Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

Larbre34

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.

Pattern eh?

The question for the Police close protection unit is, how did these folk stroll into a venue where the Chancellor was speaking and even worse how was this particular woman able to stroll up to the top table, which she would have if Field hadn't intervened?

Field was heavy handed yes, but its not like there was time to do a full risk assessment. There are fair opportunities for peaceful protest, I don't think what they did was completely peaceful and they should have expected to be challenged.

There'll be a bit of hand wringing and apologies, as there already has been, but if this guy loses his gig over this it'll be disgraceful.

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 probably right about this forum and thread being mainly male. So, again I will say that nearly every woman would identify that attack for what it was. A man subduing a woman and exerting his superiority. He's a tosser.

pinkyeye

Nobelium wrote: »

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.

You need to calm down love.

Nobelium

Tell me how wrote: »

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

You need to to be honest enough to address what I actually posted instead of pretending what I posted. Also you need to understand the term at risk. Are these things too complicated or difficult for you to do?

Nobelium

pinkyeye wrote: »

You need to calm down love.

I'm perfectly calm, got any actual facts about what actually happened yet ?

Checkmate19

Why was she there. To cause crap. If it was some scrot bag he kicked out it would be all good. But because it was some climate change rabbit knitting tree hugging lovee its ok. Go ask me scrot.

Nobelium

Dante7 wrote: »

So, again I will say that nearly every woman would identify that attack for what it was. A man subduing a woman and exerting his superiority.

Actually only a sexist would come to that conclusion. An intruder was prevented from potentially harming the main speaker. If a women did it to a male intruder she would also be absolutely within her right.

Checkmate19

She wanted that reaction. If that was beside say the royals she may not be here. So she was a threat. Idiot should not been there.

sdanseo

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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.

You're effectively saying that if the law is on his side, he still doesn't have the right to do what he did.

If it's legal, and I'm not saying it is although this is my suspicion - isn't that exactly what defines having the right to do something?

Don't get me wrong. Just because you can does not mean you should, and I would probably have stood up and simply blocked her path. But to be brought in front of a court for it is, again, overkill.

Dante7

Nobelium wrote: »

Actually only a sexist would come to that conclusion. An intruder was prevented from potentially harming the main speaker. If a women did it to a male intruder she would also be absolutely within her right.

I can tell you are a man. Only a man would justify that. This event has been really interesting.

Sleeper12

sdanseo wrote:

You're effectively saying that if the law is on his side, he still doesn't have the right to do what he did.

What I'm saying is that posters are posting snippets of the law saying that he had a legal right. He did not.

He would have to prove he acted within the law when he clearly didn't. He totally overreacted. He used more force than is allowed by law.

If Gardai in Ireland use that type of force on video for a non aggressive woman or man they would be suspended immediately. If security responded in the same way they would be suspended & their contracts not renewed or totally cancelled. The amount of force this man used against this non aggressive woman was illegal. He can point to any law he wants but at the very least he used excessive force & can be charged & sued for it

Checkmate19

Why was she there. To piss people off. Annoying. If security where there and doing there job she'd be out more the same way. She had no right to be there being an arsehole and rightly kicked out.

Dante7

Dante7 wrote:

I can tell you are a man. Only a man would justify that. This event has been really interesting.

That's very sexist.

Nobelium

Dante7 wrote: »

I can tell you are a man. Only a man would justify that. This event has been really interesting.

Unlike yourself I don't stereotype people by sex. A women would also have been perfectly within her right to physically prevent a male intruder attempting get to the main speaker to do God knows what. The event has been more interesting than you realise for showing up hypocrisy.

Checkmate19

So lets let people in there who nobody know grand lets see where that go's. Till some one with less say more motives decides to get there and do something stupid.

Checkmate19

She said she was there just to talk to someone. So was there to cause a nuisance. So if that security should have had here out. So he done it for them. End of story.

Checkmate19

Im delighted.

Yer Da sells Avon

|￣￣￣￣￣ |
| NO ONE |
| ACTUALLY |
| BELIEVES |
| SHE COULD |
| HAVE BEEN |
| ARMED |
|_＿＿＿＿＿__|
(\__/) ||
(•ㅅ•) ||
/ 　 づ

Checkmate19

When the green party get back in with some one and decide to tax everything and it all go's **** up merry go around. All the partys think u have to go green. Its votes. Bet two years from now greens wont exist.

Checkmate19

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

|￣￣￣￣￣ |
| NO ONE |
| ACTUALLY |
| BELIEVES |
| SHE COULD |
| HAVE BEEN |
| ARMED |
|_＿＿＿＿＿__|
(\__/) ||
(•ㅅ•) ||
/ 　 づ

i'd say it took you about your life to come up with that.

Junkyard Tom

Dante7 wrote: »

The people defending it will be overwhelmingly male.

One of the problems too is that the lovable dopes identify with Mr Field reflexively because 'he man'... 'me man'. Sadly for these hapless gobsheens people like Mark Field would piss on them for the laugh.

