Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

margo321 · 22-06-2019 06:33AM

she was stirring trouble. i dont blame him.

Shemale · 22-06-2019 07:39AM

sdanseo wrote: »

An mundane example of this is how cats carry their kittens by the neck.

Cats dont have hands, not sure what point you are inferring

Sleeper12 · 22-06-2019 07:58AM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

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.

You have seen teachers assault unruly pupils? This has been illegal in Irish classrooms since 1982. How does you seeing teachers assault Irish pupils,make it ok for a British Minister to assault a non aggressive woman? Two wrongs don't make a right.

You do realize that he has been suspended as Minister? You do realize that he's under government investigation? You do realize that he is under police investigation? Have you watched the video? He is under investigation because of the way he assaulted this woman

Wait till you see. Borris will get in & make him Minister for justice

Canis Lupus · 22-06-2019 08:36AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You have seen teachers assault unruly pupils? This has been illegal in Irish classrooms since 1982. How does you seeing teachers assault Irish pupils,make it ok for a British Minister to assault a non aggressive woman? Two wrongs don't make a right.

You do realize that he has been suspended as Minister? You do realize that he's under government investigation? You do realize that he is under police investigation? Have you watched the video? He is under investigation because of the way he assaulted this woman

Wait till you see. Borris will get in & make him Minister for justice

You're right. I now realise just how wrong I've been. I reviewed the video again and it's just brutal. The savagery of the entire situation, blood everywhere, limbs lopped off, babies screaming, the look of sheer terror in everyones eyes as that poor, defenceless woman is dragged from the room by what can only be described as a man suffused with testosterone gone insane.

I can only hope that poor woman can pick up the pieces of her destroyed life and move on from this and I will also further hope that that neanderthal is thrown into prison with hard labour for what remains of his pathetic life.

alchemist33 · 22-06-2019 08:41AM

Checkmate19 wrote: »

What is the world coming to. We are fukked.

Which was exactly her point

Sleeper12 · 22-06-2019 08:46AM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

You're right. I now realise just how wrong I've been. I reviewed the video again and it's just brutal. The savagery of the entire situation, blood everywhere, limbs lopped off, babies screaming, the look of sheer terror in everyones eyes as that poor, defenceless woman is dragged from the room by what can only be described as a man suffused with testosterone gone insane.

I can only hope that poor woman can pick up the pieces of her destroyed life and move on from this and I will also further hope that that neanderthal is thrown into prison with hard labour for what remains of his pathetic life.

You can play it down anyway you want. Trying to be funny doesn't make it "not" assault. He assaulted her on video. I'd love to see photos of her neck this morning. She'll be black & blue by now. There's more than enough evidence for her to sue him. As for his minister roll, he might get lucky. If Boris is elected he'll possibly give him a job but I don't think this can happen while the man is under investigation by the police

runawaybishop · 22-06-2019 08:51AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You can play it down anyway you want. Trying to be funny doesn't make it "not" assault. He assaulted her on video. I'd love to see photos of her neck this morning. She'll be black & blue by now. There's more than enough evidence for her to sue him. As for his minister roll, he might get lucky. If Boris is elected he'll possibly give him a job but I don't think this can happen while the man is under investigation by the police

Technically she is the one guilty of assault. The MP was defending a third party he believed was about to be assaulted. Defending someone isn't assault. Causing someone to believe they are going to be assaulted comes under assault.

Tell me how · 22-06-2019 08:55AM

runawaybishop wrote: »

Technically she is the one guilty of assault. The MP was defending a third party he believed was about to be assaulted. Defending someone isn't assault. Causing someone to believe they are going to be assaulted comes under assault.

Takes some spin to look at that video and suggest she is the one guilty of assault.

The prejudice is strong in this one.

runawaybishop · 22-06-2019 08:59AM

Tell me how wrote: »

Takes some spin to look at that video and suggest she is the one guilty of assault.

The prejudice is strong in this one.

She caused someone to believe they were going to be assaulted. That's the textbook definition of assault

(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

Sleeper12 · 22-06-2019 09:02AM

runawaybishop wrote: »

Technically she is the one guilty of assault. The MP was defending a third party he believed was about to be assaulted. Defending someone isn't assault. Causing someone to believe they are going to be assaulted comes under assault.

I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense. You can use reasonable force. In this case standing up & blocking her way is reasonable force. She at no stage laid hands on him. He clearly used excessive force. This is assault. Why do you sup[pose he was suspended & is being investigated buy & government committee & the police?

runawaybishop · 22-06-2019 09:05AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense. You can use reasonable force. In this case standing up & blocking her way is reasonable force. She at no stage laid hands on him. He clearly used excessive force. This is assault. Why do you sup[pose he was suspended & is being investigated buy & government committee & the police?

