Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

Faugheen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'll go one further. I dont just defend him, I applaud him. And as I said, I would hope that I would do exactly the same if I found myself in his position.

You applaud an assault which the perpetrator apologised for?

And you crying like a baby when a scumbag had a milkshake thrown over him?

Pathetic.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote:

You applaud an assault which the perpetrator apologised for?

Yes. And no. Yes I applaud what he did. No, I don't deem it as assault.

I think that he acted correctly. If he felt the need to apologise, that's on him.

Faugheen wrote:

And you crying like a baby when a scumbag had a milkshake thrown over him?

I didn't. I just said it was inappropriate.

But strawmanning and hyperbole are your specialty.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

I'll go one further. I dont just defend him, I applaud him. And as I said, I would hope that I would do exactly the same if I found myself in his position.

For what reason though? Hatred of women? Hatred of protesters? Hatred of Green peace?

What is your reason for applauding a man that apologised for the assault?

I'm genuinely interested in your reasoning behind this

tritium

end of the road wrote: »

like all the other whatiffery arguments used to try and justify his actions, the answer is simply, it is irrelevant given she was very clear about what she was there to do.

Um no, she really wasn’t. If you march into a room you’re not wanted, expected in not meant to be in and March purposefully towards prominent figures you really can’t assume anyone will take you on good faith

whether she should or shouldn't have been there is of no relevance to mark field's actions.

It’s of absolute relevance as it goes to the possibility of threat

nobody has said she should be treated differently from a security perspective because she is a woman. in fact the actual security gards didn't do such a thing.

I assume you think it’s normal for security to allow groups of protesters into these meetings. If so, have a look at some of videos I posted talker to see how security typically handle these things. I suspect someone in security will be getting a p45 shortly

also nobody has said that mails who are victims of domestic violence are making it up or that women aren't capable of carrying out violent acts, so you are engaging in whataboutery here.
i think the real reason that some people outraged by the Farage milkshake see no issue with this is because they simply disagree with this protester.

Funny because there also seem to be a substantial group like yourself who think farage should suck it up but are seeing gbh here

the activist did not bring this on herself, she was simply protesting, which there is nothing irresponsible about. the only one who brought anything on themselves and who did act irresponsibly, was the individual who grabbed a woman by the neck.

The way she choose to protest was utterly irresponsible. She’s lucky that mark field displayed commendable restraint

and yet there is absolutely nothing to show that this is what happened.

Apart from, you know, the video

he didn't simply control and restrain someone. if that was what he did do, instead of what he actually did do, which
was disproportionate, then there would be no story.

Obviously someone editing out the headbutts and flying kicks from the version I saw. I just saw a fairly limited act of control and restraint.

Stallingrad

Just seen the video now after hearing about this story a few days ago. I was a bit shocked given what I heard in the media, I expected the fracas to be a lot more violent and was already to condemn the man for the assault.

The reality looks quite different to me. Yes he was robust, but he intervened in a situation where there could have been a real threat, the intruder having avoided security. These days you just cannot be sure what the level of threat is.

The woman does not look injured or hurt, and I am sure we'll go onto protest another day. She was trying to protest, fair enough, he was responding to security breach. I really don't see the issue.

Strumms

Faugheen wrote: »

You applaud an assault which the perpetrator apologised for?

And you crying like a baby when a scumbag had a milkshake thrown over him?

Pathetic.

If I’m sitting at a table and someone attempted to approach me whom I didn’t know, in this manner, it would be defense first and foremost and ask questions later.

The politician who had a shake thrown over him ? I don’t like the guy, dont agree with ANY of his policies but I don’t want people throwing milkshakes or anything else at him, why ....

It is ASSAULT

The message of protest gets 100% lost by virtue of the assault

Support for your message and protest is failing as reasonable people do not want to be aligned with this behavior

All we know is that he’s had a milkshake fûcked over him by someone who disagrees with him, not talking about policy differences, assault.

If we just go around assaulting, physically or verbally those we disagree we are in a caveman democracy. The message is totally lost in these violent and careless actions.

Stand up for what you believe in, hold those in power to account, but do it with intelligence, bravery and your head held high.

Fûcking a milkshake or doorstepping a guy eating his dinner achieved zero.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote:

I'm genuinely interested in your reasoning behind this

I think that regardless of sex or their cause, someone quickly approaching political figures (especially in this day and age) uninvited should be treated with suspicion and should be prevented to do so.

This guy stopped her without injuring her and prevented her being able to reach the top table.

In this case, thankfully it was a "harmless" Greenpeace protester. I just hope this witch hunt will not make anyone think twice before attempting to stop what may be a less harmless individual attack a public figure in the future.

Sleeper12

tritium wrote:

I’m no, she really wasn’t. If you march into a room you’re not wanted, expected in not meant to be in and March purposefully towards prominent figures you really can’t assume anyone will take you on good faith

Even the law makers must abide by the law. This man let himself & his party down. He's even given Green peace World wide publicity due to his violence.

