Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

1…1920222425…41

Comments

  • #632
    Dante7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,542 ✭✭✭Dante7


    Put a poll on this with the voters having to declare their sex. The people defending it will be overwhelmingly male.


  • #633
    Checkmate19
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭Checkmate19


    Protest if u want but she was looking for a response and got one. Shes a moron. As i said in the usa she may have been shot. And rightly so given the current climate of idiots like joe comedian clown condoning or asking for protesters to acid people.


  • #634
    Checkmate19
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭Checkmate19


    Climate protestors are a pain in the bollixxx.


  • #635
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    gctest50 wrote:
    (d) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or

    gctest50 wrote:
    Waffle


    I agree your claim is waffle.

    Have you even watched the video? A judge would watch the video. How do you get your above quote from what you saw in the video?

    She did nothing in a threatening manner. Idiot doesn't know if she is trespassing or part of the comic troupe paid for the night. Nothing in the video suggests anything threatening. The first threatening thing was his violence. He drew first blood to quote rambo.


  • #636
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Checkmate19 wrote: »
    Protest if u want but she was looking for a response and got one. Shes a moron. As i said in the usa she may have been shot. And rightly so given the current climate of idiots like joe comedian clown condoning or asking for protesters to acid people.

    Have you evidence that it is likely she would have been?

    An Iraqi managed to take his shoes off and throw them at Bush and no one even pulled a gun.
    Checkmate19 wrote: »
    Climate protestors are a pain in the bollixxx.

    Truth hurts doesn't it.


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    Dante7 wrote: »
    Put a poll on this with the voters having to declare their sex. The people defending it will be overwhelmingly male.

    well given the users of boards are overwhelmingly male your logic is fallacious.
    also what difference if it was a female who tackled a male intruder of unknown intent to a private event, heading at speed for the main speaker.


  • #638
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    The guy had no legal right to act as security, he most likely had alcohol taken. If it were a nightclub he would be barred for life.

    Actually that's not strictly true, at least had this occurred in Ireland. I'm not familiar with the equivalent UK law but generally speaking our justice systems are similar.

    The Criminal Law Act 1997 allows the use of reasonable force to arrest a person without warrant if there is a reasonable suspicion that they have committed or are in the act of committing an arrestable offence. This power is extended to all citizens provided that custody is transferred to the Gardaí as soon as practicable.

    Trespass, the most obvious transgression, is not an arrestable offence however he could potentially have reasonably have suspected she might assault or harm someone, for example.


  • #639
    Checkmate19
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭Checkmate19


    What truth hurts they are. Annoying priks who are on a bandwagon.


  • #640
    Checkmate19
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭Checkmate19


    Anh they don't know. It was warm here last year now pissing rain.


  • #641
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Maybe just focus on the part in bold seeing as you are trying to avoid answering it.

    Well I might if you were honest enough to deal with what I actually posted instead of pretending what I posted. Do you know what at risk of means ?


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    Checkmate19
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭Checkmate19


    Climate change is the new in thing. Does anyone really fukkking know. This has been talked about for 20 years. Scientists are just making a living spurting this ****e. The same as cancer charitys rinsing people not looking for cures. Just another money making scam.


  • #643
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Checkmate19 wrote: »
    Climate change is the new in thing. Does anyone really fukkking know. This has been talked about for 20 years. Scientists are just making a living spurting this ****e. The same as cancer charitys rinsing people not looking for cures. Just another money making scam.

    Just letting you know I've read this and am choosing to not engage. If you made a single plausible point in there, I would discuss, but you didn't.

    If you want to keep your head in the sand, you do it.


  • #644
    Dante7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,542 ✭✭✭Dante7


    Nobelium wrote: »
    well given the users of boards are overwhelmingly male you're logic is fallacious.
    also what difference if it was a female who tackled a male intruder of unknown intent to a private event, heading at speed for the main speaker.

    You're talking shïte pal. That was typical male pattern violence against a woman. I'm a man and I can spot it. Stop defending it.


  • #645
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Nobelium wrote: »
    Well I might if you were honest enough to deal with what I actually posted instead of pretending what I posted. Do you know what at risk of means ?

    I asked you to back up what you posted with evidence. Is that too complicated or difficult for you to do?


  • #646
    Checkmate19
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭Checkmate19


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Just letting you know I've read this and am choosing to not engage. If you made a single plausible point in there, I would discuss, but you didn't.

    If you want to keep your head in the sand, you do it.

    Thats fine


  • #647
    pinkyeye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭pinkyeye


    Lads stop all this nonsense, what this man did was assault plain and simple.

    And to me it looks like he has done this often. Such anger can only come from a place of someone who routinely does this to women.


  • #648
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    Dante7 wrote: »
    You're talking shïte pal. That was typical male pattern violence against women. I'm a man and I can spot it. Stop defending it.

    I'm not your pal, bud, love, dude, bro or anything else.

    Unlike sexist prejudiced bigoted mangina's like yourself, I don't give a bollocks what sex or politics someone is or what an intruder to private property is protesting about.

    If a male neo nazi protester was the intruder, and heading for the main speaker, and a women physically intervened for the speakers safety, she would be exactly right to do so as well.


  • #649
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I agree your claim is waffle.

    Have you even watched the video? A judge would watch the video. How do you get your above quote from what you saw in the video?

