Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

Tell me how · 21-06-2019 8:04pm

TCM wrote: »

Well done to that MP.
That protester could have been carrying a bomb or some type of weapon with lethal intentions on mind. She might for example have intended to throw acid over the man.
Why should she have been treated any differently than a man would. If in fact it had been a man, would possibly been wrestled to the floor and arrested.
I congratulate the MP on his swift intervention.
Finally, women whinge about inequality, well this one gained a degree of equality for sure. Perhaps she'll think again before she acts in such an idiotic manner next time she feels entitled.

It's not like she was wearing a sash saying "climate protest" or was a with other people who were dressed the same, or were talking loudly to interrupt the meeting before she approached the tables.

I actually think that what she was going to do was to kidnap Philip Hammond and put him in to the bag she was carrying and then leave while everyone feared for their lives.

Still waters · 21-06-2019 8:05pm

Going by some of the comments I thought he had beheaded her with a butchers saw, he could have handled it better but he hardly left her a bloody pulp on the floor, he handled it well I thought, he was effective in controlling any potential threat she may have posed, gender is irrelevant

end of the road · 21-06-2019 8:16pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Protester invades private function, gets owned by guest, gender is irrelevant.

protester holds protest. guest oversteps the mark, gets suspended from his job.
the "invasion" of a private function didn't justify his actions as is correct. what he did outweighs what she did by millions of miles.

end of the road · 21-06-2019 8:24pm

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Good call on the ‘silly bint’, hopefully that’ll learn her to expect a response if she provokes someone.

she didn't provoke anyone. she held a protest.
the actual security seemed to be able to escort the protesters out without misbehaving.

end of the road · 21-06-2019 8:36pm

TCM wrote: »

Well done to that MP.
That protester could have been carrying a bomb or some type of weapon with lethal intentions on mind. She might for example have intended to throw acid over the man.
Why should she have been treated any differently than a man would. If in fact it had been a man, would possibly been wrestled to the floor and arrested.
I congratulate the MP on his swift intervention.
Finally, women whinge about inequality, well this one gained a degree of equality for sure. Perhaps she'll think again before she acts in such an idiotic manner next time she feels entitled.

this is hysterical whatiffery nonsense.
if she was carrying anything lethal she had plenty of opportunities to use it. she didn't, because she wasn't.
what the police would or wouldn't have done isn't relevant, they have training to deal with people, as did the actual security there, who were able to bring the protesters out without incident unlike this have ago hero who is now apparently suspended from his job and under investigation.
so i'm afraid you haven't put forward anything to justify his behaviour.

jeremyj1968 · 21-06-2019 8:46pm

It was like when the slow set comes on at a Traveller wedding.

21-06-2019 8:52pm

end of the road wrote: »

protester holds protest. guest oversteps the mark, gets suspended from his job.
the "invasion" of a private function didn't justify his actions as is correct. what he did outweighs what she did by millions of miles.

Outweighs?

Miles are a measurement unit for a distance.

I won’t bother correcting all the other errors in what you’ve written in this post. Everyone with any common sense knows it’s all a load of horse dung anyway.

ThunbergsAreGo · 21-06-2019 9:02pm

For those saying she was protesting and thus couldn't be touched.

Are there any circumstances one can't protest?

ThunbergsAreGo · 21-06-2019 9:02pm

For those saying she was protesting and thus couldn't be touched.

Are there any circumstances one can't protest?

elperello · 21-06-2019 9:07pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I don't need to, there is no "attack"

You really do unless you want to re-define "attack".

quokula · 21-06-2019 9:11pm

naughtb4 wrote: »

For those saying she was protesting and thus couldn't be touched.

Are there any circumstances one can't protest?

I don't think there are any circumstances in which one shouldn't be able to protest peacefully without being physically assaulted, no.

Nobody's saying she couldn't be "touched" - the other protesters there were escorted out calmly by less violent people who didn't resort to assaulting them.

