David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy

The idiocy of Jonathan May-Bowles

There will be yet more "security" at the House of Commons.

By David Allen Green Published 20 July 2011 11:29

Yesterday an idiot made it worse for many other people, and without any gain for anyone but "security" officials. The "pie" gesture was not even funny on its own terms; and an attack on any eighty-year old man is that of either an imbecile or a bully. The immediate consequence was that all the public, many of whom had waited up to eight hours, were cleared from the committee room.

But there will perhaps be another longer-lasting effect. Those charged with security at the Houses of Parliament hardly need any more excuse to add to their grand theatre of anti-terrorism. When I first visited the Palace of Westminster in the late 1980s, there was relatively little security, even though there was the clear and present danger of Irish republican attacks. And once you were in, you could walk around reasonably freely.

Now, there is as much ceremony getting into Parliament as when the Queen actually opens it. There are queues, photographs, machine guns, elaborate bag-searches, and very serious faces. The uniformed officials seem to revel in taking even trivial items from frightened visitors and exercising their moment of power. By the time you get through all this you are highly conscious of the power of Parliament's officials, and also the lack of your own.

And thanks to the idiot Jonathan May-Bowles this will undoubtedly get worse. It may well be that the public will be excluded from certain hearings, or partitioned off. Those seeking to legitimately lobby their Members of Parliament will be subjected to more intense searches and, indeed, humiliations by "security" officials.

One has no idea what he was hoping to achieve with his stunt; but we can be fairly certain what "security" officials will try to achieve off the back of it.

Addendum

Jonathan May-Bowles has now set out his account of the incident here.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman. He is the author of the Jack of Kent blog and can be followed on Twitter and on Facebook.

Tags: Phone hacking scandal News of the World

More from David Allen Green

View the discussion thread.

42 comments

Fri, 2011-07-22 03:14 — wugeairen

==== http://www.doestrade.com ====
==== http://www.doestrade.com ====
==== http://www.doestrade.com ====

Wed, 2011-07-20 23:30 — Mrs Nobody

The pie man meated out more justice than the legal system ever will and most people in the country know that which is why they say 3 cheers to him.
This article is bourgeois and out of touch.

Sat, 2011-07-23 05:25 — Diana Trimble (not verified)

pie thing new statesman

When I lived in San Francisco, there was a brigade of activists that regularly cream / foam pied politicians and public figures whenever press was sure to be around. Afterwards there was always a polarized debate about whether or not the act was a) an irreverent piece of agit-prop that delivered a well-deserved moment of humiliation, and maybe even fear, to its worthy target or b) a crude and attention-seeking stunt that decimated the subtlety of a legitimate message while also being a lesser form of physical assault.

For myself (and even though the SF activists sometimes pulled it off with greater aplomb, chose better targets and had keener aim - all of which at least resulted in funnier photo ops and captions) I never particularly cared for the inelegant and inarticulate style of expression that pie-hurling strikes me as being.

Just as the first commenter here, Kat, has alluded, human society has developed democratic processes that are worth attempting to execute soberly; procedures in courts of law and inquests being chief among them.

So in the same way it used to bother me when, as a teenage activist, I heard protesters drown out the same political foes I despised, likewise it feels regressive to cheer a man who achieves notoriety not by the wit of his challenge to the ruling corrupt, but by a clumsy prank that adds insult to injury when it misfires, making the “heroes” of the opposition go “viral” instead.

As has been pointed out, it never looks good to jump an octogenarian.

Wed, 2011-07-27 16:29 — Casandra

Thu, 2011-07-21 08:29 — Leftygreg

Who gives a shit? If it inconveniences people of DAG's ilk, I'm happy with it. The only reason to criticise JMB is for using foam and not razors.

Thu, 2011-07-21 10:58 — Jules Wright (not verified)

God. Someone said "bourgeois". Another said that a young man receiving a slap on the head from a middle-aged woman for assaulting an octogenerian was a breach of proportionate response. Then another said the assailant should have used razors. And then there was a flood of spam postings about cheap accessories.

Kinda sums this place up.

