British Parliament suspended. Blair hit with powder

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3728617.stm

Holy cow. I hope it’s just a prank.

Doesn’t speak well for the £600,000 security screen. Somebody’s head is going to roll.

Another story about it with more detail.

Have claim responsibility as per BBC

Fathers 4 Justice have been really pushing the issue lately. They recently shut down Liverpool city centre by climbing up onto some bridge or other.

How seriously can any man be taken when they do a protest dressed up as Batman, Superman, Spiderman and Robin?

This is what happens when men try and organise things. Women have formal planning meetings, we just get together in the pub to sort out what we are going to do.

Sure, its all very well thought out and sensible at first, but after a few pints the idea of dressing up as superheroes starts to sound awfully appealling…

Tactics aside, they’ve got an entirely legitimate beef though. While lots of “men are oppressed (too)” arguments are silly reactionary whines with a subtext of “therefore ignore feminists and don’t change anything”, child custody is one case where the oppression of males is he real deal

Absolutely - i support their cause fully. Its a tragic fact that many fathers here are wrongly denied custody of their kids.

They marched through London about six months ago and i went out to show my support as they passed by my office.

If i remember correctly, the had a tank leading the march too.

A tank?

Ooooh. If wimmen were doing a protest, it would be a pink caddy.

“Hmm, we have a very serious point that we want to get across to the public.”
“Yes, we do.”
“How shall we do it?”
“Hmm, need to give that some thought.”
“Oh, here’s an idea. Let’s assault the Prime Minister!”
“Assault, you say? That’s madness!”
“Oh, we wouldn’t hurt him, just throw something at him. Purple flour. In a condom. Make a mess. Get some notice.”
“It’s illegal. And kind of… dumb.”
“But it’ll get our name out there. People will gain an interest.”
“Well, there is that. But won’t it be the wrong kind of interest?”
“No such thing as bad publicity, mate.”
“Oh, good point. Carry on, then.”
“Great, let me go buy a condom. Can you dye up the flour?”
“Will do. Blue and red make purple, right?”
“Right-o.”
“Okay, see you in a tick… This is going to be smashing!”

I guess I’m glad that a security hole that huge was discovered and used by people only wanting to make a point, and not wanting to kill.

If you analyse the tape of the incident closely you will see that Tony’s shoulder moves back and to the left at frame 412, suggesting a third flour-thrower in front of the Prime Minister :eek:

Fathers “4” Justice? “4” Man, that makes it look like Prince is their spiritual leader.

Hmm, that would explain the purple…

Let’s look at that again–

Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.

One of the talking heads on CNN teased this story with “Purple rain in British Parliament” this morning. She also kept stumbling over simple words and referred to the escalation of shocking images out of Iraq as “for lack of a better term, a ‘pissing contest.’” I swear, I think she was drunk.

But traces of purple flour were found in the book depository…

Seriously, is it possible to stop determined people throwing balloons at the prime minister? He can’t be behind glass all the time, so AFAICT it’s basically a lost cause - we rely on hoping that no-one’s willing to die to assassinate him. Can the security ever be ‘enough’?

And having read the F4J site, my above flippant response was unwarranted.

As a stepfather, my situation (good as it is now) is potentially worse. I’ve been the primary male figure in my stepson’s life for the last four years (since he was two), and we love each other dearly. I am “daddy”. However if, heaven forbid, his mother were to die, then his unemployed, deadbeat natural father would be quick to go to the courts to take my son (oh okay… stepson if you insist) back, and as a mere former boyfriend of the mother (in the eyes of the law), I’d no doubt have not so much as five minutes’ visiting rights. The fact that I’ve loved and nurtured a little boy this guy has had only minimal interest in (when it’s been convenient), and the fact that I’ve paid the bills would count for nought.

I support F4J.

What I find particularly well thought out about this is the decision to place the security screen in front of the public gallery but behind the VIPs. It seems that the concern was that the unwashed general public were an unquantifiable risk and thus couldn’t be trusted an inch (true) but if you were in the VIP gallery, then it would be inconceivable that you might pose even the slightest threat - after all, you’ve been vouched for by a “good chap” e.g. Peer of the Realm, MP etc. and must, ineluctably, therefore be a “good chap” yourself. Unless of course people are in the habit of handing out invites to the gallery to charity auctions, which is perfectly laudable but does somewhat blow a hole in the rigorous screening process (viz. being personally acquainted with somebody of such importance that questioning their judgement is unthinkable).