Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Is the argument here that he set out to assault this woman he saw of the corner of his eye? Like did he plan this? Did he enjoy it?


You remind of the soccer lads in the pub screaming "How could he not have seen that pass?!" at the TV not being able to differentiate between what they can see and what the player can see.

I'm going more on the other hundred plus people in the room who felt there was no need to react in the manner he did.

Even those who the woman walked behind didn't feel the need to spin around in their seat in case she was going to attack them.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

Is the argument here that he set out to assault this woman he saw of the corner of his eye? Like did he plan this? Did he enjoy it?


You remind of the soccer lads in the pub screaming "How could he not have seen that pass?!" at the TV not being able to differentiate between what they can see and what the player can see.

No one knows but him how much he enjoyed it or not but these are all silly arguments trying to defend someone assaulting another person.



You do realize that saying my natural reaction was to hit a woman doesn't make it "not" assault. Whatever his reasoning, natural reaction or whatever he assaulted her. She was walking around him not at him. He attacked her.

Jimbob1977

Is the real issue:

1) A politician grabbed a protestor

Or

2) A politician grabbed a woman?

Sleeper12

Jimbob1977 wrote:

1) A politician grabbed a protestor

Jimbob1977 wrote:

2) A politician grabbed a woman?

You see a difference between the two? Very strange

Timberrrrrrrr

Sleeper12 wrote: »

She didn't trespass. She walked into the room. Through an open door. She didn't even have to open said door. It's only at no stage was she told to leave. Well she was after he assaulted her several times

If you leave your front door open does that mean anyone can just stroll in?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm going more on the other hundred plus people in the room who felt there was no need to react in the manner he did.

Even those who the woman walked behind didn't feel the need to spin around in their seat in case she was going to attack them.

Again, you're the footie fan wondering how the players can't see what you can see.

Does he know any of this? Did he have time to understand what 100 other people thought of this person he catches out of the corner of his eye striding towards the most important people in the room?


Why did the other people not react? Who knows. Maybe they thought it was a waitress rushing by. Maybe like in every car crash situation, people wait for others to act. Very few people act. Obviously this guy is someone who does.

elperello

Sonny noggs wrote: »

He was spot on. Fair play to him, one of my favourite ever clips. Some boyo.

Just to point out that JP was assaulted first and retaliated.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, you're the footie fan wondering how the players can't see what you can see.

Does he know any of this? Did he have time to understand what 100 other people thought of this person he catches out of the corner of his eye striding towards the most important people in the room?


Why did the other people not react? Who knows. Maybe they thought it was a waitress rushing by. Maybe like in every car crash situation, people wait for others to act. Very few people act. Obviously this guy is someone who does.

Seeing as you seem to only be able think in soccer analogies.

Say a player from one team has possession in the opponents penalty box and he slips and falls while not even being tackled, he screams to the ref for a penalty while none of his teammates raise their hand claiming on his behalf, nor do any of the fans shout looking for one.

Then, it is fair to say that his reaction was incorrect.

Badly Drunk Boy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

A group entered the the unlocked room and turned left. These were stopped, without assaulting them I might add. This lady turned right on entering the room. No one stopped her or asked her to leave before she was assaulted.

They didn't have the time or (perhaps) the will to react. I think yer man overreacted, but it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't gate-crashed the party. Anyway, she's not pressing charges (since she got the headlines she wanted from it). Whether charges are made otherwise is up to the police, I suppose.

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm going more on the other hundred plus people in the room who felt there was no need to react in the manner he did.

Even those who the woman walked behind didn't feel the need to spin around in their seat in case she was going to attack them.

Again, there wasn't exactly much time for the first people to react. Field saw her, with time to react, whether he thought she was going to threaten violence or (more likely) that she just wanted to cause a scene, and he'd had enough of that sort of carry-on. It doesn't make it right but it doesn't make her right either.

Sleeper12

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

If you leave your front door open does that mean anyone can just stroll in?

Yes. You genuinely believe that everyone entering your property is trespassing? Everyone that walks up your driveway without prior permission is trespassing?

Here's a shocker for you, even if you keep your gate closed it's not trespassing to enter your garden. It's only trespassing if you tell them not to enter.

This wasn't a private residence we are talking about.

AllForIt

RobertKK wrote: »

Both were at various degrees fault for different reasons. But she can only blame herself for being an uninvited guest and making a beeline straight to the chancellor's table.
I had to :rolleyes: when i heard it reported the woman was fine, of course she was fine, the worst thing about the situation was the optics made it look worse than what it actually was. One would think he had tried to actually strangle her given some of the comments in the media.
She got treated like a man would in this situation, we are all for equality...