Thu, 2011-07-21 12:21 — sam dodds (not verified)

Thank God for fools and idiots, David Allen Green

Samuel James Dodds son of George Robert Dodds and grandson of Samuel James Dodds

Wed, 2011-07-20 11:36 — Kat (not verified)

I could not agree more - all he achieved was disruption to a process that is an essential part of how a democracy sorts out its problems

Wed, 2011-07-20 11:39 — M (not verified)

How the hell did he get in with the (I'm assuming) can of foam and plate in the first place?
The guy only succeeded in making Murdoch look like a frail old man, his wife look like a hero and himself look like an absolute tool.

Thu, 2011-07-21 13:05 — A meadows (not verified)

Kta, he had 2 paper plates on top of each other with the foam in the first place and had it in a small bag

Wed, 2011-07-20 11:40 — Neuroskeptic (not verified)

Dammit. There goes my plan to set up a pie stall in the public gallery.

Wed, 2011-07-20 11:40 — Matt (not verified)

Not to mention the fact that he gave Murdoch the chance to seem sympathetic. An absolute moron.

Wed, 2011-07-20 11:43 — Robin (not verified)

Why, then, so much anger at the pie-flinger, and not at the opportunistic security officials?

Wed, 2011-07-20 11:49 — Guido Tallman (not verified)

Disagree. The bully in this piece is Rupert Murdoch. There are many forms of protest - from petitions and letter writing to direct actions and ridicule. I appreciate some more than others.

Getting into Parliament, as I have done many times as part of my work, is a pain, but is also an ultimately pointless exercise in the majority of cases.

We shouldn't be drawn in to this confusion between terrorism and protest. Yes, the cops use anti-terror laws against protestors, but they also use criminal law, trespass and any other laws. Maybe you were saying in the early 19990s that organisers of raves were making it more difficult for everybody else and I missed it.

The predictable over-reaction from the government should be blamed on the government.

@Kat all that was left when Jonnie struck was a few questions from a Tory MP (who is cracked enough to have supported the Dorries abstinence bill) with a line up of "I don't know" and "I can't remember" answers.

The pie won't stop Murdoch's empire collasping - it provided more interesting photos for the press, and people should get this in perspective.

Wed, 2011-07-20 11:57 — Jake (not verified)

David - why must you turn everything into a snide attack on police/security etc?

Some honest questions, which I hope you will answer but I suspect you won't:
Given the series of terrorist attacks on the west in the last decade, do you sincerely believe that there is NOT a risk of a suicide bomb, or 'Mumbai-style' firearms attack at the Houses of Parliament and associated buildings?

Do you sincerely believe that low security during the threat of Irish Terrorism implies that any security now is unecessary?

Do you honestly believe that the people in charge of security are primarily concerned about humiliating you and demonstrating their power, or making a genuine effort to prevent a real and present threat?

If they lowered security tomorrow, and two men walked in, pulled pistols and hand grenades from their bags and killed 15 tourists, two MPs and an unarmed police officer before being finally gunned down, how long (in seconds) would it take you to write an article here or a post on Jack of Kent slating the incompetence of the Met?

Do you not understand what a machine gun is? If not, please avoid using inaccurate but emotive terms to reinforce your point.

Frankly, you should know better. You're a smart man whose vision often seems to be clouded by an irrational distaste for the security services in all their forms.

Wed, 2011-07-20 11:58 — Fiona Hanley (not verified)

David, I'll do my best here but I know you won't publish the following if it's potentially libellous.

I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories but I think in this instance the possibility should be considered. A complete randomer attends the hearing, he has about his person something that can only be carried in flat, in a cake box say, or in a metal aeresol can. The first person to react, with extraordinary reflexes, is not security. Public opinion quickly switches in favour of the defendant and the incident dominates press and tv coverage. Just saying.

Wed, 2011-07-20 12:01 — Fiona Hanley (not verified)

Whoops, forgot I wasn't on Jack of Kent. Oh well ;)

Wed, 2011-07-20 12:10 — Robin (not verified)

Fiona - what public opinion has switched in favour of Murdoch? All I've seen on the Twittersphere (ok, bit of a sampling bias) is people annoyed about how public opinion might switch. Is there anyone who suddenly likes Murdoch and thinks he should control more of the media now this has happened? Does anyone think the Sun and Times had "String Up Rupert" headlines ready to roll before the pie hit?

Wed, 2011-07-20 12:22 — greg (not verified)

Everyone in my local was saying that he should have used a baseball bat instead of a pie. Pretty sure we arent all sorry for the old f*** just yet.

