Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

Sleeper12 · 22-06-2019 01:04AM

sdanseo wrote:

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

What I'm saying is that posters are posting snippets of the law saying that he had a legal right. He did not.

He would have to prove he acted within the law when he clearly didn't. He totally overreacted. He used more force than is allowed by law.

If Gardai in Ireland use that type of force on video for a non aggressive woman or man they would be suspended immediately. If security responded in the same way they would be suspended & their contracts not renewed or totally cancelled. The amount of force this man used against this non aggressive woman was illegal. He can point to any law he wants but at the very least he used excessive force & can be charged & sued for it

Checkmate19 · 22-06-2019 01:04AM

Why was she there. To piss people off. Annoying. If security where there and doing there job she'd be out more the same way. She had no right to be there being an arsehole and rightly kicked out.

22-06-2019 01:05AM

Dante7 wrote:

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

That's very sexist.

Nobelium · 22-06-2019 01:05AM

Dante7 wrote: »

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

Unlike yourself I don't stereotype people by sex. A women would also have been perfectly within her right to physically prevent a male intruder attempting get to the main speaker to do God knows what. The event has been more interesting than you realise for showing up hypocrisy.

Checkmate19 · 22-06-2019 01:07AM

So lets let people in there who nobody know grand lets see where that go's. Till some one with less say more motives decides to get there and do something stupid.

Checkmate19 · 22-06-2019 01:10AM

She said she was there just to talk to someone. So was there to cause a nuisance. So if that security should have had here out. So he done it for them. End of story.

Checkmate19 · 22-06-2019 01:10AM

Im delighted.

Yer Da sells Avon · 22-06-2019 01:11AM

|￣￣￣￣￣ |
| NO ONE |
| ACTUALLY |
| BELIEVES |
| SHE COULD |
| HAVE BEEN |
| ARMED |
|_＿＿＿＿＿__|
(\__/) ||
(•ㅅ•) ||
/ 　づ

Checkmate19 · 22-06-2019 01:14AM

When the green party get back in with some one and decide to tax everything and it all go's **** up merry go around. All the partys think u have to go green. Its votes. Bet two years from now greens wont exist.

Checkmate19 · 22-06-2019 01:15AM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

|￣￣￣￣￣ |
| NO ONE |
| ACTUALLY |
| BELIEVES |
| SHE COULD |
| HAVE BEEN |
| ARMED |
|_＿＿＿＿＿__|
(\__/) ||
(•ㅅ•) ||
/ 　づ

i'd say it took you about your life to come up with that.

Junkyard Tom · 22-06-2019 01:15AM

Dante7 wrote: »

The people defending it will be overwhelmingly male.

One of the problems too is that the lovable dopes identify with Mr Field reflexively because 'he man'... 'me man'. Sadly for these hapless gobsheens people like Mark Field would piss on them for the laugh.

Nobelium · 22-06-2019 01:17AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

One of the problems too is that the lovable dopes identify with Mr Field reflexively because 'he man'... 'me man'. Sadly for these hapless gobsheens people like Mark Field would piss on them for the laugh.

This is a bit ironic coming from someone who defends provo terrorists blowing up women and kids out shopping.

Checkmate19 · 22-06-2019 01:17AM

I bet ill be banned for that

Junkyard Tom · 22-06-2019 01:19AM

Nobelium wrote: »

This is a bit ironic coming from someone who defends provo terrorists blowing up women and kids out shopping.

Yeah, like your love life, that never happened. You should learn the difference between 'irony' and 'thoughts-that-just-entered-my-head' too. Up your game.

Nobelium · 22-06-2019 01:25AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yeah, like your love life, that never happened. You should learn the difference between 'irony' and 'thoughts-that-just-entered-my-head' too. Up your game.

You've made a bit of a Freudian slip there, and your attempts at justifying terrorism are all over this site.

Canis Lupus · 22-06-2019 01:26AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What I'm saying is that posters are posting snippets of the law saying that he had a legal right. He did not.

He would have to prove he acted within the law when he clearly didn't. He totally overreacted. He used more force than is allowed by law.

