Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

Sleeper12

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

Fùck sports day thats just a yearly fun thing, I'd rather see schools upping the standards of teaching so we stop seeing the constant misuse of words in basic everyday conversation.

You can up the standards all you like but idiots like myself with dyslexia will always misspell words. They haven't perfected spell check yet

Sleeper12

lawred2 wrote:

Which is exactly what should be encouraged young children.

We already have that. It's called PE.

Sleeper12

dubdaymo wrote:

It should be pointed out that the whole area of primary school education has been taken over and run by women. Many boys never have a male teacher during their primary school years. Imagine the uproar if it was the other way around.

Taken over by women sounds like that took it by force. Young men stopped being interested in teaching primary education. We don't have many male teachers because they don't want to be teachers

Timberrrrrrrr

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You can up the standards all you like but idiots like myself with dyslexia will always misspell words. They haven't perfected spell check yet

See


If your posts were littered with misspellings then i would believe you.

But they aren't, nice use of a disability to explain your misuse of the word though.

Stay classy

Sleeper12

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

If your posts were littered with misspellings then i would believe you.

You should see some of the words I post. They might not be misspelled but they could be the totally wrong word because spell check spat out a word that looks the same to me. It's made some of my posts quite funny.

ILoveYourVibes

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Taken over by women sounds like that took it by force. Young men stopped being interested in teaching primary education. We don't have many male teachers because they don't want to be teachers

I think it just comes to women more naturally to around young children than it does men.

malinheader

joe40 wrote: »

Thats just a stupid comment. Nobody was been robbed or assaulted, and the MP involved obviously knew there was no actual threat.
Just acting the big man, pushing a woman around, and all the idiots think he's great

Can you say 100% that the mp new there was no threat.
And how do you come to this conclusion.

Faugheen

malinheader wrote: »

Can you say 100% that the mp new there was no threat.
And how do you come to this conclusion.

Why did he apologise for trying to nullify a potential threat?

Because he knew there was none and he got caught.

joe40

malinheader wrote: »

Can you say 100% that the mp new there was no threat.
And how do you come to this conclusion.

Well I think if he thought there was a real threat, a knife, gun or bomb he would have used more force.
At no time did he seem concerned for safety, just removing a nuisance person.
Everyone else there was quite calm, they seemed unconcerned. No one was moving or trying to get away although the incident was ongoing.
At the same time I think a simple apology should suffice there wasn't any actual assault

BattleCorp

Faugheen wrote: »

Why did he apologise for trying to nullify a potential threat?

Because he knew there was none and he got caught.

Kind of like why insurance companies settle some claims that they know are wrong. Sometimes it's easier and cheaper to pay up instead of getting into a drawn out fight. Same for him. Easier to apologise and move on.

malinheader

Faugheen wrote: »

Why did he apologise for trying to nullify a potential threat?

Because he knew there was none and he got caught.

So you believe in that short moment you have you can determine against a real threat.
Given the atrocities that have been carried out on mainland Europe he was right. 100% in my eyes.

malinheader

joe40 wrote: »

Well I think if he thought there was a real threat, a knife, gun or bomb he would have used more force.
At no time did he seem concerned for safety, just removing a nuisance person.
Everyone else there was quite calm, they seemed unconcerned. No one was moving or trying to get away although the incident was ongoing.
At the same time I think a simple apology should suffice there wasn't any actual assault

Agree. Much adoo about nothing.

runawaybishop

Faugheen wrote: »

Why did he apologise for trying to nullify a potential threat?

Because he knew there was none and he got caught.

Because hindsight is 20/20.

malinheader

FishOnABike wrote: »

Try asking Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes.

Could also try asking Fr Jaques Hamel.

Tell me how

runawaybishop wrote: »

Because hindsight is 20/20.

More so he realized there was a video showing over a hundred people sitting calmly as the situation clearly played out while he took the opportunity to use disproportionate force.

osarusan

I can agree with the idea that anybody can be a threat, women included.

But after watching the video, his demeanour, and the demeanour and the others at the table suggests to me that he acted not out of fear, or under threat, but just because he was pissed off with the disruption.

In that case, his frustration is understandable, but he overreacted in my opinion.

Bass Reeves

Tell me how wrote: »

More so he realized there was a video showing over a hundred people sitting calmly as the situation clearly played out while he took the opportunity to use disproportionate force.

Ya that the same as Nazi Germany millions of people sat calmly as 6 million were killed in concentration camps.