Strumms · 21-06-2019 9:13pm

end of the road wrote: »

protester holds protest. guest oversteps the mark, gets suspended from his job.
the "invasion" of a private function didn't justify his actions as is correct. what he did outweighs what she did by millions of miles.

I disagree, he was sitting there minding his own business and discussing things with friends/colleagues when a person unknown to him ultimately rushes towards him in a vaguely threatening fashion.

He reacted proportionally and used minimal force to usher the woman away from the table.

He would not have had the opportunity to make a call as to whether the woman was a protester / crank / unstable or intending violence. This was due to the manner SHE chose to approach them.

If the woman had been respectful, asked the man politely as he left the table for a moment of his time to discuss some concerns, going by the nature of his position he is likely to have agreed.

However we know that was not her intention, which was to cause discomfort intimidation to both he and others guests.

Bobeagleburger · 21-06-2019 9:15pm

Just seen the footage.

He did **** all wrong tbh.

elperello · 21-06-2019 9:21pm

Strumms wrote: »

I disagree, he was sitting there minding his own business and discussing things with friends/colleagues when a person unknown to him ultimately rushes towards him in a vaguely threatening fashion.

He reacted proportionally and used minimal force to usher the woman away from the table.

He would not have had the opportunity to make a call as to whether the woman was a protester / crank / unstable or intending violence. This was due to the manner SHE chose to approach them.

If the woman had been respectful, asked the man politely as he left the table for a moment of his time to discuss some concerns, going by the nature of his position he is likely to have agreed.

However we know that was not her intention, which was to cause discomfort intimidation to both he and others guests.

You really need to review the footage.
"Ask him politely as he left the table"
He was up on his feet and grabbed her by the neck in seconds.

Junkyard Tom · 21-06-2019 9:23pm

Brave man.

Sleeper12 · 21-06-2019 9:24pm

Only seeing this thread now. I used to own a security company in Dublin. We ran the doors of hotels, leisure centres, cinemas, pubs and nightclubs. The man assaulted her as soon as he touched her. He actually shoved her against the wall for no reason. A security guard can do this on camera with an aggressive drunk & even put them in a headlock to safely remove them from the premises. This guy assaulted her plain and simple. He won't be able to explain this away in court. He will either be charged with assault or sued in court or both.

21-06-2019 9:25pm

elperello wrote: »

You really do unless you want to re-define "attack".

That twit in the dress was instructed to leave many times before she once again tried to approach senior government officials in London.

The guy who stopped her did the right thing and if she had any sense she’d have stopped when he presented an obstacle by moving his chair back. You’d have to be a moron not to see the gig was up.

She didn’t stop, no doubt spurred on by the notion that nobody would physically stop her, perhaps in part because she was wearing a dress and holding her hands in plain view. The hands bit, I expect she had clear instruction/warnings from her colleagues to do so.

Well, **** her. Protest on the street, but once you set foot in any building at an event like this and are asked or instructed to leave, you should leave. Otherwise you’re not protesting, you’re interfering deliberately in proceedings to which you are not invited or entitled to attend.

She’s not just a protester. She’s a tool and a moron. He did absolutely right by putting an end to her interruption of proceedings. Anyone who considers that the way he physically directed her out of the room in a controlled manner, despite her refusal to stop and withdraw immediately once confronted, and that he did so without the protection of uniformed authority is an assault, is missing the point.

Outside, she was a protestor. Peaceful protestors should be protected.

Inside, she became an intruder. Intruders should be stopped in their tracks at such events.

He was 100% right.

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-06-2019 9:25pm

elperello wrote: »

You really do unless you want to re-define "attack".

What's your definition?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/attack

to try to hurt or defeat using violence:

quokula · 21-06-2019 9:26pm

Strumms wrote: »

I disagree, he was sitting there minding his own business and discussing things with friends/colleagues when a person unknown to him ultimately rushes towards him in a vaguely threatening fashion.

He reacted proportionally and used minimal force to usher the woman away from the table.

