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…2425272930…41

Comments

  • #782
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Deleted User wrote: »
    He may not have been in danger but someone else could have been. Not everyone just looks out for themselves thank god.



    Excessive force would be punching her. Restraining her and then continuing to restrain her until she is out is not excessive.

    That's where most people disagree. Forcing her against the pillar and grabbing her neck was excessive.


  • #783
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Tell me how wrote: »
    No. Not at all. It would be wrong for them to use excessive force though.

    Good thing Mark Field didn’t use excessive force so


  • #784
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    tritium wrote: »
    Good thing Mark Field didn’t use excessive force so

    Really? Why did he apologise yesterday so and say that he regretted it?


  • #785
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    Tell me how wrote: »
    That's where most people disagree. Forcing her against the pillar and grabbing her neck was excessive.

    So again, if she may have had a weapon (Mark field couldn’t have known she didn’t) and was striding purposefully towards the top of the table and two viable targets, what level of force wouldn’t have been excessive in your view.

    In answering please consider that if she has a weapon his own safety is also a concern


  • #786
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Tell me how wrote:
    Really? Why did he apologise yesterday so and say that he regretted it?

    Because sadly, this is the way of the world at the moment.

    Faux outrage and the vocal minority can cost you your job. Apologising to the shrieking mob does nothing except give them credence unfortunately and makes you look weak.

    But in an attempt to keep his job he was probably advised to apologise.


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Really? Why did he apologise yesterday so and say that he regretted it?

    Oh come on.


  • #788
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Really? Why did he apologise yesterday so and say that he regretted it?

    Because of all the ****ehawks that were offended. They will still try to hound him out of office, the apology will only spur on the more rabid ones.


  • #789
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Tell me how wrote:
    That's where most people disagree. Forcing her against the pillar and grabbing her neck was excessive.

    Do you understand what excessive force is? There is no excessive force here.


  • #790
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Really? Why did he apologise yesterday so and say that he regretted it?
    because of the patriarchy.


  • #791
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Hard to catch up with the number of posts the thread is attracting, but, she had broken away from the main protest, there was no security near her if anything had happened and that's the crux of it.


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Because sadly, this is the way of the world at the moment.

    Faux outrage and the vocal minority can cost you your job. Apologising to the shrieking mob does nothing except give them credence unfortunately and makes you look weak.

    But in an attempt to keep his job he was probably advised to apologise.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Oh come on.
    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    Because of all the ****ehawks that were offended. They will still try to hound him out of office, the apology will only spur on the more rabid ones.
    suicide_circus wrote: »
    because of the patriarchy.

    This is brilliant.
    Ye are so entrenched, ye are sticking up for him in a way that he is not even doing himself and blaming others for him apologising.


  • #793
    TheDiceMan2020
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭TheDiceMan2020


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

    How was he to know who they were?


  • #794
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Tell me how wrote: »
    This is brilliant.
    Ye are so entrenched, ye are sticking up for him in a way that he is not even doing himself and blaming others for him apologising.

    No, you are deluded to think he now believes what he did was wrong.


  • #795
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Tell me how wrote: »
    This is brilliant.
    Ye are so entrenched, ye are sticking up for him in a way that he is not even doing himself and blaming others for him apologising.

    the reason he apologised was because it was a woman. that is clear as day. that is patriarchal.


  • #796
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    No, you are deluded to think he now believes what he did was wrong.

    Oh, I'm sorry for taking him at his word for what he said.

    What telepathy channel are you tuned in to so I can get the real message.


  • #797
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Tell me how wrote:
    This is brilliant. Ye are so entrenched, ye are sticking up for him in a way that he is not even doing himself and blaming others for him apologising.

    Yes... WE are the ones entrenched.

    I think that a person to tackle another person who is trespassing is a valid response and doesn't need an apology.

    If he feels the need to apologise, then by all means. That's on him.

    I am glad he did it and hope that I would do the same in his position.


  • #798
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    the reason he apologised was because it was a woman. that is clear as day (in my prejudiced head). that is patriarchal.

    Added the bit in bold there so your post would make sense.


  • #799
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Oh, I'm sorry for taking him at his word for what he said.

    What telepathy channel are you tuned in to so I can get the real message.

    nuance and context are beyond you it seems


  • #800
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,801 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Added the bit in bold there so your post would make sense.

    good on ye.


  • #801
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Oh, I'm sorry for taking him at his word for what he said.

    What telepathy channel are you tuned in to so I can get the real message.

    Jog on. You have as much telepathy to him as I do. Think what you want but anyone with any sense knows you are wrong. FFS


  • Advertisement
  • #802
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    Jog on. You have as much telepathy to him as I do. Think what you want but anyone with any sense knows you are wrong. FFS

    I just listened to his words Sonny. Sorry for doing so. What should I do?


  • #803
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Tell me how wrote: »
    I just listened to his words Sonny. Sorry for doing so. What should I do?

    No idea, but don’t buy magic beans if they are offered to you as you seem a bit naive.


