him where it hurts - in the ego.

As for why discussions are being held, I already said ... offering 'talks' is a time-honoured way of attemptnig to get people to stop direct action, thus neutralising the political damage to the ones offering to talk.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by towny

As I said, the global media coverage illustrates that direct action can be a very clever way to get yourself to the top of the political agenda. Domestic media coverage will be of more direct use to F4J in this case and I have no doubt there will be tons of it on tonight's TV and radio and in tomorrow's papers. And if even one national paper runs a feature article on F4J within the next 2 weeks as a result of this, they will have gained a huge victory in their campaign. But having said that, never underestimate the vanity of a politician. Blair will be sorely peeved that the people he has to deal with on the world stage got to watch him being flour-bombed in his own back yard.

These guys have hit him where it hurts - in the ego.

The global media are reporting that Tony Blair got pelted with a powder - what started out as a potentially very serious story (no-one knew what the powder was) now turns into a 'funny' new story, like Prezza thumping someone.

I don't think Blair's ego is terribly damaged by this, it's only as bad as someone throwing an egg on an individual basis - polticians are used to it. The securtity services' egos however should be: It's the fact that someone that volatile can make it into the VIP area of the arena that I find troubling. I'm not overly concerned by someone being covered with purple flour, especially Tony Blair - like I said, it's funny. I'm also not overly concerned with F4J's plight - whilst their sentiments are serious their delivery is inane - I really can't take such stupidity seriously. Whilst you're maybe of the opposite opinion, and would support such antics to further their case, many don't - and let's face it this lot have been engaged in quite a list of antics.

Whilst they may be very good at self-promotion, I don't think even they know what they are promoting, let alone all the people who are laughing at them.

Originally Posted by andygrif

Whilst they may be very good at self-promotion, I don't think even they know what they are promoting, let alone all the people who are laughing at them.

So we agree on something - they are very good at promoting themselves. However I think they are also well aware of what they are fighting for. Their website is informative:

http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/objectives/index.html

Nobody knows what the poster one of the protestors was holding before they were removed from the gallery.

Maybe this is what the poster looked like....



The arrangement of a fathers day protest - called D-day - 'Day of the dad' - a civil rights March organised for Friday June 18th 2004 - 'Dress in purple purple purple' it says on fathers 4 justice wales website (note this site is on ntl webspace ) - maybe this is what they wanted to get across today....

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by towny

So we agree on something - they are very good at promoting themselves. However I think they are actually very well aware of what they are fighting for. Their website is very informative:

http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/objectives/index.html

Yeah I read that site a few days ago, after hearing the tirade of one of their 'members'. Frankly it doesn't have a great deal of substance, it's just cherry picking a few rules and laws that they don't agree with.

They offer very little in the way of sensible discussion-fodder, very little in the way of fact, very little in the way of solutions to the 'problems' - what they do seem to want to do is stir up trouble for the fun of it - and today was another very good example of this attitude.

[Defiant]

Originally Posted by Mick

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.

Yes the goverment have ignored this subject for too long. Women are not like they were 20/30+ years ago either. I've been there and its not nice. The whole system stinks and allot of women also know this

Originally Posted by andygrif

Yeah I read that site a few days ago, after hearing the tirade of one of their 'members'. Frankly it doesn't have a great deal of substance, it's just cherry picking a few rules and laws that they don't agree with.

That just might be because it's only a few rules and laws that need changing ... you don't have to be campaigning against the entire establishment to be a legitimate pressure group!

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by towny

That just might be because it's only a few rules and laws that need changing ... you don't have to be campaigning against the entire establishment to be a legitimate pressure group!

I'm sensing this is a subject close to your heart. This is the action of a legitimate pressure group is it?

Originally Posted by andygrif

I'm sensing this is a subject close to your heart. This is the action of a legitimate pressure group is it?

Not as close as it is to some. My parents were divorced but there were never any 'access' issues with us. As for me, I'm happily married and see my boy every day

I'm interested insofar as I believe we should seek justice and equality in all areas of our society, and it does appear to be lacking in this case. As far as legitimacy goes, I think drawing the line is a tricky business. Direct action that causes actual bodily harm to people is, I think, wrong, but I would put eggs and, indeed, condoms containing purple-stained flour just the right side of 'ABH'. However I think dialogue, and then peaceful direct action (protest marches and sit-ins) are preferable if possible.