Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

end of the road

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Where would you draw the line? Would you be ok with a bunch of vegans storming your meaty wedding day meal, disrupting everything as long as it didn’t get violent?

i wouldn't be jumping for joy over it, but they absolutely have a right to protest within the building. the building's security are there to deal with it.
i would not, under any circumstances put my hands on any of them, unless they genuinely did attack me,.

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Tiananmen Square didn’t happen.

am, yes it did.

Sonny noggs

end of the road wrote: »

i wouldn't be jumping for joy over it, but they absolutely have a right to protest within the building. the building's security are there to deal with it.
i would not, under any circumstances put my hands on any of them, unless they genuinely did attack me,.





am, yes it did.

Eh, no it didn’t.

Tell me how

Nobelium wrote: »

They were intruders with unknown intent who forced their way into a private event on private property.

That's not a peaceful protest.

Their intent was to draw attention to the climate crisis. They assembled as a group, they spoke outside the hall, they wore sashes to show that they were climate protesters. You disagree with their intent. That is not to say that it was unknown.

Anything else is just "OMG, What if" or to say that it's ok that we just assault everyone and say that we had suspicions that they were a threat.

Nobelium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You mean when he assaulted her? Did you see the video? He pushed her against the wall.

He used reasonable force to remove an unwanted intruder with unknown intent from a private function on private property.

Tell me how

Nobelium wrote: »

So why did the protesters not do this, instead of forcing their way into a private event on private property with concealed intent ?

They wore sashes saying "Climate Protest" ffs.....

gctest50

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You mean when he assaulted her? Did you see the video? He pushed her against the wall. Assault straight away. .....

.



(1) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, does not constitute an offence—

(a) to protect himself or herself or a member of the family of that person or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act; or

(b) to protect himself or herself or (with the authority of that other) another from trespass to the person; or

(c) to protect his or her property from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or from trespass or infringement; or

(d) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or

(e) to prevent crime or a breach of the peace.

Nobelium

Tell me how wrote: »

Their intent was to draw attention to the climate crisis. They assembled as a group, they spoke outside the hall, they wore sashes to show that they were climate protesters. You disagree with their intent. That is not to say that it was unknown.

Anything else is just "OMG, What if" or to say that it's ok that we just assault everyone and say that we had suspicions that they were a threat.

Their actual intent was certainly not known or clear in any way. It was exactly the right call.

Nobelium

Tell me how wrote: »

They wore sashes saying "Climate Protest" ffs.....

meaningless drivel, intruders can wear all sorts of garb, it's meaningless intent wise, including and up to replica police uniforms

They forced their way into a private event on private property

If someone forced their way into your private property and private event what would you do ?

Tell me how

Nobelium wrote: »

Their actual intent was certainly not known or clear in any way. It was exactly the right call.

As I said a few minutes ago.

Tell me how wrote: »

Their intent was to draw attention to the climate crisis. They assembled as a group, they spoke outside the hall, they wore sashes to show that they were climate protesters. You disagree with their intent. That is not to say that it was unknown.

Will I Am Not

Tell me how wrote: »

Their intent was to draw attention to the climate crisis. They assembled as a group, they spoke outside the hall, they wore sashes to show that they were climate protesters. You disagree with their intent. That is not to say that it was unknown.

Anything else is just "OMG, What if" or to say that it's ok that we just assault everyone and say that we had suspicions that they were a threat.

See that’s grand and that’s how you protest peacefully. Coming into the private function is the overstepping the boundary part.

Plumbthedepths

Tell me how wrote:

Check my previous posts. The right to assemble to protest should be allowed, the right to deal with an assembled protest appropriately should also be allowed.

Again at a private event?

Tell me how

Nobelium wrote: »

meaningless drivel, intruders can wear all sorts of garb, it's meaningless intent wise, including and up to replica police uniforms

So, when you meet a policeman, what evidence do you ask of them to confirm they are who they say they are?

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if you demanded their superintendent comes out to the traffic stop to vouch for them and produced passport id for them both.

It is genuinely impressive that anybody here can justify what that man did. At best, he displayed a fundamental ignorance of law. He really does not have a defence; it was not his job to do what he did, and he was trying to play the hero (possibly inspired by that Canadian Kevin Vickers in 2014).

None of us could get away with doing that in our jobs (unless we are the appointed security, perhaps), so it's improbable that this man will.

elperello

Nobelium wrote: »

So why did the protesters not do this, instead of forcing their way into a private event on private property with concealed intent ?

They didn't force entry.
It was the Annual Bankers and Merchants Dinner.
The Mansion House in London like the one in Dublin is a publicly owned building.
Their intent was clear from the outset.