Tell me how

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Ya that the same as Nazi Germany millions of people sat calmly as 6 million were killed in concentration camps.

Care to use an abalogy tha in some way makes sense.

That's just random BS.

malinheader

Tell me how wrote: »

More so he realized there was a video showing over a hundred people sitting calmly as the situation clearly played out while he took the opportunity to use disproportionate force.

Yes.in a lot of cases you will get most people sitting looking on or walking past an incident not wanting to get involved. As I said if she had of been intending harming or killing someone he would be a hero now and the hundred sitting round would be assholes.. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Faugheen

runawaybishop wrote: »

Because hindsight is 20/20.

He could have easily said that he was nullifying a potential threat and apologised to the woman upon hindsight, but he didn't.

And watch the video. No attempt to disarm. No attempt to restrain. Just completely manhandled her knowing that she wasn't armed while everyone else sat there calmly.

What 'threat' is he nullifying when he's not even trying to disarm? It's pure fantasy stuff from the same people who bitch and moan about women's issues or 'feminazis' in a bid to defend Mark Fields' actions.

runawaybishop

Faugheen wrote: »

He could have easily said that he was nullifying a potential threat and apologised to the woman upon hindsight, but he didn't.

And watch the video. No attempt to disarm. No attempt to restrain. Just completely manhandled her knowing that she wasn't armed while everyone else sat there calmly.

What 'threat' is he nullifying when he's not even trying to disarm? It's pure fantasy stuff from the same people who bitch and moan about women's issues or 'feminazis' in a bid to defend Mark Fields' actions.

He has already stated he initially thought she was a threat.

is_that_so

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Ya that the same as Nazi Germany millions of people sat calmly as 6 million were killed in concentration camps.

Good afternoon, Mr Godwin!

Timberrrrrrrr

Faugheen wrote: »

He could have easily said that he was nullifying a potential threat and apologised to the woman upon hindsight, but he didn't.

And watch the video. No attempt to disarm. No attempt to restrain. Just completely manhandled her knowing that she wasn't armed while everyone else sat there calmly.

What 'threat' is he nullifying when he's not even trying to disarm? It's pure fantasy stuff from the same people who bitch and moan about women's issues or 'feminazis' in a bid to defend Mark Fields' actions.

One hand on upper arm one hand at the back of the neck is a very effective means of restraint, how would you have "restrained" a person if you were in that position?

Faugheen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

One hand on upper arm one hand at the back of the neck is a very effective means of restraint, how would you have "restrained" a person if you were in that position?

After slamming her against a pillar grabbing her by the throat.

Where’s his attempt to disarm her if she was such a threat? There is none.

Tell me how

malinheader wrote: »

Yes.in a lot of cases you will get most people sitting looking on or walking past an incident not wanting to get involved. As I said if she had of been intending harming or killing someone he would be a hero now and the hundred sitting round would be assholes.. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Bystander effect is more applicable when the bystanders do not feel threatened themselves.
If some in the audience appeared panicked by what was happening, Mr Field could claim he felt a threat was possible.

No one did, he can't.
The protestors clearly announced their purpose.

BattleCorp

Faugheen wrote: »

After slamming her against a pillar grabbing her by the throat.

Where’s his attempt to disarm her if she was such a threat? There is none.

There's a place called Specsavers. They sell glasses. If you think that's what the guy did, then I suggest you invest in a pair of glasses.

Either that or we have very different ideas of what the word 'slammed' and 'throat' means.

Timberrrrrrrr

Faugheen wrote: »

After slamming her against a pillar grabbing her by the throat.

Where’s his attempt to disarm her if she was such a threat? There is none.

You're saying he should have slammed her to the ground and strip searched her? :rolleyes:

Faugheen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You're saying he should have slammed her to the ground and strip searched her? :rolleyes:

Quote me where I said that please.

More fantasy conspiracy stuff.

Timberrrrrrrr

Faugheen wrote: »

Quote me where I said that please.

More fantasy conspiracy stuff.

So again, how would you have restrained her presuming you were in that position?

If you're going to attempt to disarm someone (if you think they may be armed) you're hardly gonna ask them nicely to assume the position.

Faugheen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So again, how would you have restrained her presuming you were in that position?

If you're going to attempt to disarm someone (if you think they may be armed) you're hardly gonna ask them nicely to assume the position.

I asked you to quote me where I said they should be strip searched please.

People in this thread peddled the nonsense that this woman could have been armed with a knife or whatever as a means to excuse Field’s behaviour. Where’s his attempt to disarm her? There is none, because there was no threat.