Two Powder Missiles thrown at PM @ House of Commons

Originally Posted by andygrif

But isn't that the point? now they've heard of fathers for justice - but do they then go away and study what the message is? No. People want information spoon fed to them - and the media is not reporting one single thing about F4J's message - therefore the people don't know. Plus, like I said, if the vast majority of people really do think yesterday's stunt was stupid, then they will not go and find out.

That is simply not true! You say you work in the media; well, so do I. I was a journalist for three years and now I work in the coroporate comms office of a hotel company. So I know a thing or two about how news editors like to report major events, and how spin doctors try to get their messages in print.

I am also sitting next to a great big pile of today's papers, so I can say for a fact that the Times, the Independent and the Telegraph (the only ones I've had time to flip through today) all carry, as part of their extensive reporting on yesterday's events, a panel explaining what F4J is campaigning about. The Telegraph is the most complete in this respect. I have no doubt that many of the other national papers have similar reports. When major events unfold, newspapers like to give them extensive coverage. They block out two or more pages and then start wondering how to fill them. It is inevitable, therefore, that some analysis of why an event has happened will end up on the page. I just don't recognise your analysis of how newspapers function in this regard.


On a separate note -who is castigating you? Have you had any PMs or a red rep? I don't see any severe tongue lashing going on in this discussion, just an animated and interesting exchange of views.

EDIT: I've just come across this at BBC online:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3728753.stm

It looks very much like a report on F4J's message to me.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Hmm, apologies if that's how it sounded - I never 'imply', I'll try to be as direct as possible at all times, and no I don't support them.

I`m not stating that is what *you* were implying, it is what your *logic* is implying. I don`t actually believe that you would be supporting Palestinian suicide bombers, but if you are to offer up desperation as a valid justification and defence then it equally applies to the bombers.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by towny

That is simply not true! You say you work in the media; well, so do I. I was a journalist for three years and now I work in the coroporate comms office of a hotel company. So I know a thing or two about how news editors like to report major events, and how spin doctors try to get their messages in print.

I am also sitting next to a great big pile of today's papers, so I can say for a fact that the Times, the Independent and the Telegraph (the only ones I've had time to flip through today) all carry, as part of their extensive reporting on yesterday's events, a panel explaining what F4J is campaigning about. The Telegraph is the most complete in this respect. I have no doubt that many of the other national papers have similar reports. When major events unfold, newspapers like to give them extensive coverage. They block out two or more pages and then start wondering how to fill them. It is inevitable, therefore, that some analysis of why an event has happened will end up on the page. I just don't recognise your analysis of how newspapers function in this regard.

On a separate note -who is castigating you? Have you had any PMs or a red rep? I don't see any severe tongue lashing going on in this discussion, just an animated and interesting exchange of views.

If you work in corporate comms then you will know that the stunt is vehicle for getting the message across. But I really don't think the message is getting across - and by that I'm referring to broadcast media rather than print. I haven't seen any papers today, but would hazzard a guess that the broadsheets are putting in their editorial what most of the intelligent readers knew already, but I take your point. They will fill the story out, but I still don't think that by doing so will enlighten that many people, and the net result (after you've taken away the people who think it was a stupid act and the group should not be taken seriously) will be less support.

BTW, I wasn't referring to you.

I also saw the background piece on F4J - that's a good bit of editorial - but it's still not the headline, which is what I said before. It's buried way down as a side link to a very low priority story. And that's the great thing about news isn't it? Today's front page, tomorrow's fish and chips wrapper. When it comes to tomrrow can you honestly say that there will be more support for F4J?

[Ramrod]

Related news

UK bans condoms after Blair attack
20 May 2004 by Malcolm Drury
The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, today banned the sale, possession and use of condoms . The move follows an attack on Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday in which he was hit by condoms filled with purple flour thrown by protesters in the Commons gallery. Mr Blair was shaken but not hurt. A Downing Street official told our reporter that the PM had been examined by a team of doctors and that their opinion was that he would be back to normal in a few days. They denied a rumour that he would require psychiatric treatment to overcome a sudden fear of latex.

Effective immediately, the sale, possession and use of condoms anywhere in the UK, except for parts of Glasgow and the whole of Braintree, is illegal, and anyone caught in possession of one will be subjected to an on-the-spot fine of £1000 for a first offence and £5000 for a second offence. Subsequent offences will incur a prison sentence of not less than six months.

Mr Blunkett, speaking from outside the stationery cupboard in which he now spends most of the day, told reporters that while these measures may seem harsh, they are necessary for public security. No-one had realised until now, he said, that condoms could be used as a weapon, but he had moved quickly to address this newly-recognised problem. "I want the public to know that we will take any action necessary to protect them from condom attacks," he said. "In this case it was just harmless protesters, but next time it could be terrorists chucking condoms filled with sarin, radioactive waste, or who knows what."