Nobelium

Tell me how wrote: »

As I said a few minutes ago.

which is still horseshyte, no "protester" has the right to become a forced intruder on private property at private event.

they were very lucky to survive it with such a soft touch, if you tried that an american event, you'd rightly risk being shot dead

Tell me how

Will I Am Not wrote: »

See that’s grand and that’s how you protest peacefully. Coming into the private function is the overstepping the boundary part.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Again at a private event?

I wouldn't blame them because the purpose of a protest is to draw attention to the cause and this would have been a bonus to them in this way.

But, I believe the organisers should have been entitled and able to keep them out peacefully. That would have been an appropriate response.

Mr Field was the loose cannon in this. His reaction was disproportionate to what was happening.

Sleeper12

Nobelium wrote:

He used reasonable force to remove an unwanted intruder with unknown intent from a private function on private property.

What right did he have to do this? Did he hire the hall? Was he a guest? Was he security? Did he own the building. These questions would be asked in court. If he can't prove that he was part of the management or security for the evening then he is a guest & he assaulted a woman. If he has alcohol in front of him at the table then he's pretty much fecked in court. He will be seen as a drunk asualting a woman.

If you hire a hall for a conference. One of your guests has no right to assualt a protester. Security are paid, trained and insured to remove this woman.

Nobelium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What right did he have to do this? Did he hire the hall? Was he a guest? Was he security? Did he own the building. These questions would be asked in court. If he can't prove that he was part of the management or security for the evening then he is a guest & he assaulted a woman. If he has alcohol in front of him at the table then he's pretty much fecked in court. He will be seen as a drunk asualting a woman.

If you hire a hall for a conference. One of your guests has no right to assualt a protester. Security are paid, trained and insured to remove this woman.

any citizen has the right to defend and prevent assault of another and perform a citizens arrest. This was an unknown intruder, with unknown intent heading for the main speaker, they had every right to intercept them for public safety.

gctest50

[Deleted User] wrote: »

.......

At best, he displayed a fundamental ignorance of law.

He is a lawyer by trade

[Deleted User] wrote: »

..

He really does not have a defence; ........

Even here in Ireland, preventing trespass etc since private event

Tell me how

Nobelium wrote: »

which is still horseshyte, no "protester" has the right to become a forced intruder on private property at private event.

they were very lucky to survive it with such a soft touch, if you tried that an american event, you'd rightly risk being shot dead

Can you produce any evidence of a protester in America being shot dead for doing something similar.

I'm reading this nonsense all day and no one can offer evidence outside of some Team America or South Park episode in the back of their mind.

(Marcher in Charlottsville being run over by a car driven my a white supremacist doesn't count mind)

Sleeper12

gctest50 wrote:

(d) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or

As I already posted. As a guest he had no right to act. Security are paid for this. This is the equivalent of a man in a nightclub pushing a woman, grabbing her by the neck and pushing her to the door.

He is not the owner, manager or secretary & has no right to decide trespass. There are professionals on the premises paid to deal with this.

gctest50

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What right did he have to do this? Did he hire the hall? Was he a guest? Was he security? Did he own the building. These questions would be asked in court. If he can't prove that he was part of the management or security for the evening then he is a guest & he assaulted a woman. If he has alcohol in front of him at the table then he's pretty much fecked in court. He will be seen as a drunk asualting a woman.

If you hire a hall for a conference. One of your guests has no right to assualt a protester. Security are paid, trained and insured to remove this woman.

Waffle



(d) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or

irishproduce

tritium wrote: »

Tbh this is a difficult one and I suspect the optics are being managed to get as much publicity at the expense of Mr Fiels as possible.

Someone pointed out that had she been armed we’d be hailing him as a hero, and I think that’s spot on. In the moment what mr Field had to assess was an uninvited intruder heading directly for the governor of the BoE. In any realistic threat assessment the right action is to prevent that. That he did so with a relatively low level of force is actually pretty impressive.

A few MPs have jumped on the image of a male mp laying his hands on a woman, but really, where a possibility of armed threat applies and a split second decision is needed that idea is very flawed. Knives and guns don’t really care about gender I’m afraid. It was particularly shameful to have the likes of Jess Phillips play that card after what happened to her colleague Jo Cox. She isn’t the only one either, we have similar cases in recent years in Brazil and Scandinavia of politicians being attacked while in public places.

If any blame is applicable here it falls on the protest organizers, who decided it was a good idea to go for maximum impact by gatecrashing the event and putting their volunteers in danger. In many ways the protester was lucky, had there been a heavier security presence, possibly armed, this could have ended far worse.

I'm inclined to agree completely with the sentiment of your last paragraph.
In a time of heightened awareness for attacks from deranged people, the protest organisers should be more careful of the danger they subject their volunteers to.
I say this because, in the times we live, you cannot rush a table of political and senior civil dignitaries because everyone, politicians included are paranoid of being attacked.
That said, I think he could have released her a lot earlier and pushed her toward the door once he established she wasn't going to stab anyone or throw acid on them.