If Gardai in Ireland use that type of force on video for a non aggressive woman or man they would be suspended immediately. If security responded in the same way they would be suspended & their contracts not renewed or totally cancelled. The amount of force this man used against this non aggressive woman was illegal. He can point to any law he wants but at the very least he used excessive force & can be charged & sued for it

What are you going on about? I've seen teachers march unruly students to the principals office in a harsher fashion than he turfed that lady out.

end of the road · 22-06-2019 01:31AM

Nobelium wrote: »

This is a bit ironic coming from someone who defends provo terrorists blowing up women and kids out shopping.

tom has never defended the provisional IRA killing civilians.

Nobelium · 22-06-2019 01:36AM

end of the road wrote: »

tom has never defended the provisional IRA killing civilians.

What do you think about SF protecting rapists and paedophiles ?

lawred2 · 22-06-2019 02:17AM

Lot of lads on here would love a shot at some women based on this thread

batgoat · 22-06-2019 02:37AM

Pretty good thread from Robert Preston on how the response was viewed as completely disproportionate by those present. Also points out that those protesting were incredibly peaceful so far from a threat.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1141843478978187264?s=19

Checkmate19 · 22-06-2019 02:43AM

She went around to provoke. If any security where there she was gone. I personally think she should be put down but that's here or nere. She is a gob****e. Whatever you thing about climate change. I think its bollixxxx but you cant be doing that ****e. Its dangerous.

Canis Lupus · 22-06-2019 03:13AM

lawred2 wrote: »

Lot of lads on here would love a shot at some women based on this thread

I can't hear you over your white armor clanking and horse stomping.

Checkmate19 · 22-06-2019 03:23AM

What is the world coming to. We are fukked.

Checkmate19 · 22-06-2019 03:26AM

She should been there. Simple. Security would have done more. More. Simples.

Sorry about that · 22-06-2019 04:10AM

Those women posed no threat and did no harm. Their intentions were obvious from the sashes they wore over their dresses (to draw attention to climate change in a high profile public place).

From my viewing of the footage, Mr Field reacted in anger rather than defence; he looked pretty annoyed as he pounced. This is a disturbing display of physical power from a man who didn’t opt to ask the woman to leave. If someone is disrupting an event, to which they haven’t been invited, the security guys or attendees, usually ask or tell them to leave, before putting hands on them.

More disturbing than this man’s impulsive behaviour (which I think he’d choose not to repeat, given the chance), is the way some posters here, anonymously of course, suggest she deserved this treatment. She didn’t.

FAILSAFE 00 · 22-06-2019 04:15AM

Canis Lupus · 22-06-2019 05:35AM

Sorry about that wrote: »

Those women posed no threat and did no harm. Their intentions were obvious from the sashes they wore over their dresses (to draw attention to climate change in a high profile public place).

From my viewing of the footage, Mr Field reacted in anger rather than defence; he looked pretty annoyed as he pounced. This is a disturbing display of physical power from a man who didn’t opt to ask the woman to leave. If someone is disrupting an event, to which they haven’t been invited, the security guys or attendees, usually ask or tell them to leave, before putting hands on them.

More disturbing than this man’s impulsive behaviour (which I think he’d choose not to repeat, given the chance), is the way some posters here, anonymously of course, suggest she deserved this treatment. She didn’t.

Of course it was anger. She needed a shoe up her hole barging in. Using words to describe the situation as a 'display of physical power' is actually quite funny.

Sorry about that · 22-06-2019 05:46AM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Of course it was anger. She needed a shoe up her hole barging in. Using words to describe the situation as a 'display of physical power' is actually quite funny.

No, she didn’t need a shoe up her hole; such eloquence...

Canis Lupus · 22-06-2019 05:57AM

Sorry about that wrote: »

No, she didn’t need a shoe up her hole; such eloquence...

I disagree and just in case you think I'm making a display of male power and privilege I couldn't have cared if it was a male protester or Barney the Dinosaur.

Sorry about that · 22-06-2019 06:05AM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I disagree and just in case you think I'm making a display of male power and privilege I couldn't have cared if it was a male protester or Barney the Dinosaur.

I’m not reading anything more into it than what you’ve written. And that’s fair enough that you disagree with me. I don’t think he’d have taken on a big man though, and those women were just handing out a few fliers. Wouldn’t have killed him to ask her to leave rather than put his hands on her.

Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

Comments