He would not have had the opportunity to make a call as to whether the woman was a protester / crank / unstable or intending violence. This was due to the manner SHE chose to approach them.

If the woman had been respectful, asked the man politely as he left the table for a moment of his time to discuss some concerns, going by the nature of his position he is likely to have agreed.

However we know that was not her intention, which was to cause discomfort intimidation to both he and others guests.

Rushing towards him - no, she was walking past him and he reached out and grabbed her

Threatening fashion - what is threatening about a respectable looking woman in a red dress holding a phone and some leaflets walking past you?

Reacted proportionally - no, he assaulted her

Minimal force - no, he assaulted her

No opportunity to make a call who she was - yes he had, she was accompanied by multiple protesters who all had sashes on saying "climate emergency", who made themselves clearly known before she walked past his table

Her intention was to cause intimidation - yes, because nothing is more intimidating than a group of women in red dresses brandishing leaflets

It's hard to fathom how one can be so wilfully wrong about so many things from such a short video.

elperello · 21-06-2019 9:44pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What's your definition?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/attack

Just for the sake of argument I'll go with your definition.
If you don't see a man offering violence in that clip I'd say we will never see eye to eye.
He jumped up and grabbed her by the neck.

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-06-2019 9:46pm

elperello wrote: »

Just for the sake of argument I'll go with your definition.
If you don't see a man offering violence in that clip I'd say we will never see eye to eye.
He jumped up and grabbed her by the neck.

I guess we have very different definitions of "violence"

elperello · 21-06-2019 9:49pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I guess we have very different definitions of "violence"

Looks like it.

21-06-2019 9:51pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I guess we have very different definitions of "violence"

I see no violence.

Physical force was measured from what I saw. I suspect that by the time we get this many pages in, some people have wound themselves up with all the BS they’re read about grabbing her by the throat, violence, assault etc.

They should cop on to themselves and have another look at that footage. The only way that eejit was leaving was with somebody stopping her in her tracks and walking her out. That MP took no guff from her. Fair play to him.

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-06-2019 9:54pm

JayZeus wrote: »

I see no violence.

Physical force was measured from what I saw. I suspect that by the time we get this many pages in, some people have wound themselves up with all the BS they’re read about grabbing her by the throat, violence, assault etc.

They should cop on to themselves and have another look at that footage. The only way that eejit was leaving was with somebody stopping her in her tracks and walking her out. That MP took no guff from her. Fair play to him.

Exactly!

gctest50 · 21-06-2019 9:56pm

quokula wrote: »

..........

Threatening fashion - what is threatening about a respectable looking woman in a red dress holding a phone and some leaflets walking past you?

,.............

She had a bag with her, could have been anything in it

He was probably thinking of this :

https://imgur.com/HmPDysd

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1130131/brexit-news-charity-worker-suspended-farage-acid-attack-tweet-milkshake

"Brexit news: ‘I’d prefer acid’
Charity boss suspended after vile anti-Farage tweet"

elperello · 21-06-2019 9:59pm

JayZeus wrote: »

I see no violence.

Physical force was measured from what I saw. I suspect that by the time we get this many pages in, some people have wound themselves up with all the BS they’re read about grabbing her by the throat, violence, assault etc.

They should cop on to themselves and have another look at that footage. The only way that eejit was leaving was with somebody stopping her in her tracks and walking her out. That MP took no guff from her. Fair play to him.

I'm just going by what I saw in the clip.
He didn't have the right to use physical force measured or otherwise.

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-06-2019 10:03pm

elperello wrote: »

I'm just going by what I saw in the clip.
He didn't have the right to use physical force measured or otherwise.

In your opinion.

Rubberchikken · 21-06-2019 10:04pm

what would the response have been if she had detonated a bomb/drew out a knife and stabbed someone?

will she call 'woman - shouldnt be manhandled' as her defence?

by all means protest but dont be a moron and intrude where you're not invited.

gw80 · 21-06-2019 10:05pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

That ridiculous. That was a middle aged woman, even if he had stood up and blocked her path it would probably been sufficient.