Nonsense? It's the law.

Assault is when you do not have a lawful excuse, he has. You can use the force you determine is reasonable at the time. The level of assault (which you claim he did) by the way, is determined by the injuries sustained, what were hers?

Every assault, or potential assault, should be investigated.

Tell me how · 22-06-2019 09:19AM

runawaybishop wrote: »

She caused someone to believe they were going to be assaulted. That's the textbook definition of assault

(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

Point b includes reference to reasonable grounds.

The several hundred other people who remained seated is evidence that they did not feel concerned they were about to be assaulted.

Without that, I could just hit a pedestrian walking past me and claim I thought they were going to assault me.

Try again.

Sleeper12 · 22-06-2019 09:21AM

runawaybishop wrote: »

She caused someone to believe they were going to be assaulted. That's the textbook definition of assault

(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

(2) In subsection (1) (a), “force” includes—

(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and

(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.

This doesn't give him a right to assault her. He can use the above to try defend himself in court. (d) above is a massive stretch in this case. The video shows her not walking to him but walking past him. He actually put himself in her way.

I'll say this again. What if the organizers decided to hire a comic group to stage this. FG did hire comics a long time ago. This idiot was a guest & didn't know if she was invited or not. She was walking past him & not to him. He has no grounds to believe he was about to be assaulted.

I'll say this again. If a doorman manhandled a non aggressive person like that on camera they would be sacked. There would be a police investigation. If found guilty of assault he looses his security license. I can also state from experience that there is more than enough for her to win a civil suit against him, his party & the hotel.

runawaybishop · 22-06-2019 09:32AM

Tell me how wrote: »

Point b includes reference to reasonable grounds.

The several hundred other people who remained seated is evidence that they did not feel concerned they were about to be assaulted.

Without that, I could just hit a pedestrian walking past me and claim I thought they were going to assault me.

Try again.

The other people don't matter, he thought it was reasonable and that's all the courts care about.

Not sure how you conflate a protester evading security given the UKs history of MPs being assaulted and you just flaking some randomer

runawaybishop · 22-06-2019 09:32AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This doesn't give him a right to assault her.

It gives him lawful excuse, as per the law I quoted above

Spleerbun · 22-06-2019 09:35AM

59 pages for this, Christ. It's barely an incident. Uninvited guest removed with minimal fuss and minimal force. If he was security, non event. If the girl was a man, non event. Some people really do love being dramatic

lawred2 · 22-06-2019 09:37AM

runawaybishop wrote: »

The other people don't matter, he thought it was reasonable and that's all the courts care about.

Not sure how you conflate a protester evading security given the UKs history of MPs being assaulted and you just flaking some randomer

?

Sleeper12 · 22-06-2019 09:38AM

runawaybishop wrote: »

It gives him lawful excuse, as per the law I quoted above

That my friend would need to be determined in court. He'd have a tough job clinging onto that one. She was trying to get past him. He put himself in her way.

runawaybishop · 22-06-2019 09:40AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That my friend would need to be determined in court. He'd have a tough job clinging onto that one. She was trying to get past him. He put himself in her way.

He believed she was trying to get past him to commit an assault, he stopped her. She will have a tough job proving otherwise.

On the scale of serious issues this is at the very bottom.

tritium · 22-06-2019 09:58AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense. You can use reasonable force. In this case standing up & blocking her way is reasonable force. She at no stage laid hands on him. He clearly used excessive force. This is assault. Why do you sup[pose he was suspended & is being investigated buy & government committee & the police?

It would be extraordinarily difficult to argue the force used in the video was excessive. He didn’t strike her, he controlled her using his hand on her neck after using an initial push to stop her moving forward and to gain that control. No striking, no gratuitous excess use of force, no threat of any long term damage to the other party. Given she was somewhere she shouldn’t have been, and Ill-advisedly advancing on two of the most senior UK officials it’s hard to argue it was anything but proportionate.

Dakota Dan · 22-06-2019 10:05AM

Lux23 wrote: »

She has a right to protest. He had a right to have her removed, but he didn't need to drag her by the throat. He only has himself to blame.

He didn’t grab her by the throat he frog marched her to the door, hardly life threatening

Edgware · 22-06-2019 10:10AM

runawaybishop wrote: »

Technically she is the one guilty of assault. The MP was defending a third party he believed was about to be assaulted. Defending someone isn't assault. Causing someone to believe they are going to be assaulted comes under assault.