  • #804
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    No idea, but don’t buy magic beans if they are offered to you as you seem a bit naive.

    Ooh, that told me. You clearly bested me with your logic and debating skills.
    I mean, they're not related to reality but I think that is even more impressive.


  • #805
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Ooh, that told me. You clearly bested me with your logic and debating skills.
    I mean, they're not related to reality but I think that is even more impressive.

    Yeah, you are deluded and not capable of rational thought so it might be time for you to bow out now, with your tail between your legs.

    Mod-Banned


  • #806
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,590 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Nobelium wrote: »
    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.

    protesters all be it uninvited go to a not so private event. this event is a government held event i believe so is not technically private, all be it guests are invited rather then anyone and everyone turning up. so they were not intruders. also, the protester who supposebly went full steam for the main speaker, didn't. she simply walked calmly.
    her intent was absolutely known. there were plenty of give away signs and there was nothing to show that there was any risk to anyone.
    the security had the right to remove the protesters, which they did, in the proper manner, unlike this particular individual.
    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".

    there was no acting like a terrorist. simply breaking past security and trying to get to someone in power is not of itself an act of terrorism. the manner in which one may do it along with other evidence is what will likely determine as to whether there maybe a serious incident requiring the required actions, so in this case, someone who wasn't behaving like a terrorist wouldn't be treated as such.
    the fact the actions can be determined to be nonviolent after the event, in fact, during the event in this case, is very very relevant. otherwise for example, protesters would be shot on a regular basis on the uk mainland.
    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.

    their real intent was known. there were visible give away signs. you might like it to be otherwise but it is what it is
    Dax Rich Pastry wrote: »
    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.


    she didn't pose a threat, regardless of what you think. everything, from the give away signs that she was a protester from green peace who are a non-violent organisation, to the fact she didn't use any violence shows this to be the case.
    she was not removed accordingly, but grabbed by the neck by someone who was not security.
    Pastor Crowe wrote: »
    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.

    there were no tactics of fascism used here by the protesters. you will need to do some reading about fascism, and democracy. protesting is an act of democracy and is perfectly legal.
    the "she might have done" or the "for all he knew she was going to do this or that" deflection has been debunked.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.

    it only shows the security should have been more alert. it does not reinforce anything or justify the mps actions.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #807
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,193 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Sonny noggs wrote: »
    Yeah, you are deluded and not capable of rational thought so it might be time for you to bow out now, with your tail between your legs.

    Let me see if I can understand this correctly, you have your views about an incident in which;
    • there is video footage of what happened and,
    • the central character has apologised for their behaviour.
    And you still think he was correct and is being unfairly treated?

    I'm not going to continue with this stupid argument anymore. You'll only beat me with experience.


  • #808
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Let me see if I can understand this correctly, you have your views about an incident in which;
    • there is video footage of what happened and,
    • the central character has apologised for their behaviour.
    And you still think he was correct and is being unfairly treated?

    I'm not going to continue with this stupid argument anymore. You'll only beat me with experience.

    Having an Einstein avatar just makes you look more stupid.


  • #809
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,260 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    I honestly wonder why some would defend someone who assaulted a person & was caught on video


    Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she is a protestor? Do posters hate Greenpeace? Do we have members of the Tory party here on Boards? Or do we just have members that will argue for the sake of arguing?



    The mind truly boggles


  • #810
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sleeper12 wrote:
    I honestly wonder why some would defend someone who assaulted a person & was caught on video

    I'll go one further. I dont just defend him, I applaud him. And as I said, I would hope that I would do exactly the same if I found myself in his position.


  • Advertisement
  • #811
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,590 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    tritium wrote: »
    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?

    like all the other whatiffery arguments used to try and justify his actions, the answer is simply, it is irrelevant given she was very clear about what she was there to do.
    tritium wrote: »
    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?

    whether she should or shouldn't have been there is of no relevance to mark field's actions.
    nobody has said she should be treated differently from a security perspective because she is a woman. in fact the actual security gards didn't do such a thing.
    also nobody has said that mails who are victims of domestic violence are making it up or that women aren't capable of carrying out violent acts, so you are engaging in whataboutery here.
    i think the real reason that some people outraged by the Farage milkshake see no issue with this is because they simply disagree with this protester.
    the activist did not bring this on herself, she was simply protesting, which there is nothing irresponsible about. the only one who brought anything on themselves and who did act irresponsibly, was the individual who grabbed a woman by the neck.
    tritium wrote: »
    The law also allows you to take reasonable steps to protect yourself or others from threat, which is exactly what happened here.

    and yet there is absolutely nothing to show that this is what happened.
    tritium wrote: »
    If she had for example a knife then doing what you suggest would have simply led to him being stabbed. The action he took was proportionate to the perceived threat. It’s ludicrous to suggest restraining and controlling someone is excessive use of force, it would generally be seen as the bottom end of the scale.

    he didn't simply control and restrain someone. if that was what he did do, instead of what he actually did do, which
    was disproportionate, then there would be no story.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



Advertisement