Nobelium

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you produce any evidence of a protester in America being shot dead for doing something similar.

I'm reading this nonsense all day and no one can offer evidence outside of some Team America or South Park episode in the back of their mind.

(Marcher in Charlottsville being run over by a car driven my a white supremacist doesn't count mind)

Maybe then you should stop forming you opinions using juvenile childish cartoons and learn something about real world event security and risk

Will I Am Not

Tell me how wrote: »

I wouldn't blame them because the purpose of a protest is to draw attention to the cause and this would have been a bonus to them in this way.

But, I believe the organisers should have been entitled and able to keep them out peacefully. That would have been an appropriate response.

Mr Field was the loose cannon in this. His reaction was disproportionate to what was happening.

Just because you slip through the net doesn’t make something acceptable.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

If she was armed, I don’t think his actions would have diffused the situation at all. Someone who is packing would probably react to that by using the weapon. So whether she was armed or not, the handling wasn’t the best idea, IMO. The aim would be for nobody to be hurt by the armed person.

Tell me how

Nobelium wrote: »

Maybe then you should stop forming you opinions using juvenile childish cartoons and learn something about real world event security and risk

Maybe just focus on the part in bold seeing as you are trying to avoid answering it.

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you produce any evidence of a protester in America being shot dead for doing something similar.

I'm reading this nonsense all day and no one can offer evidence outside of some Team America or South Park episode in the back of their mind.

(Marcher in Charlottsville being run over by a car driven my a white supremacist doesn't count mind)

sdanseo

She had no right to be there and was firmly removed. Calling that assault or violent is overkill.
If he'd punched her or forced her to the ground that would be a different matter.
Marching her back towards the door with fairly reasonable restraint is fine. Just because it's by the back of the neck doesn't mean it was over-forceful, that's simply an interpretation. An mundane example of this is how cats carry their kittens by the neck.

By modern standards, perhaps a slight overreaction of sorts, but nothing worth any sort of discipline over.

Checkmate19

She should be there. Maybe a bit over the top but if it was a male standing there different story. Also what if she was armed etc. She had no right to be there. In the usa she may have been shot. Idiots like that and they are idiots deserve a slap. Nits sheeps say no more.

Sleeper12

Nobelium wrote:

any citizen has the right to defend and prevent assault of another and perform a citizens arrest. This was an unknown intruder, with unknown intent heading for the main speaker, they had every right to intercept them for public safety.

This is more nonsense.

If this gets to court this man, a guest on the night, has to explain how the he felt threatened by the woman in the video. She passed by plenty of people who didn't seem to feel threatened. She wasn't shouting, screaming & had no viable weapon. He didn't shout a warning. Didn't ask what she was doing. As I said earlier she could have been part of the paid comic entertainment. FG did something not unlike this many moon's ago. After her assaulted her she didn't resist or put up a fight.

If a security personnel responded like this guy on video the security company & venue would be sued. The security company's contract wouldn't be renewed.

Paint it any way you want. The guy had no legal right to act as security, he most likely had alcohol taken. If it were a nightclub he would be barred for life.

Dante7

Put a poll on this with the voters having to declare their sex. The people defending it will be overwhelmingly male.

Checkmate19

Protest if u want but she was looking for a response and got one. Shes a moron. As i said in the usa she may have been shot. And rightly so given the current climate of idiots like joe comedian clown condoning or asking for protesters to acid people.

Checkmate19

Climate protestors are a pain in the bollixxx.

Sleeper12

gctest50 wrote:

(d) to protect property belonging to another from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of that other) from trespass or infringement; or

gctest50 wrote:

Waffle

I agree your claim is waffle.

Have you even watched the video? A judge would watch the video. How do you get your above quote from what you saw in the video?

She did nothing in a threatening manner. Idiot doesn't know if she is trespassing or part of the comic troupe paid for the night. Nothing in the video suggests anything threatening. The first threatening thing was his violence. He drew first blood to quote rambo.

Tell me how

Checkmate19 wrote: »

Protest if u want but she was looking for a response and got one. Shes a moron. As i said in the usa she may have been shot. And rightly so given the current climate of idiots like joe comedian clown condoning or asking for protesters to acid people.

Have you evidence that it is likely she would have been?

An Iraqi managed to take his shoes off and throw them at Bush and no one even pulled a gun.

Checkmate19 wrote: »

Climate protestors are a pain in the bollixxx.

Truth hurts doesn't it.

Nobelium

Dante7 wrote: »

Put a poll on this with the voters having to declare their sex. The people defending it will be overwhelmingly male.

well given the users of boards are overwhelmingly male your logic is fallacious.
also what difference if it was a female who tackled a male intruder of unknown intent to a private event, heading at speed for the main speaker.

sdanseo

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The guy had no legal right to act as security, he most likely had alcohol taken. If it were a nightclub he would be barred for life.

