Invasion of houses of Paliament

[Ambyth]

From BBC.co.uk:

Pro-hunt protesters storm Commons

Protesters in the House of Commons
Parliament was suspended after five protesters burst into the Commons chamber while MPs debated whether to ban hunting with dogs.

Four of the men ran out from behind the speaker's chair. Another wrestled past a doorkeeper from a different entrance.

They were chased by officials but one harangued minister Alun Michael.

It came as thousands of pro-hunters continue to protest outside Parliament. There have been some scuffles but it has been a mostly peaceful rally.

Outside Parliament, police estimate there are between 8,000 and 10,000 protesters but the organisers put it at 20,000.

POSSIBLE TIMETABLE
15 Sept 2004: MPs vote
Oct: Lords debate
Nov: Bill forced through using Parliament Act
Feb 2005: Hare coursing ban
Autumn 2006: Fox hunting banned
All dates assume Commons votes in favour of ban and Lords votes against

Watch the Commons break-in

MPs' debate on the ban was suspended for 30 minutes after the unprecedented security breach.

The protest comes two days after a Fathers for Justice campaigners got onto the balcony of Buckingham Palace.

Security at Parliament was questioned in May when a protester threw a flour bomb at Tony Blair as he was speaking in the Commons chamber.

Wednesday's invasion of the chamber is an unprecedented security breach and has prompted fresh questions about security in the Commons.

Shortly after 1620 BST the men rushed in, with one protester shouting at Mr Michael, the minister: "This isn't democracy. You are overturning democracy."

As the sitting resumed, Labour MP David Winnick said such incidents were "unknown in the 20th century" and fellow backbencher Stuart Bell said such an invasion had not happened since the time of Charles 1.

Inquiry call

Deputy Speaker Sylvia Heal said Speaker Michael Martin would receive reports about the breach from security officials.

Shadow Commons leader Oliver Heald called for an urgent inquiry and Tory MP Sir Patrick Cormack asked how people had penetrated the "ring of steel" and police at Westminster.

The government has chosen the path of prejudice and spite - the reaction it unleashes will be entirely its own responsibility

Simon Hart
Countryside Alliance

Anger and defiance at hunt protest

Labour MP Clare Ward called the protesters' action an "absolute disgrace" and suggested somebody must have given them access.

"They were in easy access of anybody in that chamber, they could have done absolutely anything," she said.

Outside Parliament, the mass protest was organised by the Countryside Alliance.

Van loads of police in riot gear have been sent into the area to bolster the hundreds of officers already there, with scuffles in one corner of Parliament Square as police sought to keep demonstrators penned in.

Clashes

Some bottles and fireworks were thrown and some protesters were filmed with bloodied heads after the clashes.

The PA announcer for the demonstration appealed for calm saying: "You are doing our cause harm. We have no problem with the police."

But some demonstrators continued jostling with police and shouting angry, anti-Tony Blair slogans.

Some protesters have been hurt

Westminster Bridge was also closed by a sit-down protest.

Many of the protesters wore T-shirts picturing Tony Blair with devil horns and "I'll keep hunting" slogans.

In the debate, ministers are proposing a motion to ban hunting with dogs by July or August 2006.

Manifesto pledge

Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael said the two year delay would give people time to re-home hounds and look at converting to drag hunting and other business activities.

The prime minister's spokesman said it was time to live up to manifesto commitments to resolve the hunting issue after seven years of trying to find a way to find a middle way.

HAVE YOUR SAY
This is all about class warfare and very little to do with animal welfare

Richard, England

Send us your comments

Some critics say the two year delay before the ban would come into force is to avoid pro-hunt protests in the build-up to the election expected next spring.

The minister said the election gave opponents of a ban the chance to register their protest at the ballot box rather than on the streets.

MPs spent three hours debating and voting on the procedure before discussing the ban itself. The ban is expected to pass all its Commons stages on Wednesday.

No date has been given for a Lords debate, but this is expected to take place in October.