Douglas Ramsbottom, spokesman for the Amalgamated Union of Makers of Condoms and Other Novelty Items, told our reporter that the government's move was disastrous for the industry and would lead to massive job losses. He pointed out that a condom is every bit a part of a traditional British night out as twelve pints of lager and a vindaloo. "My members are going to stand up and be counted, " he said. "I can guarantee they will have a stiff resolve."

[andygrif]

I love that site...LOL What a great story.

[punky]

Surely the message is getting across? We are talking about it. There are probably quite a few people who have read this thread who didn't know about F4J, or how badly discriminated against fathers are. This stunt has brough up a thead here, something which wouldn't have happened otherwise. On other boards across England. (and maybe the world) the same thing is happening. It is only natural for people to want to understand why they did what they did, so they are succeeding.

Originally Posted by andygrif

BTW, I wasn't referring to you.

I didn't think you were, but it's best to be sure

I also saw the background piece on F4J - that's a good bit of editorial - but it's still not the headline, which is what I said before. It's buried way down as a side link to a very low priority story. And that's the great thing about news isn't it? Today's front page, tomorrow's fish and chips wrapper. When it comes to tomrrow can you honestly say that there will be more support for F4J?

I thought you'd said the media was 'not reporting one single thing', but there's little point in going into word-by-word deconstruction mode here.

The question, I think, is not so much what will the opinion be tomorrow, as what will it be in three, six or 12 months. A publicity campaign like this needs to be sustained if it is to be effective. An eye-catching advert might run on TV for a couple of months, but the real end of the campaign is when it is repeated in a second run six months later, thus cementing it in the memory of the audience.

Whatever you think of F4J, they have committed an act of such notoriety that it will be mentioned just about every time they get in the news in the future, for whatever reason. I think there is no doubt that public awareness of them has been heightened for the long term. And the longer people are aware of them, the more information about them they will accumulate.

[andygrif]

Originally Posted by towny

Whatever you think of F4J, they have committed an act of such notoriety that it will be mentioned just about every time they get in the news in the future, for whatever reason. I think there is no doubt that public awareness of them has been heightened for the long term. And the longer people are aware of them, the more information about them they will accumulate.

Well yes, we will see. Actually I hope you're right that the message will now be properly heard - but I am yet be convinced. Let's resurect this subject in six months and see whether it has been.

[zovat]

Originally Posted by towny

The question, I think, is not so much what will the opinion be tomorrow, as what will it be in three, six or 12 months. A publicity campaign like this needs to be sustained if it is to be effective. An eye-catching advert might run on TV for a couple of months, but the real end of the campaign is when it is repeated in a second run six months later, thus cementing it in the memory of the audience.

Whatever you think of F4J, they have committed an act of such notoriety that it will be mentioned just about every time they get in the news in the future, for whatever reason. I think there is no doubt that public awareness of them has been heightened for the long term. And the longer people are aware of them, the more information about them they will accumulate.

And here's the rub - if someone else now does something silly, the first thing people will think is "oh I bet it's those F4J people again", and even if it's not - they will be back in the public eye for a bit....
As I keep saying, it remains to be seen whether the long term effect is positive or not....

[Russ]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m not stating that is what *you* were implying, it is what your *logic* is implying. I don`t actually believe that you would be supporting Palestinian suicide bombers, but if you are to offer up desperation as a valid justification and defence then it equally applies to the bombers.

Put in perspective, there's more than a little difference in what the F4J guys did and suicide bombers.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Put in perspective, there's more than a little difference in what the F4J guys did and suicide bombers.

They have just been charged with 'using threatening/abusive behaviour'. So, once we cut through all the hype and hysteria, the most serious charge the police have actually been able to throw at them is something they might easily have got after sinking a few too many pints on a Friday night. Hardly mass terrorism.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I`m not stating that is what *you* were implying, it is what your *logic* is implying. I don`t actually believe that you would be supporting Palestinian suicide bombers, but if you are to offer up desperation as a valid justification and defence then it equally applies to the bombers.

I fail to see how - bombers intend to kill and cause as much damage as possible. I would not say F4J group are on this same wave length as terrorists.

Originally Posted by Mick

I fail to see how - bombers intend to kill and cause as much damage as possible. I would not say F4J group are on this same wave length as terrorists.

It was in response to Russ's attempting to claim that desperation can be a valid excuse for illegal actions. But apparently it is ok to pick and choose who can use dodgy defences with sympathy and who can not.

Never mind, if they want to hurt their own cause then so be it. They will have seriously damaged their chances of negotiation with the government now as to listen to their demands would be tantamount to giving in to terrorism, throw a bag of purple flour at the PM, get the law changed.

[Xaccers]

Well, most people who've mentioned it on a local radio station have given their support to the cause, if not the action

Originally Posted by towny

They have just been charged with 'using threatening/abusive behaviour'. So, once we cut through all the hype and hysteria, the most serious charge the police have actually been able to throw at them is something they might easily have got after sinking a few too many pints on a Friday night. Hardly mass terrorism.

You mean the most serious charge they can throw at them without risking p*ssing off the voters of middle England. As someone pointed our earlier, if that had been a disgruntled Muslim cleric the response would have likely been very different.