"I'm an English gentleman, I have the right to say my bit!"
"I'm an English gentleman, I have the right to say my bit!"
It is not often that ordinary members of the public interrupt the proceedings of Prime Ministers' Questions.
Unfortunately, for one man hurriedly bundled out of the public gallery, yesterday was not that day.
Just hours after MPs debated giving the masses more say over the chamber, by allowing them to 'recall' badly behaved MPs, one of that much-praised group - constituents - decided to take matters into his own hands, rather, er, literally. (We'll get to that).
The MPs, however, heard not a word. It was not just that they were studiously trying to ignore him, although there was a bit of that to be fair. It was that, alas for the protester, it would have been extraordinary if they had heard him through the bulletproof glass, introduced after 9/11.
All that was registered was a large thud as the man lifted up his hands and his marbles (again, bear with me, literally) hit the screen.
Dressed in a large green coat he had been motivated to throw them, according to eye witnesses, after he heard that the Labour shadow business minister Chuka Umunna had failed to pronounce the English town of Worcester correctly.
The London MP had apparently made it sound more like Wichita.
It was all too much for this particular ordinary voter.
Within seconds he was being taken out of the gallery by two doorkeepers.
Cynics might have asked if he had not also been a little put out by the sheer number of Tory MPs who felt inspired, separately, you understand, and not under pressure from the party whips, to ask Mr Cameron about apprenticeships.
One question, by former culture secretary Maria Miller was judged so sycophantic by Labour MPs that one quipped to the Tory leader: "You should bring her back".
Or perhaps the protester was moved over the state of the English NHS, in comparison to that in Wales which Ed Miliband and David Cameron had battled over.
Observers might question if after another half a year of this, that protester might not be the only one to have lost his marbles.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article