    She did nothing in a threatening manner. Idiot doesn't know if she is trespassing or part of the comic troupe paid for the night. Nothing in the video suggests anything threatening.

    The first threatening thing was his violence.
    He drew first blood to quote rambo.

    More waffle, quoting Rambo ?

    bit of Walter Mitty post?


    There is no rule in law (uk)to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they can defend themselves


  • #650
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    pinkyeye wrote: »
    Lads stop all this nonsense, what this man did was assault plain and simple.

    And to me it looks like he has done this often. Such anger can only come from a place of someone who routinely does this to women.

    ejecting an intruder at a private event heading at speed for the main speaker, is not assault.


  • #651
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    sdanseo wrote:
    Actually that's not strictly true, at least had this occurred in Ireland. I'm not familiar with the equivalent UK law but generally speaking our justice systems are similar.

    sdanseo wrote:
    The Criminal Law Act 1997 allows the use of reasonable force to arrest a person without warrant if there is a reasonable suspicion that they have committed or are in the act of committing an arrestable offence. This power is extended to all citizens provided that custody is transferred to the Gardaí as soon as practicable.

    sdanseo wrote:
    Trespass, the most obvious transgression, is not an arrestable offence however he could potentially have reasonably have suspected she might assault or harm someone, for example.[/quote

    See a few posters have already posted something similar. None of the above gives him the right to do what he did. If brought to court he will try use the law to justify what he did. He will try to hide behind the law. However the video pretty much rules out such a defense. A picture speaks a thousand words. He has already been suspended so its not like we are exaggerating anything here. The police are investigating the matter. They will investigate her protesting and his actions. If either one is to be brought to court it will be him.


  • Advertisement
  • #652
    Larbre34
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,293 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Dante7 wrote: »
    You're talking shïte pal. That was typical male pattern violence against women. I'm a man and I can spot it. Stop defending it.

    Pattern eh?

    The question for the Police close protection unit is, how did these folk stroll into a venue where the Chancellor was speaking and even worse how was this particular woman able to stroll up to the top table, which she would have if Field hadn't intervened?

    Field was heavy handed yes, but its not like there was time to do a full risk assessment. There are fair opportunities for peaceful protest, I don't think what they did was completely peaceful and they should have expected to be challenged.

    There'll be a bit of hand wringing and apologies, as there already has been, but if this guy loses his gig over this it'll be disgraceful.


  • #653
    Dante7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,542 ✭✭✭Dante7


    Nobelium wrote: »
    well given the users of boards are overwhelmingly male you're logic is fallacious.
    also what difference if it was a female who tackled a male intruder of unknown intent to a private event, heading at speed for the main speaker.

    You're probably right about this forum and thread being mainly male. So, again I will say that nearly every woman would identify that attack for what it was. A man subduing a woman and exerting his superiority. He's a tosser.


  • #654
    pinkyeye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭pinkyeye


    Nobelium wrote: »
    I'm not your pal, bud, love, dude, bro or anything else.

    Unlike sexist prejudiced bigoted mangina's like yourself, I don't give a bollocks what sex or politics someone is or what an intruder to private property is protesting about.

    If a male neo nazi protester was the intruder, and heading for the main speaker, and a women physically intervened for the speakers safety, she would be exactly right to do so as well.

    You need to calm down love.


  • #655
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    Tell me how wrote: »
    I asked you to back up what you posted with evidence. Is that too complicated or difficult for you to do?

    You need to to be honest enough to address what I actually posted instead of pretending what I posted. Also you need to understand the term at risk. Are these things too complicated or difficult for you to do?


  • #656
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    pinkyeye wrote: »
    You need to calm down love.

    I'm perfectly calm, got any actual facts about what actually happened yet ?


  • #657
    Checkmate19
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭Checkmate19


    Why was she there. To cause crap. If it was some scrot bag he kicked out it would be all good. But because it was some climate change rabbit knitting tree hugging lovee its ok. Go ask me scrot.


  • #658
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    Dante7 wrote: »
    So, again I will say that nearly every woman would identify that attack for what it was. A man subduing a woman and exerting his superiority.

    Actually only a sexist would come to that conclusion. An intruder was prevented from potentially harming the main speaker. If a women did it to a male intruder she would also be absolutely within her right.


  • #659
    Checkmate19
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭Checkmate19


    She wanted that reaction. If that was beside say the royals she may not be here. So she was a threat. Idiot should not been there.


  • #660
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    See a few posters have already posted something similar. None of the above gives him the right to do what he did. If brought to court he will try use the law to justify what he did. He will try to hide behind the law. However the video pretty much rules out such a defense. A picture speaks a thousand words. He has already been suspended so its not like we are exaggerating anything here. The police are investigating the matter. They will investigate her protesting and his actions. If either one is to be brought to court it will be him.

    You're effectively saying that if the law is on his side, he still doesn't have the right to do what he did.

    If it's legal, and I'm not saying it is although this is my suspicion - isn't that exactly what defines having the right to do something?

    Don't get me wrong. Just because you can does not mean you should, and I would probably have stood up and simply blocked her path. But to be brought in front of a court for it is, again, overkill.


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    Dante7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,542 ✭✭✭Dante7


    Nobelium wrote: »
    Actually only a sexist would come to that conclusion. An intruder was prevented from potentially harming the main speaker. If a women did it to a male intruder she would also be absolutely within her right.

    I can tell you are a man. Only a man would justify that. This event has been really interesting.


Advertisement