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…2223252728…41

Comments

  • #722
    TheDiceMan2020
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭TheDiceMan2020


    If someone had been shot, the women would be asking why the men didn't do something to stop them getting so close. You can't win with these clowns.

    He was dead right.


  • #723
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    TheDiceMan2020 wrote:
    If someone had been shot, the women would be asking why the men didn't do something to stop them getting so close. You can't win with these clowns.


    :):):)


  • #724
    elperello
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,668 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    TheDiceMan2020 wrote: »
    If someone had been shot, the women would be asking why the men didn't do something to stop them getting so close. You can't win with these clowns.

    He was dead right.

    Greenpeace has been involved in non violent direct action protesting since 1971.
    To date they have not shot anyone.
    He was dead wrong.


  • #725
    friendlyfun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,266 ✭✭✭friendlyfun


    Big men on the boards think its right to treat a woman like this? big cowardly runt is what he is. Try that on Tyson Fury.


  • #726
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    friendlyfun wrote:
    Big men on the boards think its right to treat a woman like this? big cowardly runt is what he is. Try that on Tyson Fury.

    The pigtails come out when it suits.


  • Advertisement
  • #727
    jeremyj1968
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,331 ✭✭✭jeremyj1968


    I think people should take the sex issue out of it. One simple rule: if you act like a terrorist, i.e. break past security, try to get close to people in power, carrying unknown items - then you should expect to be treated like a terrorist. The fact that your actions can be determined to be "non violent" after the event is irrelevant.

    A lot of these protesters are more daring in their actions, safe in their knowledge that "they wont hit a girl".


  • #728
    Bobblehats
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,707 ✭✭✭Bobblehats


    friendlyfun wrote: »
    Try that on Tyson Fury.

    He’s a big robot. An absolute unit


  • #729
    elperello
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,668 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    jeremyj1968 wrote: »
    I think people should take the sex issue out of it. One simple rule: if you act like a terrorist, i.e. break past security, try to get close to people in power, carrying unknown items - then you should expect to be treated like a terrorist. The fact that your actions can be determined to be "non violent" after the event is irrelevant.

    A lot of these protesters are more daring in their actions, safe in their knowledge that "they wont hit a girl".

    The protestors did not offer violence to anyone.


  • #730
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.

    So, to confirm, you’re happy with a man manhandling a woman who is showcasing her democratic right to protest when he isn’t the security on the night.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.

    I think my narrative is better than the non-existent terror attack analogy on display from goons defending this behaviour.

    If he did nothing wrong then why has the Prime Minister promptly suspended him? She’s leaving the job soon, she doesn’t have to bow to the ‘mob’ anymore because it won’t affect her in any way shape or form, but yet she suspended him anyway.

    The person who protested didn’t lay a hand on anyone.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Absolute bull**** indeed. Whataboutery. you should always wait until after the fact to ensure safety.

    Better to be reactive than proactive.

    Maybe the lads throwing milkshakes were concerned that the people they threw them at were armed so they defended themselves.

    See how ridiculous the self-defence analogy is now?


  • #731
    Nobelium
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭Nobelium


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    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.

    Intruders broke into a private event on private property and one of them then broke away from the main group and headed full steam for the main speaker, concealing who knows what. We have still no idea what the attempted attackers real intent was against the speaker. Anyone, male, female or otherwise was perfectly entitled to physical tackle someone doing that.


  • Advertisement
  • #732
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    elperello wrote: »
    The protestors did not offer violence to anyone.

    No one ever offers violence until, you know, they get violent. Generally if the target of their violence is a prominent public figure it tends to be too late if you wait until that happens. If you don’t believe me ask the families of several Polish, Brazilian, Scandinavian and indeed UK politicians.


  • #733
    YFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,712 ✭✭✭YFlyer


    Two jabs Prescott got away with punching a protester


  • #734
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Faugheen wrote:
    So, to confirm, you’re happy with a man manhandling a woman who is showcasing her democratic right to protest when he isn’t the security on the night.

    I'm happy with a person using reasonable force against another person if they are trespassing. Yes.
    Faugheen wrote:
    I think my narrative is better than the non-existent terror attack analogy on display from goons defending this behaviour.

    I agree. Some of the hyperbole on both sides is embarrassing.
    Faugheen wrote:
    If he did nothing wrong then why has the Prime Minister promptly suspended him? She’s leaving the job soon, she doesn’t have to bow to the ‘mob’ anymore because it won’t affect her in any way shape or form, but yet she suspended him anyway.

    Because sadly, that's the way of the world now. Once people cry about it loud enough and can pull faux outrage and the media get their teeth into it, public figures will do anything to improve their standing. Just because May is leaving doesn't mean she hasn't got to improve her reputation.
    Faugheen wrote:
    Maybe the lads throwing milkshakes were concerned that the people they threw them at were armed so they defended themselves.

    Faugheen wrote:
    See how ridiculous the self-defence analogy is now?

    No. You may have a point with the Tommy Robinson incident as you could argue the man felt intimidated but the other ones were instigated by the people who threw the milkshakes, just like this incident was instigated by someone who purposely entered an area where rhey shouldn't be.


  • #735
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    YFlyer wrote: »
    Two jabs Prescott got away with punching a protester

    It could be argued that that was an instinctive reaction without time to assess the situation.
    The only way that would apply here is if Mr Field could claim that 2 minutes of observing what was going on was insufficient to assess it clearly.


