Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

runawaybishop

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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?

Nonsense? It's the law.

Assault is when you do not have a lawful excuse, he has. You can use the force you determine is reasonable at the time. The level of assault (which you claim he did) by the way, is determined by the injuries sustained, what were hers?

Every assault, or potential assault, should be investigated.

Tell me how

runawaybishop wrote: »

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.

Point b includes reference to reasonable grounds.

The several hundred other people who remained seated is evidence that they did not feel concerned they were about to be assaulted.

Without that, I could just hit a pedestrian walking past me and claim I thought they were going to assault me.

Try again.

Sleeper12

runawaybishop wrote: »

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.

This doesn't give him a right to assault her. He can use the above to try defend himself in court. (d) above is a massive stretch in this case. The video shows her not walking to him but walking past him. He actually put himself in her way.


I'll say this again. What if the organizers decided to hire a comic group to stage this. FG did hire comics a long time ago. This idiot was a guest & didn't know if she was invited or not. She was walking past him & not to him. He has no grounds to believe he was about to be assaulted.


I'll say this again. If a doorman manhandled a non aggressive person like that on camera they would be sacked. There would be a police investigation. If found guilty of assault he looses his security license. I can also state from experience that there is more than enough for her to win a civil suit against him, his party & the hotel.

runawaybishop

Tell me how wrote: »

Point b includes reference to reasonable grounds.

The several hundred other people who remained seated is evidence that they did not feel concerned they were about to be assaulted.

Without that, I could just hit a pedestrian walking past me and claim I thought they were going to assault me.

Try again.

The other people don't matter, he thought it was reasonable and that's all the courts care about.

Not sure how you conflate a protester evading security given the UKs history of MPs being assaulted and you just flaking some randomer

runawaybishop

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This doesn't give him a right to assault her.

It gives him lawful excuse, as per the law I quoted above

Spleerbun

59 pages for this, Christ. It's barely an incident. Uninvited guest removed with minimal fuss and minimal force. If he was security, non event. If the girl was a man, non event. Some people really do love being dramatic

lawred2

runawaybishop wrote: »

The other people don't matter, he thought it was reasonable and that's all the courts care about.

Not sure how you conflate a protester evading security given the UKs history of MPs being assaulted and you just flaking some randomer

?

Sleeper12

runawaybishop wrote: »

It gives him lawful excuse, as per the law I quoted above

That my friend would need to be determined in court. He'd have a tough job clinging onto that one. She was trying to get past him. He put himself in her way.

runawaybishop

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That my friend would need to be determined in court. He'd have a tough job clinging onto that one. She was trying to get past him. He put himself in her way.

He believed she was trying to get past him to commit an assault, he stopped her. She will have a tough job proving otherwise.

On the scale of serious issues this is at the very bottom.

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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?

It would be extraordinarily difficult to argue the force used in the video was excessive. He didn’t strike her, he controlled her using his hand on her neck after using an initial push to stop her moving forward and to gain that control. No striking, no gratuitous excess use of force, no threat of any long term damage to the other party. Given she was somewhere she shouldn’t have been, and Ill-advisedly advancing on two of the most senior UK officials it’s hard to argue it was anything but proportionate.

Dakota Dan

Lux23 wrote: »

She has a right to protest. He had a right to have her removed, but he didn't need to drag her by the throat. He only has himself to blame.

He didn’t grab her by the throat he frog marched her to the door, hardly life threatening

Edgware

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.

Obliged m'lud

RobertKK

Both were at various degrees fault for different reasons. But she can only blame herself for being an uninvited guest and making a beeline straight to the chancellor's table.
I had to :rolleyes: when i heard it reported the woman was fine, of course she was fine, the worst thing about the situation was the optics made it look worse than what it actually was. One would think he had tried to actually strangle her given some of the comments in the media.
She got treated like a man would in this situation, we are all for equality...

You would swear it was like John Prescott punching people :pac:

Mrsmum

It's one thing to be forgiving, to a greater or lesser degree, of his actions due to the on the spot, nature of them. I am fairly soft on him myself regarding that. However I still know it was a poor spur of the moment decision and that he was ott.
But I find it worrying that some people on here with the benefit of hindsight seem to be insisting he was right full stop and that the force he used was proportionate.

tritium

Mrsmum wrote: »

It's one thing to be forgiving, to a greater or lesser degree, of his actions due to the on the spot, nature of them. I am fairly soft on him myself regarding that. However I still know it was a poor spur of the moment decision and that he was ott.
But I find it worrying that some people on here with the benefit of hindsight seem to be insisting he was right full stop and that the force he used was proportionate.

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?

Nobelium

Mrsmum wrote: »

It's one thing to be forgiving, to a greater or lesser degree, of his actions due to the on the spot, nature of them. I am fairly soft on him myself regarding that. However I still know it was a poor spur of the moment decision and that he was ott.
But I find it worrying that some people on here with the benefit of hindsight seem to be insisting he was right full stop and that the force he used was proportionate.

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.

Faugheen

It’s no surprise that the people who were crying and outraged over the milkshakes see no issue with this.

If she wasn’t a woman, he wouldn’t have been so brave. He wasn’t the hired security, so he had no right to just manhandle her like that.

‘But what if she was armed?’ - absolute bullsh*t analogy to excuse the behaviour. She wasn’t armed. She was peacefully protesting. Any whataboutery otherwise is irrelevant.

Sleeper12

runawaybishop wrote:

He believed she was trying to get past him to commit an assault, he stopped her. She will have a tough job proving otherwise.