Wed, 2011-07-20 12:29 — Mark Brandon (not verified)

A very convenient stunt. The kind of thing guerilla-marketing companies would be able to achieve with little problem and complete deniability for whoever financed it. Just saying...

Wed, 2011-07-20 12:52 — Guido Tallman (not verified)

Straw Poll in my office:
2 said 'nice one, Jonnie' or words close to that.
One thinks Jonnie is a moron.
3 think he should have used something which would inflict more damage on Murdoch.

And I think he should be handed control of News International as reward for his efforts.

Wed, 2011-07-20 12:53 — Craig M (not verified)

The restrictions of fluids over 100 ml on planes is because of adapted Lucozade bottles, then there's the Shoe Bomber, invasive TSA pat-downs and Porn-Scanners because of the Underpants Bomber.

If the idiot did use a can of shaving foam, one can only imagine what you can hide in a pressurised aerosol canister. He should not have been able to take that item into a secured area. Either security is adapted or get rid of it. Police wrongly using anti-terror legislation to stop legal protest is one thing, high security in the Houses of Parliament is another and I think, acceptable.

Wed, 2011-07-20 13:07 — Enzyme (not verified)

There was a difference between Irish terrorists and the kind who're presumably a threat today, which is that the former group did not deny the legitimacy of Parliament in Britain: they just wanted the Brits out of Ireland. Members of the government may have been targeted, but the IRA had no problem with Parliament qua Parliament. Plus, they tended to issue warnings; their aim was to cause terror and disruption rather than death (though that was often a foreseen consequence).

This is not so with at least some jihadis, who do aim to cause death, who don't give warnings, and who have a problem with the very idea of a parliament.

Whether the difference is enough to warrant a different approach to security is another matter; but there is a difference nonetheless.

Thu, 2011-07-21 16:53 — ObiterJ (not verified)

As a child on a school trip to London I was able to visit OUR Parliament and to be told of its impressive history and about some of the people who sat there. From that developed a life long interest in law and our government. I can say that I actually stood at that despatch box where Churchill and others stood ! Maybe I am getting a bit sentimental but this is being denied to many youngsters by security concerns. Who wants to take them to places with gun-toting police officers everywhere?

Wed, 2011-07-20 13:27 — Anthony (not verified)

An attack on the legitimate processes of Parliament is an attack on all of us. People like May-Bowles are little frustrated totalitarians.

Wed, 2011-07-20 13:50 — Jules Wright (not verified)

The funny thing is, it's the second time in a week when an infantile left winger has undermined Labour's own position on this issue. First with McDoom's bizarre and unintentionally hilarious rant in Parliament last week and now by UK Uncu*t founder (and hopelessly middle class, self-hating member of the Labour Party) Jonathan May Bowles choosing to assault an elderly man. And there's sixth former Miliband, left huffing and puffing away to little end in a puddle of his own party's rank hypocrisy.

HackGate: the rancid gift that keeps on giving.

Wed, 2011-07-20 13:56 — MatthewBlott

@ Jules Wright

I couldn't agree more, but when I pointed these facts out on another thread I was accused of being a Tory troll (I'm neither a troll or a Tory). The left really does seem to have a higher number of imbeciles in its midst that do no end of damage in undermining their cause. As I mentioned on the other thread, the double-barrelled surname said it all.

Wed, 2011-07-20 14:08 — Francisca (not verified)

Jonathan was a lovely young man at school.

Wed, 2011-07-20 14:29 — David (not verified)

What your article fails to mention is that the incident happened across the road in Portcullis House, not within Parliament.

Wed, 2011-07-20 15:05 — Steve Jones (not verified)

@Fiona Hanley

Not much danger of you being sued for libel as that's clearly a complete work of fantasy and nobody is going to take it seriously.

Fri, 2011-08-05 22:49 — Dave (not verified)

Who gives a flying **** what you think of him. Jonnie had the courage to do what nobody else dared do. Thank **** the world is not only full of bores who's only purpose in life is to obey the law.

Wed, 2011-07-20 15:09 — Jacqui Thompson (not verified)

I would just like to say that I was recently arrested and removed from the public gallery of my local council and the same council have now brought in stringent measures to restrict access by the public to future meetings. My crime was not to launch a surprise assault on an eighty year old man, something I would never contemplate, but to quietly attempt to film a Council meeting. Apologies to those who find my comment irrelevant and I realise my circumstances are very small scale, but to me it's not irrelevant, the Murdoch attack is a definite case of 'disrupting' a meeting, mine was most definitely not.