  • #736
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Nobelium wrote:
    Intruders broke into a private event on private property and one of them then broke away from the main group and headed full steam for the main speaker, concealing who knows what. We have still no idea what the attempted attackers real intent was against the speaker. Anyone, male, female or otherwise was perfectly entitled to physical tackle someone doing that.


    That's not true. These was no break in reported. You just made that up. You'd made a great fiction writer

    A group entered the the unlocked room and turned left. These were stopped, without assaulting them I might add. This lady turned right on entering the room. No one stopped her or asked her to leave before she was assaulted.


  • #737
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    That's not true. These was no break in reported. You just made that up. You'd made a great fiction writer

    A group entered the the unlocked room and turned left. These were stopped, without assaulting them I might add. This lady turned right on entering the room. No one stopped her or asked her to leave before she was assaulted.

    The big difference and the bit you left out is she made a beeline towards two of the uks most prominent public figures


  • #738
    The Rapture
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16 ✭The Rapture


    I see this non-story is starting to lose its legs already.

    Don't enter the lions den unless you want to be mauled.


  • #739
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    The Rapture wrote: »
    I see this non-story is starting to lose its legs already.

    Don't enter the lions den unless you want to be mauled.

    It has had a pretty incredible level of interest given what it was.

    Also, a lot of focus has moved on to the latest in the Boris Johnson Soap Opera.


  • #740
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    tritium wrote:
    The big difference and the bit you left out is she made a beeline towards two of the uks most prominent public figures


    The law still doesn't allow you to assault a protester. The law actually allows protest. It's a basic human right


  • #741
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sleeper12 wrote:
    The law still doesn't allow you to assault a protester. The law actually allows protest. It's a basic human right

    You can protest but you can't trespass


  • Advertisement
  • #742
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    The law still doesn't allow you to assault a protester. The law actually allows protest. It's a basic human right

    Yup, very true. However, one cannot protest how they like when they like where they like. Oh and according to human right law, a protest can be interrupted in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The people in that room have a right to safety, she posed a threat (regardless of what you think), and she was removed accordingly.


  • #743
    nw5iytvs0lf1uz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭nw5iytvs0lf1uz


    for all he knew she was going to throw a milkshake on him or worse. he had every right to do what he did and more power to him.
    if anything he should be promoted.
    if people like this lady want change then use ballot the box to do it, not the tactics of fascism.


  • #744
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Just watched it. She wasn't exactly walking like a peaceful protester. She was more striding towards whichever important person was at the end of the table and in a split second reaction, it is fair that someone might think there's an attack at the end of that sort of determined walk with no security to stop it.

    They all get death threats and one of their colleagues was actually murdered a few years ago. Can you imagine her actually stabbing or shooting an MP and everyone being like "Not my job to stop her." like the braindead fukheads at the start of this thread were arguing.


    Her gender has absolutely nothing to do with this by the way. It's simply a person stopping another person who in that split second, thought was a danger.


  • #745
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    The law still doesn't allow you to assault a protester. The law actually allows protest. It's a basic human right

    The law also allows you to take reasonable steps to protect yourself or others from threat, which is exactly what happened here.


  • #746
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    tritium wrote: »
    The law also allows you to take reasonable steps to protect yourself or others from threat, which is exactly what happened here.

    No it isn't.

    He used excessive force in a situation where he had sufficient time to understand what was going on and to block her progress in a less forceful manner.


  • #747
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You can protest but you can't trespass




    She didn't trespass. She walked into the room. Through an open door. She didn't even have to open said door. It's only at no stage was she told to leave. Well she was after he assaulted her several times


  • #748
    RasTa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,111 ✭✭✭✭RasTa


    “He continued to grip me by the neck and the arm all the way to the door of the building. Then, when we got to the door, he shoved me outside on to the street, and said: ‘This is what happens when people like you disturb our dinner.’”

    Says it all, he wasn't threatened in any way. He was just pissed and lashed out at her. Reminds me of what happens when someone disturbs the fox hunters hunt. Feckin Tories are finished anyhow.


  • #749
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sleeper12 wrote:
    She didn't trespass. She walked into the room. Through an open door. She didn't even have to open said door. It's only at no stage was she told to leave. Well she was after he assaulted her several times

    Was she supposed to be there? No
    Did she know she wasn't supposed to be there? Yes

    The fact that she gained access shows the incompetence of the security guards and only reinforces the fact that the MP was justified in stepping up and ensuring that the uninvited protester didn't reach the top table.


  • #750
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Tell me how wrote: »
    No it isn't.

    He used excessive force in a situation where he had sufficient time to understand what was going on and to block her progress in a less forceful manner.

    Is the argument here that he set out to assault this woman he saw of the corner of his eye?

    It's been said here already. He wasn't a security guard. Why would he be expected to employ perfectly reasonable force when preventing someone he thought was a threat? He didn't hurt her. She's fine now. Surely that's good enough. I know I'd be happy with that result if I were her.


    You remind of the soccer lads in the pub screaming "How could he not have seen that pass?!" at the TV not being able to differentiate between what they can see and what the player can see.


  • Advertisement
  • #751
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    YFlyer wrote: »
    Two jabs Prescott got away with punching a protester

    He was spot on. Fair play to him, one of my favourite ever clips. Some boyo.


Advertisement