A real man alright, manhandling a meek looking woman like that.

I would have no problem a politician lashing out (who was the British one who clobbered a protestor who egged him or something)

This was totally different

If she had a knife for example would you suggest he just block her path?

Maybe its because she didn,t have a knife that he tackled her,
If she had a knife he probably would have just assumed she was coming to make him a sandwich.

Plumbthedepths · 21-06-2019 10:11pm

Sleeper12 wrote:

Only seeing this thread now. I used to own a security company in Dublin. We ran the doors of hotels, leisure centres, cinemas, pubs and nightclubs. The man assaulted her as soon as he touched her. He actually shoved her against the wall for no reason. A security guard can do this on camera with an aggressive drunk & even put them in a headlock to safely remove them from the premises. This guy assaulted her plain and simple. He won't be able to explain this away in court. He will either be charged with assault or sued in court or both.

None of your last sentence is going to happen. At least watch the bloody news before you comment.

pinkyeye · 21-06-2019 10:12pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

Puzzled, did she carry a sign saying 'I'm a climate activist'? How is anyone there supposed to know what she's up to? Terrorists don't all come wearing balaclavas.

She literally had a banner on her saying she was a climate activist. :rolleyes:

elperello · 21-06-2019 10:13pm

Rubberchikken wrote: »

what would the response have been if she had detonated a bomb/drew out a knife and stabbed someone?

will she call 'woman - shouldnt be manhandled' as her defence?

by all means protest but dont be a moron and intrude where you're not invited.

In fairness the response in those circumstances would be completely different.
It's still not clear if he was genuinely in fear of an attack on himself or fellow diners.

The whole point of non violent direct action is to disrupt. Some people find such activity unacceptable but in a liberal democracy while it might push the boundaries it has a place.

Sleeper12 · 21-06-2019 10:15pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

In your opinion.

No not opinion. He assaulted her. I ran a security company in Dublin for years. We could get away with handling a person in such a way if we had evidence that they were drunk or causing trouble. This man will be charged with assault & /or sued. No question about it. Totally unprovoked attack & worse for him, he is just a member of the public. It's not his job nor is he trained as a security member of staff.

I'll just add that I'm not taking sides. I saw the video but have no clue what the protest is about. I'm commenting purely from a legal perspective in my experience running a security company.

ILoveYourVibes · 21-06-2019 10:18pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

No not opinion. He assaulted her. I ran a security company in Dublin for years. We could get away with handling a person in such a way if we had evidence that they were drunk or causing trouble. This man will be charged with assault & /or sued. No question about it. Totally unprovoked attack & worse for him, he is just a member of the public. It's not his job nor is he trained as a security member of staff.

I'll just add that I'm not taking sides. I saw the video but have no clue what the protest is about. I'm commenting purely from a legal perspective in my experience running a security company.

Thank you for your perspective. I was beginning to doubt my sanity!

Sleeper12 · 21-06-2019 10:22pm

Plumbthedepths wrote:

None of your last sentence is going to happen. At least watch the bloody news before you comment.

I just googled for the latest update. I can see where he has been suspended but I can't see any headlines where the victim has stated that she won't press charges for assault. Can you post a link showing this?

end of the road · 21-06-2019 10:25pm

Strumms wrote: »

I disagree, he was sitting there minding his own business and discussing things with friends/colleagues when a person unknown to him ultimately rushes towards him in a vaguely threatening fashion.

there was absolutely nothing what soever threatening about her. she was in no way coming at him in a threatening manner.

Strumms wrote: »

He reacted proportionally and used minimal force to usher the woman away from the table.

clearly he didn't, as the video shows, and via the fact he is being investigated. he reacted disproportionately and did not use minimal force, but unreasonable force. if he used proportionate and minimal force, there would be no investigation into his behaviour.