Green Peace 10 / Mark Field 0

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote:

Green Peace 10 / Mark Field 0

If you see it as a game then yes I agree. Greenpeace won hands down.

I don't see it as a game though.

Strumms

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Even the law makers must abide by the law. This man let himself & his party down. He's even given Green peace World wide publicity due to his violence.

Green Peace 10 / Mark Field 0

That’s an interpretation, I’ve spoken to many ‘left leaning’ people and the range of opinions on this lady range from her actions being misjudged to that of a psychologically displaced individual.

He was within his rights, he neutralized the potential threat and got back to enjoying his dinner.

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Even the law makers must abide by the law. This man let himself & his party down. He's even given Green peace World wide publicity due to his violence.

Green Peace 10 / Mark Field 0

Except he did abide by the law. I commend him for having the gumption to intervene in a potentially dangerous situation. And I don’t think greenpeace, beyond the all publicity is good ideal, come out of this particularly well. I’m old enough to remember the massive global sympathy they got for Rainbow Warrior, this is not one of those moments.

Faugheen

Strumms wrote: »

If I’m sitting at a table and someone attempted to approach me whom I didn’t know, in this manner, it would be defense first and foremost and ask questions later.

She didn't approach him though. She was walking past him. He was in absolutely zero danger.

Strumms wrote: »

The politician who had a shake thrown over him ? I don’t like the guy, dont agree with ANY of his policies but I don’t want people throwing milkshakes or anything else at him, why ....

It is ASSAULT

What if the guy who threw the milkshake felt threatened?

See how stupid the self-defence argument sounds now?

IAMAMORON

I worked with a member of Earth First a few years ago. Really militant. They love a good dust up, especially over the environment.

Most of these protestors are rebels with a cause. Climate change is a lovely one for them. Nice and intangible, a perfect avenue to get mired into controversy. They are saving the world, thanks guys, what would we do without you?

You can be sure that was not her first rodeo. As an activist she would be well used to being " moved on " or basically pushed around.

The real winners are the media here, a juicy scoop indeed. "Senior Politician Violently Manhandles Female Climate Change Protester etc "

After all of that, the climate is still in danger, crashing big business banquets is not going to solve the problem, at all.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote:

What if the guy who threw the milkshake felt threatened?

Faugheen wrote:

See how stupid the self-defence argument sounds now?

This has been explained. You may be able to argue that the lad who threw milkshake Tommy Robinson felt threatened.

Otherwise your argument is pathetic. The people who milkshaked the others approached them uninvited, much like this protester.

Faugheen wrote:

She didn't approach him though. She was walking past him. He was in absolutely zero danger.

Not all people look out for just themselves.

Strumms

Faugheen wrote: »

She didn't approach him though. She was walking past him. He was in absolutely zero danger.



What if the guy who threw the milkshake felt threatened?

See how stupid the self-defence argument sounds now?

She was approaching him, watch it again.

What if ? He clearly wasn’t, he approached his victim. Seriously great job at straw clutching

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

This has been explained. You may be able to argue that the lad who threw milkshake Tommy Robinson felt threatened.

Otherwise your argument is pathetic. The people who milkshaked the others approached them uninvited, much like this protester.

I know the argument is stupid, hence why I’m highlighting this argument in favour of Mark Fields is as well but some people are too stupid to cop that.

So this protestor who did nothing but walk in a room deserves everything she got?

What did she do wrong?

Why do you continue to defend behaviour which he apologised for? You really don’t get it at all, do you?

You defending this doesn’t help his cause whatsoever because even he disagrees with you.

Faugheen

Strumms wrote: »

What if ? He clearly wasn’t, he approached his victim. Seriously great job at straw clutching

Prove it.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote:

What did she do wrong?

She approached a top table (which had high ranking officials at it) uninvited and was not meant to be there. That's not on and if you think it is, you are deluded.

Faugheen wrote:

Why do you continue to defend behaviour which he apologised for? You really don’t get it at all, do you?

Because he apologised does not change the fact that I think his course of action was correct.

Faugheen wrote:

You defending this doesn’t help his cause whatsoever because even he disagrees with you.

I couldn't care less about his "cause" and I don't really care who agrees with me.

Faugheen wrote:

I know the argument is stupid, hence why I’m highlighting this argument in favour of Mark Fields is as well but some people are too stupid to cop that.

No. You took two different situations with two different parameters and conflated them to make a nonsensical point. Some people aren't as stupid as not to see that the two situations are incomparable and actually undermines your argument.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote:

Prove it.

And we have reached the peak of your nonsensical argument.

tritium

Faugheen wrote: »

Prove it.

Haha that’s pretty easy. The guy pleaded guilty to assault and was convicted. Not even an attempt to play an. Self defence card

end of the road

Strumms wrote: »

That’s an interpretation, I’ve spoken to many ‘left leaning’ people and the range of opinions on this lady range from her actions being misjudged to that of a psychologically displaced individual.