Obliged m'lud

RobertKK · 22-06-2019 10:14AM

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:

Mrsmum · 22-06-2019 10:35AM

It's one thing to be forgiving, to a greater or lesser degree, of his actions due to the on the spot, nature of them. I am fairly soft on him myself regarding that. However I still know it was a poor spur of the moment decision and that he was ott.
But I find it worrying that some people on here with the benefit of hindsight seem to be insisting he was right full stop and that the force he used was proportionate.

tritium · 22-06-2019 10:41AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

It's one thing to be forgiving, to a greater or lesser degree, of his actions due to the on the spot, nature of them. I am fairly soft on him myself regarding that. However I still know it was a poor spur of the moment decision and that he was ott.
But I find it worrying that some people on here with the benefit of hindsight seem to be insisting he was right full stop and that the force he used was proportionate.

If she had intended to do something harmful or engage in some sort of stunt (anything from milkshake attack to gbh), and bearing mind what you’ve acknowledged, the on the spot nature of the situation, what level of force do you think would be proportionate? Bearing in mind if he gets it wrong someone, maybe him for intervening, is potentially getting hurt?

Nobelium · 22-06-2019 10:44AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

It's one thing to be forgiving, to a greater or lesser degree, of his actions due to the on the spot, nature of them. I am fairly soft on him myself regarding that. However I still know it was a poor spur of the moment decision and that he was ott.
But I find it worrying that some people on here with the benefit of hindsight seem to be insisting he was right full stop and that the force he used was proportionate.

Some people can't see past their sexist and political goggles.

Intruders breaks into a private event and one of them heads full steam for the main speaker, while concealing who know what, and no one knows their real intent ? . . . they had every right to stop them and defend someone from risk. If it was some male neo nazi protester heading for the main speaker, and a women physical tackled them before they got there, she would be exactly right to do so as well.

Faugheen · 22-06-2019 10:50AM

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.

Sleeper12 · 22-06-2019 10:59AM

runawaybishop wrote:

He believed she was trying to get past him to commit an assault, he stopped her. She will have a tough job proving otherwise.

Following this flawed logic, I can deliberately assault someone & claim that I believed they were going to assault me first. It doesn't work that way. He would have to demonstrate that there was a risk. Anyone watching the video can clearly see a woman trying to walk around his table. She was calm and not behaving in a threatening manner. She wasn't shouting. He jumped up got in her way, shoved her against the wall & then grabbed her by the neck.

People can post the rule of law all they want. He can not demonstrate that she was any risk. She wasn't coming at him. She wanted to get around him. It's all clearly seen on the video. He assaulted her several times in that video. He had no legal right to put hands on her.

We can go oh no she didn't & oh yes he did, all day & it will get us nowhere. He is suspended. There are two separate investigations into his behaviour

22-06-2019 11:01AM

Tell me how wrote:

The prejudice is strong in this one.

In you too. You have prejudged him on a hypothetical situation saying that he wouldn't have done the same thing to a man.

Tell me how wrote:

Without that, I could just hit a pedestrian walking past me and claim I thought they were going to assault me.

Apples and oranges. If an univited pedestrian (stranger) was walking towards your family in your own private residence or at a private party and you had any doubt about their motives, you would be within your rights to remove them by force.

Faugheen wrote:

Itâ€™s no surprise that the people who were crying and outraged over the milkshakes see no issue with this.

Oh for christ's sake. It's because of the stupid ****ers that were throwing milkshakes at whoever they wanted that these types of situations occur.

Faugheen wrote:

If she wasnâ€™t a woman, he wouldnâ€™t have been so brave.

Says who? ****ing mystic meg? Amazing how sexist some people are being.

If you took gender away from all this, ie a person stormed in to protest and another person forcibly removed them after the security people didn't do their job, it looks fine.

But with the narrative of "poor little female protester, almost strangled to death by evil male politician", yeah it will look bad.

Faugheen wrote:

â€˜But what if she was armed?â€™ - absolute bullsh*t analogy to excuse the behaviour. She wasnâ€™t armed. She was peacefully protesting. Any whataboutery otherwise is irrelevant.

Absolute bull**** indeed. Whataboutery. you should always wait until after the fact to ensure safety.

Better to be reactive than proactive.

tritium · 22-06-2019 11:01AM

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.

Why does her being a woman give her any special right to behave in an irresponsible manner. Why should she be treated from a security perspective any different to anyone else when she’s walking purposefully somewhere she really shouldn’t be and approaching two high value targets? Are women incapable of violent acts? Are the roughly a quarter of men who are victims of domestic violence just making it up?

The reason the people outraged by the Farage milkshake see no issue with this is because someone intervened this time to prevent another similar incident potentially happening, maybe with worse than a milkshake this time. The activist brought this entirely on themselves by frankly stupid and irresponsible actions.

Are are you just exposing your own unconscious sexist bias?

Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

Comments