Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

runawaybishop

Faugheen wrote: »

He could have easily said that he was nullifying a potential threat and apologised to the woman upon hindsight, but he didn't.

And watch the video. No attempt to disarm. No attempt to restrain. Just completely manhandled her knowing that she wasn't armed while everyone else sat there calmly.

What 'threat' is he nullifying when he's not even trying to disarm? It's pure fantasy stuff from the same people who bitch and moan about women's issues or 'feminazis' in a bid to defend Mark Fields' actions.

He has already stated he initially thought she was a threat.

is_that_so

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Ya that the same as Nazi Germany millions of people sat calmly as 6 million were killed in concentration camps.

Good afternoon, Mr Godwin!

Timberrrrrrrr

Faugheen wrote: »

He could have easily said that he was nullifying a potential threat and apologised to the woman upon hindsight, but he didn't.

And watch the video. No attempt to disarm. No attempt to restrain. Just completely manhandled her knowing that she wasn't armed while everyone else sat there calmly.

What 'threat' is he nullifying when he's not even trying to disarm? It's pure fantasy stuff from the same people who bitch and moan about women's issues or 'feminazis' in a bid to defend Mark Fields' actions.

One hand on upper arm one hand at the back of the neck is a very effective means of restraint, how would you have "restrained" a person if you were in that position?

Faugheen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

One hand on upper arm one hand at the back of the neck is a very effective means of restraint, how would you have "restrained" a person if you were in that position?

After slamming her against a pillar grabbing her by the throat.

Where’s his attempt to disarm her if she was such a threat? There is none.

Tell me how

malinheader wrote: »

Yes.in a lot of cases you will get most people sitting looking on or walking past an incident not wanting to get involved. As I said if she had of been intending harming or killing someone he would be a hero now and the hundred sitting round would be assholes.. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Bystander effect is more applicable when the bystanders do not feel threatened themselves.
If some in the audience appeared panicked by what was happening, Mr Field could claim he felt a threat was possible.

No one did, he can't.
The protestors clearly announced their purpose.

BattleCorp

Faugheen wrote: »

After slamming her against a pillar grabbing her by the throat.

Where’s his attempt to disarm her if she was such a threat? There is none.

There's a place called Specsavers. They sell glasses. If you think that's what the guy did, then I suggest you invest in a pair of glasses.

Either that or we have very different ideas of what the word 'slammed' and 'throat' means.

Timberrrrrrrr

Faugheen wrote: »

After slamming her against a pillar grabbing her by the throat.

Where’s his attempt to disarm her if she was such a threat? There is none.

You're saying he should have slammed her to the ground and strip searched her? :rolleyes:

Faugheen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You're saying he should have slammed her to the ground and strip searched her? :rolleyes:

Quote me where I said that please.

More fantasy conspiracy stuff.

Timberrrrrrrr

Faugheen wrote: »

Quote me where I said that please.

More fantasy conspiracy stuff.

So again, how would you have restrained her presuming you were in that position?

If you're going to attempt to disarm someone (if you think they may be armed) you're hardly gonna ask them nicely to assume the position.

Faugheen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So again, how would you have restrained her presuming you were in that position?

If you're going to attempt to disarm someone (if you think they may be armed) you're hardly gonna ask them nicely to assume the position.

I asked you to quote me where I said they should be strip searched please.

People in this thread peddled the nonsense that this woman could have been armed with a knife or whatever as a means to excuse Field’s behaviour. Where’s his attempt to disarm her? There is none, because there was no threat.

Faugheen

BattleCorp wrote: »

There's a place called Specsavers. They sell glasses. If you think that's what the guy did, then I suggest you invest in a pair of glasses.

Either that or we have very different ideas of what the word 'slammed' and 'throat' means.

Actually he did grab her by the throat before he turned her back to him.

‘Go to SpecSavers’ and watch the video again.

Timberrrrrrrr

Faugheen wrote: »

I asked you to quote me where I said they should be strip searched please.

People in this thread peddled the nonsense that this woman could have been armed with a knife or whatever as a means to excuse Field’s behaviour. Where’s his attempt to disarm her? There is none, because there was no threat.

At the time he percieved a threat and took action. What would you have done?

Faugheen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

At the time he percieved a threat and took action. What would you have done?

Stepped in front of her, and if she’s tried to force her way past THEN have her removed.