You would swear it was like John Prescott punching people :pac:

Exactly. She was not hurt at all. Her ego probably was though given she more than likely didn't expect such a reaction and just assumed that because she is a woman and dressed in a nice evening dress for the occasion that it would go smoothly. Fully expecting to be treated more leniently that a man I would suggest. Kinda funny really when you consider her mis-calculation. Although some are saying she got more publicity for her cause that she might have have I don't agree, this has been forced to be an issue of pompous prick vs damsel in distress.

I think ppl do have a right to protest but there is something not quite right about barging in on a private dinner party full of high profile people. A fair degree of arrogance is required to think it's okay and hopefully they will think twice about it next time. There is always something quite irritating about professional protesters even when they have a valid cause.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Faugheen wrote: »

It’s no surprise that the people who were crying and outraged over the milkshakes see no issue with this.

If she wasn’t a woman, he wouldn’t have been so brave. He wasn’t the hired security, so he had no right to just manhandle her like that.

‘But what if she was armed?’ - absolute bullsh*t analogy to excuse the behaviour. She wasn’t armed. She was peacefully protesting. Any whataboutery otherwise is irrelevant.

Pretty weak argument there, considering your main tool is hindsight. Fantastic thing to have though, isn't it? Why didn't you call in ahead with your ability, this could have all been averted.

Funny how you talk about whataboutery and at the same time litter your post with assumptions.

Oh and could you show the posts which had a problem with the milkshake incident and not this incident? Can your strawman stand up on it's own? I doubt it.

Why do people keep using the excuse "he's not security", so what? Where is it written that only a member of security may look after ones security? Like I said before, the primary person responsible for ones security is oneself. Nobody else. These are adults for crying out loud.

Tell me how

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Again, there wasn't exactly much time for the first people to react. Field saw her, with time to react, whether he thought she was going to threaten violence or (more likely) that she just wanted to cause a scene, and he'd had enough of that sort of carry-on. It doesn't make it right but it doesn't make her right either.

Not true.

She walked along the side of the room, and then turned 90 degrees to walk behind his table.
There were at least 10 people sitting along his table before she was passing him and none of them it seemed even turned to look at her.

All this was proceeded with the larger group of protesters announcing their purpose in the room while Philip Hammond was speaking so it was quite clear to all, including Mr Field.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Yes. You genuinely believe that everyone entering your property is trespassing? Everyone that walks up your driveway without prior permission is trespassing?

Here's a shocker for you, even if you keep your gate closed it's not trespassing to enter your garden. It's only trespassing if you tell them not to enter.

This wasn't a private residence we are talking about.

I'd liken it more to a streaker on the pitch. Except the player saw the streaker running directly at the ref and in that instant, thought it mightn't be a streaker.

I would never expect to be able to do what she was trying without being stopped. And if you get stopped by a non-professional such as security, you take what you get.

lawred2

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

I think people should take the sex issue out of it. One simple rule: if you act like a terrorist, i.e. break past security, try to get close to people in power, carrying unknown items - then you should expect to be treated like a terrorist. The fact that your actions can be determined to be "non violent" after the event is irrelevant.

A lot of these protesters are more daring in their actions, safe in their knowledge that "they wont hit a girl".

Terrorist?

Jumping the shark with that

tritium

Tell me how wrote: »

No it isn't.

He used excessive force in a situation where he had sufficient time to understand what was going on and to block her progress in a less forceful manner.

If she had for example a knife then doing what you suggest would have simply led to him being stabbed. The action he took was proportionate to the perceived threat. It’s ludicrous to suggest restraining and controlling someone is excessive use of force, it would generally be seen as the bottom end of the scale.

end of the road

runawaybishop wrote: »

Technically she is the one guilty of assault.

walking passed somebody is not assalt. if there was any evidence that she assalted someone we would be hearing of an investigation in to her, in relation to said assalt.

runawaybishop wrote: »

The MP was defending a third party he believed was about to be assaulted.

his behaviour, the video along with the fact he was suspended from his job and is facing investigation would suggest otherwise.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Defending someone isn't assault.

using excessive force is however.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Causing someone to believe they are going to be assaulted comes under assault.

whether that is or isn't the case, there is nothing from what i can see to show that she caused anyone to believe they were going to be assalted.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

You remind of the soccer lads in the pub screaming "How could he not have seen that pass?!" at the TV not being able to differentiate between what they can see and what the player can see.