The government has said that it will force the ban into law using the rarely used Parliament Act even if the House of Lords votes against it, as it has a number of times in the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

Good to see that the security forces in the U.K. are as alert as ever. Mind you the police did give the protesters a round kicking outside the houses. So they did redeem themselves a bit!

[bombkangaroo]

Banning hunting with dogs is a half measure, and does nothing for the welfare of animals that the anti-hunting lobby pretend to care for.
When an animal is shot it usually doesn't die instantly, often it falls to the dogs to finish it off. Banning hunting with dogs will serve only to increase the suffering of animals being hunted.
If an animal escapes then it is almost certain to get an infected wound, and be damned to a slow painful death.

There is also the issue of the dogs which will be destroyed when homes cannot be found for them.

Worse still the parliament act was never intended to be used for the purposes of pandering to interest groups. This is a vile corruption of the powers of our government.

[Ambyth]

At 9/15/04 01:45 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: Banning hunting with dogs is a half measure, and does nothing for the welfare of animals that the anti-hunting lobby pretend to care for.
When an animal is shot it usually doesn't die instantly, often it falls to the dogs to finish it off. Banning hunting with dogs will serve only to increase the suffering of animals being hunted.
If an animal escapes then it is almost certain to get an infected wound, and be damned to a slow painful death.

Well, quite possibly, I'm still not sure why they hunt the bally things in the first place. Filthy animals.:

There is also the issue of the dogs which will be destroyed when homes cannot be found for them.

Thats where the delay comes in.

Worse still the parliament act was never intended to be used for the purposes of pandering to interest groups. This is a vile corruption of the powers of our government.

Sooner they do away with the house of Lords the better.

[bombkangaroo]

What's wrong with the house of lords?

[Ambyth]

At 9/15/04 02:20 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: What's wrong with the house of lords?

Whats wrong with an UNELECTED set of men deciding laws in a DEMOCRACY?

I dunno, I just think they are like the royal family. A left over of a time gone bye.

[bombkangaroo]

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HofLBpRole.pdf

they don't decide laws though, they're an appointed commitee that acts as part of the checks and balances, ensuring that the commons doesn't abuse its power, and they revise some legislation because their unique expertise gives them a perspective that those elected into parliament more often than not lack.
the lords doesn't even cost bugger all to run.

[Ambyth]

You see this is what makes me laugh.

They could do all that AND have an actual lower costing and more impartial committee (Because while the HoL is less expensive these days it is still quite expensive) by an elected committee.

I have nothing against the lords themselves, I do think they could be of great value to the public in making sure the HoC was kept in check. All too often you see their influence (typical conservative prose as well) pushed upon HoC bills.

[bombkangaroo]

At 9/15/04 02:49 PM, Ambyth wrote: They could do all that AND have an actual lower costing and more impartial committee (Because while the HoL is less expensive these days it is still quite expensive) by an elected committee.

I very much doubt it. For a start the lords are not payed, an elected commitee would more than likely require a salary.
A comparison with the house of commons shows the lords to be far more impartial than an elected house, as they have no vested interests in the legislation being passed, they won't be deselected or voted against by the public, so they have the freedom to act in a far more objective manner.

[Ambyth]

Well last year it cost £31 million to run the house of lords. thats not including the expensies of the Lords, which they do get.

Mind you still more effective than the Welsh Assembly!

[bombkangaroo]

And far cheaper than the scottish parliament, and they still haven't given us our 100 odd english MPs to vote on purely scottish matters yet...

[Ambyth]

At 9/15/04 03:31 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: And far cheaper than the scottish parliament, and they still haven't given us our 100 odd english MPs to vote on purely scottish matters yet...

Bizzare. You'd think they wouldn't want the English voting on their matters in their parliament.

[bombkangaroo]

They don't. that's why they had some powers transfered to the devolved scottish parliament.
However there are still a large number of scottish MPs in westminster, who all get to vote on matters that pertain only to england, like foundation hospitals. That legislation wouldn't have passed without the support of scottish MPs who are answerable only to the scottish electorate.

[Ambyth]

There's irony for you. Ah well, politics is a funny old game.