Following this flawed logic, I can deliberately assault someone & claim that I believed they were going to assault me first. It doesn't work that way. He would have to demonstrate that there was a risk. Anyone watching the video can clearly see a woman trying to walk around his table. She was calm and not behaving in a threatening manner. She wasn't shouting. He jumped up got in her way, shoved her against the wall & then grabbed her by the neck.

People can post the rule of law all they want. He can not demonstrate that she was any risk. She wasn't coming at him. She wanted to get around him. It's all clearly seen on the video. He assaulted her several times in that video. He had no legal right to put hands on her.

We can go oh no she didn't & oh yes he did, all day & it will get us nowhere. He is suspended. There are two separate investigations into his behaviour

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote:

The prejudice is strong in this one.

In you too. You have prejudged him on a hypothetical situation saying that he wouldn't have done the same thing to a man.

Tell me how wrote:

Without that, I could just hit a pedestrian walking past me and claim I thought they were going to assault me.

Apples and oranges. If an univited pedestrian (stranger) was walking towards your family in your own private residence or at a private party and you had any doubt about their motives, you would be within your rights to remove them by force.

Faugheen wrote:

It’s no surprise that the people who were crying and outraged over the milkshakes see no issue with this.

Oh for christ's sake. It's because of the stupid ****ers that were throwing milkshakes at whoever they wanted that these types of situations occur.

Faugheen wrote:

If she wasn’t a woman, he wouldn’t have been so brave.

Says who? ****ing mystic meg? Amazing how sexist some people are being.

If you took gender away from all this, ie a person stormed in to protest and another person forcibly removed them after the security people didn't do their job, it looks fine.

But with the narrative of "poor little female protester, almost strangled to death by evil male politician", yeah it will look bad.

Faugheen wrote:

‘But what if she was armed?’ - absolute bullsh*t analogy to excuse the behaviour. She wasn’t armed. She was peacefully protesting. Any whataboutery otherwise is irrelevant.

Absolute bull**** indeed. Whataboutery. you should always wait until after the fact to ensure safety.

Better to be reactive than proactive.

tritium

Faugheen wrote: »

It’s no surprise that the people who were crying and outraged over the milkshakes see no issue with this.

If she wasn’t a woman, he wouldn’t have been so brave. He wasn’t the hired security, so he had no right to just manhandle her like that.

‘But what if she was armed?’ - absolute bullsh*t analogy to excuse the behaviour. She wasn’t armed. She was peacefully protesting. Any whataboutery otherwise is irrelevant.

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?

TheDiceMan2020

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

He was dead right.

Sleeper12

TheDiceMan2020 wrote:

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

elperello

TheDiceMan2020 wrote: »

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

He was dead right.

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

friendlyfun

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

friendlyfun

friendlyfun wrote:

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

The pigtails come out when it suits.

jeremyj1968

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

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

Bobblehats

friendlyfun wrote: »

Try that on Tyson Fury.

He’s a big robot. An absolute unit

elperello

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

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

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

The protestors did not offer violence to anyone.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh for christ's sake. It's because of the stupid ****ers that were throwing milkshakes at whoever they wanted that these types of situations occur.

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Says who? ****ing mystic meg? Amazing how sexist some people are being.

If you took gender away from all this, ie a person stormed in to protest and another person forcibly removed them after the security people didn't do their job, it looks fine.

But with the narrative of "poor little female protester, almost strangled to death by evil male politician", yeah it will look bad.

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

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

The person who protested didn’t lay a hand on anyone.

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolute bull**** indeed. Whataboutery. you should always wait until after the fact to ensure safety.

Better to be reactive than proactive.

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

See how ridiculous the self-defence analogy is now?

Nobelium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This doesn't give him a right to assault her. He can use the above to try defend himself in court. (d) above is a massive stretch in this case. The video shows her not walking to him but walking past him. He actually put himself in her way.


I'll say this again. What if the organizers decided to hire a comic group to stage this. FG did hire comics a long time ago. This idiot was a guest & didn't know if she was invited or not. She was walking past him & not to him. He has no grounds to believe he was about to be assaulted.


I'll say this again. If a doorman manhandled a non aggressive person like that on camera they would be sacked. There would be a police investigation. If found guilty of assault he looses his security license. I can also state from experience that there is more than enough for her to win a civil suit against him, his party & the hotel.

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

tritium

elperello wrote: »

The protestors did not offer violence to anyone.

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

YFlyer

Two jabs Prescott got away with punching a protester

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote:

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

I'm happy with a person using reasonable force against another person if they are trespassing. Yes.

Faugheen wrote:

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

I agree. Some of the hyperbole on both sides is embarrassing.

Faugheen wrote:

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

Because sadly, that's the way of the world now. Once people cry about it loud enough and can pull faux outrage and the media get their teeth into it, public figures will do anything to improve their standing. Just because May is leaving doesn't mean she hasn't got to improve her reputation.

Faugheen wrote:

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

Faugheen wrote:

See how ridiculous the self-defence analogy is now?

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

Tell me how

YFlyer wrote: »

Two jabs Prescott got away with punching a protester

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

Sleeper12

Nobelium wrote:

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

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

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

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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

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

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

The Rapture

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

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

Tell me how

The Rapture wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Sleeper12

tritium wrote:

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

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

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote:

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

You can protest but you can't trespass

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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

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

nw5iytvs0lf1uz

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

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

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


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

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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

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

Tell me how

tritium wrote: »

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

No it isn't.

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

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

You can protest but you can't trespass

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

RasTa

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

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

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote:

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

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

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

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

No it isn't.

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

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

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


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

Sonny noggs

YFlyer wrote: »

Two jabs Prescott got away with punching a protester

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