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, you're the footie fan wondering how the players can't see what you can see.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd liken it more to a streaker on the pitch. Except the player saw the streaker running directly at the ref and in that instant, thought it mightn't be a streaker.

This is actually getting funny.

And so that you can understand that it is not acceptable to act disproportionately, here is something in your language. Link

A man wearing nothing but a bright green thong and a curly black wig dashed onto the field during a low-level game in England on Monday. Dorchester player-manager Ashley Vickers ended the intruder's 30-second jaunt with a thudding, neck-high tackle during the 70th minute of the game against Havant & Waterlooville.

Vickers was shown a red card for violent conduct with the score 1-1.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote:

Yes. You genuinely believe that everyone entering your property is trespassing?

You genuinely think it's ok for someone to enter your house if your front door is open? Ok so, probably no point in furthering this conversation if that is your mindset.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Yes. You genuinely believe that everyone entering your property is trespassing? Everyone that walks up your driveway without prior permission is trespassing?

Here's a shocker for you, even if you keep your gate closed it's not trespassing to enter your garden. It's only trespassing if you tell them not to enter.

This wasn't a private residence we are talking about.

It was a private residence and the security guards attempt at stopping the protestors is them telling them that they are not welcome, once they continued to enter the room they were trespassing.

If you were at a wedding tomorrow and a stranger entered the room, approached the top table and made an aggressive beeline for the groom are you saying it would be wrong for someone to approach and stop that person?

lawred2

There was no reason for him to get up out of his seat. She had no more interest in him. She wasn't even looking at him. He was clearly not in danger of assault. He's bang out of order.

Seriously who does he think he is with his hand on anyone's neck?

Tell me how

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It was a private residence and the security guards attempt at stopping the protestors is them telling them that they are not welcome, once they continued to enter the room they were trespassing.

If you were at a wedding tomorrow and a stranger entered the room, approached the top table and made an aggressive beeline for the groom are you saying it would be wrong for someone to approach and stop that person?

No. Not at all. It would be wrong for them to use excessive force though.

tritium

Tell me how wrote: »

It could be argued that that was an instinctive reaction without time to assess the situation.
The only way that would apply here is if Mr Field could claim that 2 minutes of observing what was going on was insufficient to assess it clearly.

He can quite validly claim that a protester broke away from the main group while they caused a distraction and made a beeline towards two prominent public figures. In those circumstance it’s not unreasonable imho to be concerned as to what will happen next.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote:

There was no reason for him to get up out of his seat. She had no more interest in him. She wasn't even looking at him. He was clearly not in danger of assault. He's bang out of order.

He may not have been in danger but someone else could have been. Not everyone just looks out for themselves thank god.

Tell me how wrote:

No. Not at all. It would be wrong for them to use excessive force though.

Excessive force would be punching her. Restraining her and then continuing to restrain her until she is out is not excessive.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

You genuinely think it's ok for someone to enter your house if your front door is open? Ok so, probably no point in furthering this conversation if that is your mindset.

I genuinely know that you are trying to deflect from the assault

tritium

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm going more on the other hundred plus people in the room who felt there was no need to react in the manner he did.

Even those who the woman walked behind didn't feel the need to spin around in their seat in case she was going to attack them.

As people have pointed out here repeatedly, the bystander effect is a well known phenomena. I suspect even if she’d walked up to the table touting an ak47 many folks would just sit there until the bullets started flying

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He may not have been in danger but someone else could have been. Not everyone just looks out for themselves thank god..

In danger of what exactly?

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote:

I genuinely know that you are trying to deflect from the assault

No I'm not. You were asked if it would be ok for anyone to walk in your front door if it was open and you said yes.

That's not deflection. That's just me saying that if that is your stance, we will most likely not agree with each other.

Tell me how

tritium wrote: »

As people have pointed out here repeatedly, the bystander effect is a well known phenomena. I suspect even if she’d walked up to the table touting an ak47 many folks would just sit there until the bullets started flying

Bystander effect generally applies to when other parties are interacting with each other and one of those could ordinarily be expected to receive help.

I don't think there is any evidence of an event where people who considered they may be under attack stood by and waited for it to happen.

This is a circumstance where if the other people in the room were unaware of what was happening and had any reason to panic, they would likely look to escape the area ASAP. Not one person did.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote:

In danger of what exactly?

That's the point. He didn't know.