Wed, 2011-07-20 15:13 — mattwardman

@Fiona

The attacker is a founding member of UKUNCUT, who has been on Newsnight for them. Conspiracy unlikely.

@David

There must have been a lapse in existing security arrangements, surely? Why no bag search, when there were only a couple of dozen members of the public involved?

This was less security than at my local Magistrates Court.

Thu, 2011-07-21 19:39 — Roy H (not verified)

God what priorities! At a time when millions are dying from drought in Africa when our own government is inflicting savage cuts in welfare benefit which are leaving people without the will to live, we get hot under the collar because one of the most mendacious manipulators of public opinion in the world gets a bit of shaving foam flicked over him. What I found extraordinary was the look on the face of some of the lawyers as if God had been assaulted. He deserves much worse than shaving foam and it is perhaps no surprise that having been responsible for lying distorting and trivialising the news for so long our media give this incident so much coverage - says a lot about our trivial society. Can we do what this incident deserves-ignore it.

Wed, 2011-07-20 15:29 — David Allen Green1

@David

The security arrangements are exactly the same.

Wed, 2011-07-20 15:33 — mattwardman

So, they don't *usually* do a manual bag search for members of the public going into committee hearings at Portcullis House?

That does surprise me.

Wed, 2011-07-20 16:15 — Alec (not verified)

ENZYME >> There was a difference between Irish terrorists and the kind who're presumably a threat today, which is that the former group did not deny the legitimacy of Parliament in Britain:

You mean apart from assassinating MPs such as Airey Neave inside Parliament grounds? Then attempting to assassinate the entire Cabinet or firing mortars at Downing Street? Even if this wasn't attack on "the legitimacy of Parliament in Britain" - hint, it was - their various attacks on the armed and security and law enforcement makes it a moot point.

~alec

Wed, 2011-07-20 20:35 — maxinemf

I think Jonnie Marble should sue Wendy Murdoch for common assault. Her reaction to the pie throwing incident was all out of proportion to the actual pie throwing. I for one was glad to see RM humbled par excellence. Let us not forget that RM is responsible for the debasing of political discussion in the UK. When successive prime ministers are afraid of the press; that is the time to act. Let us not forget too that the two Newspapers of the SUn and NOW are responsible for base and tittle tattle journalism. For all the alleged scoops in the NOW the paper will always be remembered for sex exposes and trampling on the lives of ordinary people. including murder victims. People should look past the doddery old man image and not forget that RM's brand of journalism is nothing but salacious and demeaning crap. You have only to look at how his empire has poisioned political debate in Australia. Just what contribution to political life has RM made. To argue that we should respect the business acument of RM ignores the fact that iit is the banking industry that has bankrolled the media empire. ANy comapny can expand ad infinitum as long as the banks are willing to provide funds.

I say BSkyB should never be able to gain total control not now, not ever.

Wed, 2011-07-20 20:57 — Jules Wright (not verified)

@MatthewBlott

Yup. The Left always calls for "debate", but its idea of debate is "We're right; you're wrong plus you're a baby-eating Tory troll as well as evil."

Look at Glasman. If a right-of-centre adviser had said what he said about immigration, the Left would be up in arms with cries of "baby-eating racist fascist scum." Instead, the Left silently knifes him and mutters "Nothing to see here."

I'm no fan of Murdoch. But there's even some cretin on here - maxinemf above - who believes that that May-Bowles (from infantile student dribblers UK Uncu*t) should sue Wendy Murdoch for common assault. Really? Hope she doesn't give up the day job. Jesus.

Leftism: it really is a form of mental illness.

Wed, 2011-07-20 21:13 — Scotty

Just watch this space - he'll get a prime time show on our favourite left whinge media monopoly, the BBC.

Wed, 2011-07-20 21:53 — maxinemf

In response to Jules, make sure you do your homework before you start spouting untruths. The question of proportionate response is recognised in British law.

Wed, 2011-07-20 22:00 — Robin (not verified)

Matthew: "The left really does seem to have a higher number of imbeciles in its midst that do no end of damage in undermining their cause"
Whereas the right has a higher number of imbeciles doing no end of damage in achieving their cause.