He was within his rights, he neutralized the potential threat and got back to enjoying his dinner.

he neutralised nothing. there was no threat. he was wrong. he knows it, whether he actually believes it on the other hand who knows. he wasn't within his rights and is now facing consequences for his actions thankfully.

end of the road

tritium wrote: »

Um no, she really wasn’t. If you march into a room you’re not wanted, expected in not meant to be in and March purposefully towards prominent figures you really can’t assume anyone will take you on good faith

it was absolutely clear as to what she was there to do. if you go into a room with all the give aways she and the other protesters had, then whether wanted or not, whether people do take you on good faith or not, it does not validate or justify the actions of this mp.

tritium wrote: »

It’s of absolute relevance as it goes to the possibility of threat

there was nothing there that suggested any threat from her or any of the protesters. so no, it's of no relevance.

tritium wrote: »

I assume you think it’s normal for security to allow groups of protesters into these meetings. If so, have a look at some of videos I posted talker to see how security typically handle these things. I suspect someone in security will be getting a p45 shortly

they didn't allow her in. we don't know how she managed to slip through, but either way the security people will likely be simply told to cover things better next time.

tritium wrote: »

Funny because there also seem to be a substantial group like yourself who think farage should suck it up but are seeing gbh here

i never stated farrage should suck it up.

tritium wrote: »

The way she choose to protest was utterly irresponsible.

it wasn't.

tritium wrote: »

She’s lucky that mark field displayed commendable restraint

if that was commendable restraint i would hate to see him when he is not displaying such. he did not display commendable restraint hence he is suspended and under investigation. that doesn't happen to people who show commendable restraint.

tritium wrote: »

Apart from, you know, the video

which does not back up the version of events that you are claiming.

tritium wrote: »

Obviously someone editing out the headbutts and flying kicks from the version I saw. I just saw a fairly limited act of control and restraint.

you saw wrong.

Timberrrrrrrr

Seeing as that particular poster has decided to start thier usual on thread act, I'm outta here.

Blazer

Stallingrad wrote: »

Just seen the video now after hearing about this story a few days ago. I was a bit shocked given what I heard in the media, I expected the fracas to be a lot more violent and was already to condemn the man for the assault.

The reality looks quite different to me. Yes he was robust, but he intervened in a situation where there could have been a real threat, the intruder having avoided security. These days you just cannot be sure what the level of threat is.

The woman does not look injured or hurt, and I am sure we'll go onto protest another day. She was trying to protest, fair enough, he was responding to security breach. I really don't see the issue.

because its a women.
If it was a man it would have shake hands, sorry old chap can't be too careful and all over.
Woman protestor cue hysterical overreaction, blah blah assault, attempted murder, fire the guy, blah blah blah and so on and on.
Women love to scream equality but here's a prime example of inequality.

SirGerryAdams

This whole thing caused a ruckus because it was a woman.

If it was a man he'd be fine.

Where's the equality now feminists?

Silly bint "this is a peaceful protest." Why do these people think saying it's a peaceful protest means they can do what they like?

Also when I first heard the description they made it sound like he pinned her up against the wall choking her, he grabbed her by the back of her neck and walked her out....he could have done much worse, grabbed her by her tits or put her in a headlock.

Tell me how

Blazer wrote: »

because its a women.
If it was a man it would have shake hands, sorry old chap can't be too careful and all over.
Woman protestor cue hysterical overreaction, blah blah assault, attempted murder, fire the guy, blah blah blah and so on and on.
Women love to scream equality but here's a prime example of inequality.

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

This whole thing caused a ruckus because it was a woman.

If it was a man he'd be fine.

Where's the equality now feminists?

Didn't Farage (and his supporters) push for the milkshake guy to be prosecuted?

And he did lose his job.

Yamanoto

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

I feel the opinions might have reversed here if the ideologies of the people involved were different.

Abso-fcuking-lutely

Had it been a left leaning event, the likes of end of the road would be excoriating the protester & commending the actions of the MP.

Tell me how

Yamanoto wrote: »

Abso-fcuking-lutely

Had it been a left leaning event, the likes of end of the road would be excoriating the protester & commending the actions of the MP.

Siri - "Show me an example of whataboutery."

Blazer

Tell me how wrote: »

Didn't Farage (and his supporters) push for the milkshake guy to be prosecuted?

And he did lose his job.

Farage will do anything to stay relevant.
Did he deserve milkshake over him? No he didn't.
Did the guy deserve to love his job..that's a tough one. My first thought was no.
But there's a clause in my contract stating that if I bring the company into disrepute I can be fired.
Regardless of whether I'm off or not, at all times I should represent the company on a professional basis.
And that's a private company I work for.

SirGerryAdams

Faugheen wrote: »

You applaud an assault which the perpetrator apologised for?

And you crying like a baby when a scumbag had a milkshake thrown over him?

Pathetic.

He only apologised because the twitter feminists shout loudest and have more pull than anyone else.

You can be sure he doesn't really regret his actions, which he shouldn't.