Nobelium

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

One of the problems too is that the lovable dopes identify with Mr Field reflexively because 'he man'... 'me man'. Sadly for these hapless gobsheens people like Mark Field would piss on them for the laugh.

This is a bit ironic coming from someone who defends provo terrorists blowing up women and kids out shopping.

Checkmate19

I bet ill be banned for that

Junkyard Tom

Nobelium wrote: »

This is a bit ironic coming from someone who defends provo terrorists blowing up women and kids out shopping.

Yeah, like your love life, that never happened. You should learn the difference between 'irony' and 'thoughts-that-just-entered-my-head' too. Up your game.

Nobelium

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yeah, like your love life, that never happened. You should learn the difference between 'irony' and 'thoughts-that-just-entered-my-head' too. Up your game.

You've made a bit of a Freudian slip there, and your attempts at justifying terrorism are all over this site.

Canis Lupus

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What I'm saying is that posters are posting snippets of the law saying that he had a legal right. He did not.

He would have to prove he acted within the law when he clearly didn't. He totally overreacted. He used more force than is allowed by law.

If Gardai in Ireland use that type of force on video for a non aggressive woman or man they would be suspended immediately. If security responded in the same way they would be suspended & their contracts not renewed or totally cancelled. The amount of force this man used against this non aggressive woman was illegal. He can point to any law he wants but at the very least he used excessive force & can be charged & sued for it

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.

end of the road

Nobelium wrote: »

This is a bit ironic coming from someone who defends provo terrorists blowing up women and kids out shopping.

tom has never defended the provisional IRA killing civilians.

Nobelium

end of the road wrote: »

tom has never defended the provisional IRA killing civilians.

What do you think about SF protecting rapists and paedophiles ?

lawred2

Lot of lads on here would love a shot at some women based on this thread

batgoat

Pretty good thread from Robert Preston on how the response was viewed as completely disproportionate by those present. Also points out that those protesting were incredibly peaceful so far from a threat.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1141843478978187264?s=19

Checkmate19

She went around to provoke. If any security where there she was gone. I personally think she should be put down but that's here or nere. She is a gob****e. Whatever you thing about climate change. I think its bollixxxx but you cant be doing that ****e. Its dangerous.

Canis Lupus

lawred2 wrote: »

Lot of lads on here would love a shot at some women based on this thread

I can't hear you over your white armor clanking and horse stomping.

Checkmate19

What is the world coming to. We are fukked.

Checkmate19

She should been there. Simple. Security would have done more. More. Simples.

Sorry about that

Those women posed no threat and did no harm. Their intentions were obvious from the sashes they wore over their dresses (to draw attention to climate change in a high profile public place).

From my viewing of the footage, Mr Field reacted in anger rather than defence; he looked pretty annoyed as he pounced. This is a disturbing display of physical power from a man who didn’t opt to ask the woman to leave. If someone is disrupting an event, to which they haven’t been invited, the security guys or attendees, usually ask or tell them to leave, before putting hands on them.

More disturbing than this man’s impulsive behaviour (which I think he’d choose not to repeat, given the chance), is the way some posters here, anonymously of course, suggest she deserved this treatment. She didn’t.

FAILSAFE 00

Canis Lupus

Sorry about that wrote: »

Those women posed no threat and did no harm. Their intentions were obvious from the sashes they wore over their dresses (to draw attention to climate change in a high profile public place).

From my viewing of the footage, Mr Field reacted in anger rather than defence; he looked pretty annoyed as he pounced. This is a disturbing display of physical power from a man who didn’t opt to ask the woman to leave. If someone is disrupting an event, to which they haven’t been invited, the security guys or attendees, usually ask or tell them to leave, before putting hands on them.

More disturbing than this man’s impulsive behaviour (which I think he’d choose not to repeat, given the chance), is the way some posters here, anonymously of course, suggest she deserved this treatment. She didn’t.

Of course it was anger. She needed a shoe up her hole barging in. Using words to describe the situation as a 'display of physical power' is actually quite funny.

Sorry about that

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Of course it was anger. She needed a shoe up her hole barging in. Using words to describe the situation as a 'display of physical power' is actually quite funny.

No, she didn’t need a shoe up her hole; such eloquence...

Canis Lupus

Sorry about that wrote: »

No, she didn’t need a shoe up her hole; such eloquence...

I disagree and just in case you think I'm making a display of male power and privilege I couldn't have cared if it was a male protester or Barney the Dinosaur.

Sorry about that

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I disagree and just in case you think I'm making a display of male power and privilege I couldn't have cared if it was a male protester or Barney the Dinosaur.

I’m not reading anything more into it than what you’ve written. And that’s fair enough that you disagree with me. I don’t think he’d have taken on a big man though, and those women were just handing out a few fliers. Wouldn’t have killed him to ask her to leave rather than put his hands on her.

margo321

she was stirring trouble. i dont blame him.

Shemale

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

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

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

Checkmate19 wrote: »

What is the world coming to. We are fukked.

Which was exactly her point

Sleeper12

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

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

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

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

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?