Strumms wrote: »

He would not have had the opportunity to make a call as to whether the woman was a protester / crank / unstable or intending violence. This was due to the manner SHE chose to approach them.

there were plenty of give aways as to who she was and what she was at.

Strumms wrote: »

If the woman had been respectful, asked the man politely as he left the table for a moment of his time to discuss some concerns, going by the nature of his position he is likely to have agreed.

this is just speculation which really has no relevance as even if it was the case, it doesn't justify or validate his actions.

Strumms wrote: »

However we know that was not her intention, which was to cause discomfort intimidation to both he and others guests.

it was to protest.

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-06-2019 10:28pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

No not opinion. He assaulted her. I ran a security company in Dublin for years. We could get away with handling a person in such a way if we had evidence that they were drunk or causing trouble. This man will be charged with assault & /or sued. No question about it. Totally unprovoked attack & worse for him, he is just a member of the public. It's not his job nor is he trained as a security member of staff.

I'll just add that I'm not taking sides. I saw the video but have no clue what the protest is about. I'm commenting purely from a legal perspective in my experience running a security company.

This didn't happen in Dublin.

s7ryf3925pivug · 21-06-2019 10:29pm

I reckon he didn't really perceive her as a threat and was just angry at the upstart interrupting his fancy meal. The worst you'd fear from her would be a milkshake to the tuxedo.

elperello · 21-06-2019 10:29pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I just googled for the latest update. I can see where he has been suspended but I can't see any headlines where the victim has stated that she won't press charges for assault. Can you post a link showing this?

I saw an interview with her on one of the UK channels.
She said she "won't be pressing charges".
No reflection on you for not being aware of that.

fryup · 21-06-2019 10:31pm

well done that man

Plumbthedepths · 21-06-2019 10:39pm

Sleeper12 wrote:

I just googled for the latest update. I can see where he has been suspended but I can't see any headlines where the victim has stated that she won't press charges for assault. Can you post a link showing this?

I'm not your researcher.

Sonny noggs · 21-06-2019 10:39pm

end of the road wrote: »

it was to protest.

Do you believe that a protest gives her carte blanche to do as she pleases?

Sleeper12 · 21-06-2019 10:44pm

end of the road wrote:

it was to protest.

I'm not going to quote your entire comment but you are 100 percent correct.
First off all he is not security & is not trained deal with these. There is a long & short video. The longer version shows a woman dressed for the occasion walking towards what I assume to be the stage. She is not doing anything threatening (that I can see in the video) that would warrant security manhandling her in any way. I looks like if I stood in front of her with my arms open she couldn't have gotten by me without her being the aggressor. If she was the aggressor I could have manhandled her out the door.

This idiot sat in his chair and waited for her to get to him. He sprang to his feet, pushed her (this is assault) & then grabbed her by the neck and manhandled her. Did she resist? Did she threaten him in any way? Did she raise a hand to him? He totally overreacted to the situation. I doubt he'd try the same thing with a six foot tall man.

There is no debate what he did here. He could end up in jail over this. I do believe he'll end up in court & most likely expelled from his party. Regardless of his motivations he assaulted her & it's captured on video for the courts to see.

Shemale · 21-06-2019 10:45pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

At least watch the bloody news before you comment.

Is this a pre-condition before commenting?

Is asking your friend who watched the news ok?

Should you also check every news outlet on the web too?

Do you have to read the entire thread first?

Are tomorrows papers ok?

Yer Da sells Avon · 21-06-2019 10:47pm

The people on here defending him are, with no exceptions whatsoever, exactly the kind of posters you'd expect to leap to the defence of a boorish thug who carries out an unprovoked assault against a woman. Indeed, I get the impression that his victim being a woman gives them an extra thrill.

end of the road · 21-06-2019 10:48pm

JayZeus wrote: »

That twit in the dress was instructed to leave many times before she once again tried to approach senior government officials in London.

irrelevant. that is what the security are there to deal with, and they did, without incident.