Actually that's not strictly true, at least had this occurred in Ireland. I'm not familiar with the equivalent UK law but generally speaking our justice systems are similar.

The Criminal Law Act 1997 allows the use of reasonable force to arrest a person without warrant if there is a reasonable suspicion that they have committed or are in the act of committing an arrestable offence. This power is extended to all citizens provided that custody is transferred to the Gardaí as soon as practicable.

Trespass, the most obvious transgression, is not an arrestable offence however he could potentially have reasonably have suspected she might assault or harm someone, for example.

Checkmate19

What truth hurts they are. Annoying priks who are on a bandwagon.

Checkmate19

Anh they don't know. It was warm here last year now pissing rain.

Nobelium

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe just focus on the part in bold seeing as you are trying to avoid answering it.

Well I might if you were honest enough to deal with what I actually posted instead of pretending what I posted. Do you know what at risk of means ?

Checkmate19

Climate change is the new in thing. Does anyone really fukkking know. This has been talked about for 20 years. Scientists are just making a living spurting this ****e. The same as cancer charitys rinsing people not looking for cures. Just another money making scam.

Tell me how

Checkmate19 wrote: »

Climate change is the new in thing. Does anyone really fukkking know. This has been talked about for 20 years. Scientists are just making a living spurting this ****e. The same as cancer charitys rinsing people not looking for cures. Just another money making scam.

Just letting you know I've read this and am choosing to not engage. If you made a single plausible point in there, I would discuss, but you didn't.

If you want to keep your head in the sand, you do it.

Dante7

Nobelium wrote: »

well given the users of boards are overwhelmingly male you're logic is fallacious.
also what difference if it was a female who tackled a male intruder of unknown intent to a private event, heading at speed for the main speaker.

You're talking shïte pal. That was typical male pattern violence against a woman. I'm a man and I can spot it. Stop defending it.

Tell me how

Nobelium wrote: »

Well I might if you were honest enough to deal with what I actually posted instead of pretending what I posted. Do you know what at risk of means ?

I asked you to back up what you posted with evidence. Is that too complicated or difficult for you to do?

Checkmate19

Tell me how wrote: »

Just letting you know I've read this and am choosing to not engage. If you made a single plausible point in there, I would discuss, but you didn't.

If you want to keep your head in the sand, you do it.

Thats fine

pinkyeye

Lads stop all this nonsense, what this man did was assault plain and simple.

And to me it looks like he has done this often. Such anger can only come from a place of someone who routinely does this to women.

Nobelium

Dante7 wrote: »

You're talking shïte pal. That was typical male pattern violence against women. I'm a man and I can spot it. Stop defending it.

I'm not your pal, bud, love, dude, bro or anything else.

Unlike sexist prejudiced bigoted mangina's like yourself, I don't give a bollocks what sex or politics someone is or what an intruder to private property is protesting about.

If a male neo nazi protester was the intruder, and heading for the main speaker, and a women physically intervened for the speakers safety, she would be exactly right to do so as well.

gctest50

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I agree your claim is waffle.

Have you even watched the video? A judge would watch the video. How do you get your above quote from what you saw in the video?

She did nothing in a threatening manner. Idiot doesn't know if she is trespassing or part of the comic troupe paid for the night. Nothing in the video suggests anything threatening.

The first threatening thing was his violence.
He drew first blood to quote rambo.

More waffle, quoting Rambo ?

bit of Walter Mitty post?


There is no rule in law (uk)to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they can defend themselves

Nobelium

pinkyeye wrote: »

Lads stop all this nonsense, what this man did was assault plain and simple.

And to me it looks like he has done this often. Such anger can only come from a place of someone who routinely does this to women.

ejecting an intruder at a private event heading at speed for the main speaker, is not assault.

Sleeper12

sdanseo wrote:

Actually that's not strictly true, at least had this occurred in Ireland. I'm not familiar with the equivalent UK law but generally speaking our justice systems are similar.

sdanseo wrote:

The Criminal Law Act 1997 allows the use of reasonable force to arrest a person without warrant if there is a reasonable suspicion that they have committed or are in the act of committing an arrestable offence. This power is extended to all citizens provided that custody is transferred to the Gardaí as soon as practicable.

sdanseo wrote:

Trespass, the most obvious transgression, is not an arrestable offence however he could potentially have reasonably have suspected she might assault or harm someone, for example.[/quote

See a few posters have already posted something similar. None of the above gives him the right to do what he did. If brought to court he will try use the law to justify what he did. He will try to hide behind the law. However the video pretty much rules out such a defense. A picture speaks a thousand words. He has already been suspended so its not like we are exaggerating anything here. The police are investigating the matter. They will investigate her protesting and his actions. If either one is to be brought to court it will be him.