Peers accused of lack of respect to recent military casualties.By a newspaper.

[Hangarshuffle]

At the risk of being disrespectful myself I'll post this link and pass no comment. Its the Daily Mail. It may be true and it may not.


Peers leaving Lords as names of British soldiers killed in Afghanistan helicopter crash read out | Mail Online


Alright, I'll pass a comment - based on what I've seen of the British in my six decades I believe it probably happened.

[Wander00]

If Gen Lord Dannatt says it happened, it did, and those who left the Chamber at that time should be ashamed of themselves. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor should apologise on behalf of the House of Lords

[500N]

I can believe it, especially if the ex general says so since it would get right up his nose.

Glad he spoke out about it.

[NutLoose]

If indeed it did happen then they should be named and shamed.. Disgusting.

[racedo]

Thing is that I doubt that it was done intentionally to cause offence and error of judgement or leaving unintentionally is bad form. BUT there is a real danger of people finding this as a way to highlight people being offensive when nobody was.

[Tankertrashnav]

Well they'd all passed go and collected their £200 (actually up to £300) - I'm surprised some of them had got as far as the actual chamber before bunking off for the day

[Bastardeux]

No. I'm sorry, but these are guys that have been killed fighting for the political beliefs of these very lawmakers, they should absolutely pay them utter respect. Unfortunately, that should all be irrelevant as any occasion in which the naming of the deceased is taking place should be treated with reverence, but that's just the way of these parliamentary parasites.

[500N]

"No. I'm sorry, but these are guys that have been killed fighting for the political beliefs of these very lawmakers,"

+ 1

Exactly.


I would ask them (those who walked out) what they would think if I walked
out of their mothers funeral as a speech was being given ?????

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Originally Posted by Bastardeux

No. I'm sorry, but these are guys that have been killed fighting for the political beliefs of these very lawmakers

Actually, on a point of order, the Upper House are not "law makers" (whatever the hell they are), they are moderators of the Parliament. They can't "make law", only propose amendments.

Probably a bone question but are the names everyone killed in flying accidents announced in the Upper House? If so, why is it different to some poor buggers piling in to the side Scotland?

Anyway, Gen Dick makes a good point; if it's a set piece event like Colours or Sunset, then they should stand fast and pay due respects. Has anybody explained "form" to your average civvy, though? It reminds me of going to the pictures and the mass stampede at the opening bars of God save the Owner.

[NutLoose]

racedo Thing is that I doubt that it was done intentionally to cause offence and error of judgement or leaving unintentionally is bad form. BUT there is a real danger of people finding this as a way to highlight people being offensive when nobody was.

You say that, but surely the whole days preceding are formatted and laid out for those to attend, otherwise no one would know what is been done and when. So they would be aware a reading of the casualties was the next item on the agenda.

[bosnich71]

It is not just the daily mail reporting this event,and there are photos showing the chamber before and after.

[baffman]

You say that, but surely the whole days preceding are formatted and laid out for those to attend, otherwise no one would know what is been done and when. So they would be aware a reading of the casualties was the next item on the agenda.

@Nutloose, I've looked into this, and turns out that the DfID Afghanistan statement wasn't in the published business of the House. Also, "a reading of the casualties" would not have been an agenda item anyway, and in this case was not necessarily expected from a DfID statement. Tribute had already been paid in the Lords to the same named casualties, RIP. I hope this will cast some light:

1. As I am sure most people know, it has quite rightly become the custom to pay tribute to recent casualties, in both Houses of Parliament, at the opening of debates related to Defence, Afghanistan, etc. Tribute is very often paid again by other speakers later in the debate, particularly but not confined to those opening on behalf of their parties. This happens also at the weekly Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons.

2. A quick check of the parliamentary record reveals that there had been uncertainty as to when the House would adjourn for the day. This was clarified at 3.38 pm. Then, according to the Mail story, "The red benches were packed as the clerks worked through a series of procedural matters", but the parliamentary record shows this took no more than 2 minutes.

3. The record also shows that it had not been clear that the earlier Commons Department for International Development quarterly statement on Afghanistan would be repeated in the Lords that day. The Government spokesman (Baroness Northover) responded to Lord Dannatt's complaint:

Yes; I have noted what the noble Lord has said. It was not known until today that this Statement would be repeated in the Lords. The fact that I am speaking on behalf of DfID but answering on behalf of the MoD and the FCO may have made people think that the Statement would be DfID-focused. My noble friend who is the Minister for the MoD usually gives those names, and gave them when he last answered a Question. Therefore I left a gap as noble Lords began to leave. I hoped that they would hear what I was saying, but I think that some of them did not realise. I saw noble Lords pause and stop, and when they heard what I was saying they responded. However, the noble Lord is absolutely right.

(My italics and bold) Source: Afghanistan - Quarterly Statement.

4. So what happened is that the DfID Afghanistan Statement was not a confirmed item of business, and when it was confirmed a good number of peers remained in the Chamber for that Statement. (Almost certainly more peers than the number of MPs who remained for the same DfID Statement in the Commons.) With a number of peers making their way past another number of peers who were remaining for the Statement, not all being necessarily athletic, it inevitably took some time for the leavers to leave and the House to settle down for the Statement.

5. The bit in bold in Lady Northover's response shows that she did leave a bit of a gap, but she still started speaking while many peers were still making their way out of the Chamber. Some of them realised what was happening and stopped, others were not listening to Lady Northover's opening remarks and did not stop.

6. Lessons should be learned but I do not believe that any disrespect was intended. It is up to the House, but Lord Dannatt's proposal could have the unintended consequence that extra tributes will not be paid unless already flagged up in the business of the House.

[WASALOADIE]

There is a video of this disgraceful behaviour on the DM site. It is quite evident that the report is correct, as the tribute is being read, the lady behind the speaker is leaving.


I admire you Lord Dannatt for bringing this to the attention of the house and do hope something is done about it so that respect is given to the fallen in the future.

[racedo]

6. Lessons should be learned but I do not believe that any disrespect was intended.

To me that is it.

Doubt if people were aware that there was a tribute they would have left.

Off the cuff this was which caught many out.