JayZeus wrote: »

The guy who stopped her did the right thing and if she had any sense she’d have stopped when he presented an obstacle by moving his chair back. You’d have to be a moron not to see the gig was up.

he did the wrong thing, and is likely going to pay for it in some way. that way remains to be seen, but being suspended from his job and facing investigation is certainly not the happenings for doing the right thing. what she did or didn't do is small fry and is nothing to do with his actions.

JayZeus wrote: »

She didn’t stop, no doubt spurred on by the notion that nobody would physically stop her, perhaps in part because she was wearing a dress and holding her hands in plain view. The hands bit, I expect she had clear instruction/warnings from her colleagues to do so.

she would have been well prepared and would be well in the knowledge, that a security gard may phisically stop her, within the reules and regulations of his training.

JayZeus wrote: »

Well, **** her. Protest on the street

the street or a building are both equally valid places to peacefully protest.

JayZeus wrote: »

but once you set foot in any building at an event like this and are asked or instructed to leave, you should leave. Otherwise you’re not protesting, you’re interfering deliberately in proceedings to which you are not invited or entitled to attend.

you are protesting, as well as interfering in whatever is going on. either way, a complete non-issue once they were peaceful, which they were.

JayZeus wrote: »

She’s not just a protester. She’s a tool and a moron.

she was a protester. whether she is a tool or a moron is not something you or i can know unless we have met her, which i haven't and i suspect you haven't. simply disagreeing with someone which is i suspect the reason you believe this man did the right thing by behaving unreasonably, does not automatically make the person you disagree with a tool or a moron. neither does protesting.

end of the road · 21-06-2019 10:49pm

JayZeus wrote: »

He did absolutely right by putting an end to her interruption of proceedings.

he didn't just simply put an end to her protest. otherwise there would be nothing to report in relation to him.

JayZeus wrote: »

Anyone who considers that the way he physically directed her out of the room in a controlled manner, despite her refusal to stop and withdraw immediately once confronted, and that he did so without the protection of uniformed authority is an assault, is missing the point.

we aren't missing the point as there is no point to miss. you agree with him because you disagree with her, that is what i believe is the point being made, which as far as i am concerned is not a point at all.

JayZeus wrote: »

Outside, she was a protestor. Peaceful protestors should be protected.

inside she was a protester, and protesters, even non-peaceful protesters, are protected from excessive force.

JayZeus wrote: »

Inside, she became an intruder. Intruders should be stopped in their tracks at such events.

she was still a protester, and all the rest of the protesters, who were operating in the same manner, were stopped effectively and properly by the actual security, who will be going about their jobs today because they did nothing wrong what soever.

JayZeus wrote: »

He was 100% right.

so far, everything is adding up to say otherwise.

TCM · 21-06-2019 10:49pm

Sleeper12 wrote:

There is no debate what he did here. He could end up in jail over this. I do believe he'll end up in court & most likely expelled from his party. Regardless of his motivations he assaulted her & it's captured on video for the courts to see.

Without any concern for his own safety he stepped in to prevent what might have been some sort of terrorist attack. Fortunately it wasn't. Well done Mark Field.

Plumbthedepths · 21-06-2019 10:51pm

Shemale wrote:

Is this a pre-condition before commenting?

No but it helps you to make an informed comment. Thought it was obvious but I guess not.

Timberrrrrrrr · 21-06-2019 10:53pm

end of the road wrote: »

he didn't just simply put an end to her protest. otherwise there would be nothing to report in relation to him.

we aren't missing the point as there is no point to miss. you agree with him because you disagree with her, that is what i believe is the point being made, which as far as i am concerned is not a point at all.

inside she was a protester, and protesters, even non-peaceful protesters, are protected from excessive force.

she was still a protester, and all the rest of the protesters, who were operating in the same manner, were stopped effectively and properly by the actual security, who will be going about their jobs today because they did nothing wrong what soever.

so far, everything is adding up to say otherwise.

From the poster who once wanted guards to baton charge men,women and children if they attempted to stop a Garth Brookes concert :rolleyes:

Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

Comments