It’s very simple really. I thought you would have understood.

Still waiting for the quote where I said she should have been strip searched. You can hold your hands up and admit you just peddled nonsense to try and dismiss the point I’m making. It’s really not that difficult.

Timberrrrrrrr

Faugheen wrote: »

Stepped in front of her, and if she’s tried to force her way past THEN have her removed.

It’s very simple really. I thought you would have understood.

He puts his hand out, she attempts to get past thats when he restrains her. So he pretty much did what you would have done in that same situation.

malinheader

Tell me how wrote: »

Bystander effect is more applicable when the bystanders do not feel threatened themselves.
If some in the audience appeared panicked by what was happening, Mr Field could claim he felt a threat was possible.

No one did, he can't.
The protestors clearly announced their purpose.

You don't have to scream and cry to show panic.
You should of said in your view no one seems to panic, but then that is your view.
My view is I have seen people being mugged and attacked and people calmly walking by, not showing signs of panic.
Alot of people think aw well I'm alright Jack, nothing to do with me.
If you try and rush past security for any reason be prepared to suffer the consequences. She got away lightly in my eyes. Could of been a whole lot worse.

osarusan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He puts his hand out, she attempts to get past thats when he restrains her. So he pretty much did what you would have done in that same situation.

If I had genuinely felt there was a threat, the first thing I'd be doing is knocking whatever they had out of their hands and then out of their handbag, or at least limiting their ability to get at their bag.

He didn't do that. She was still carrying all her stuff as she was being taken out.

To me, that's far more indicative of him seeing her as a disruptive nuisance rather than a threat.

Faugheen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He puts his hand out, she attempts to get past thats when he restrains her. So he pretty much did what you would have done in that same situation.

No he pushed her against the wall because she was walking past him while he sat on his arse. That's not blocking her path. He put his hands on her.

That's not what I suggested doing at all. I suggested standing up and blocking her path before she's had a chance to get past me, which Field didn't do.

One more time. Quote me where I said she should have been strip-searched or else admit it was all fantasy land exaggerations.

Timberrrrrrrr

osarusan wrote: »

If I had genuinely felt there was a threat, the first thing I'd be doing is knocking whatever they had out of their hands and then out of their handbag, or at least limiting their ability to get at their bag.

He didn't do that. She was still carrying all her stuff as she was being taken out.

To me, that's far more indicative of him seeing her as a disruptive nuisance rather than a threat.

That's your personal opinion which you are fully entitled to have.

Timberrrrrrrr

Faugheen wrote: »

No he pushed her against the wall because she was walking past him while he sat on his arse. That's not blocking her path. He put his hands on her.

Well duhhhh, should he have used his Jedi powers instead?

That's not what I suggested doing at all. I suggested standing up and blocking her path before she's had a chance to get past me, which Field didn't do.

One more time. Quote me where I said she should have been strip-searched or else admit it was all fantasy land exaggerations.

Well if you're ever in the position that he was in you do that and let us know how it goes. In the meantime I'm happy to believe that he did the right thing as the situation evolved.

sReq | uTeK

I bet the narrative if she got to the top table and stabbed someone in the neck would be why no one took the initiative to stop her.

The man reacted accordingly. She shouldn't have been there.

Tell me how

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

I bet the narrative if she got to the top table and stabbed someone in the neck would be why no one took the initiative to stop her.

The man reacted accordingly. She shouldn't have been there.

Let's talk about what happened instead of the hypothetical What Ifs.

Everyone could see what was happening.
No one reacted with any element of panic.
Mr Field used excessive force.

Faugheen

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

I bet the narrative if she got to the top table and stabbed someone in the neck would be why no one took the initiative to stop her.

The man reacted accordingly. She shouldn't have been there.

Stab him with what? Her phone? Her purse?

There was no fear of her being armed, such as the lack of any effort to disarm her when she was stopped.

Another conspiracy theory with absolutely no basis for anything.

Faugheen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well duhhhh, should he have used his Jedi powers instead?



Well if you're ever in the position that he was in you do that and let us know how it goes. In the meantime I'm happy to believe that he did the right thing as the situation evolved.

He saw her coming from a good bit away. You can see him watching her the entire time. Stand up. Block her path, if she tries to force her way past, then stop her. It's very, very simple.

Instead he pushed her against a wall and put his hand around her throat. He used excessive force and didn't even try to disarm her because he knew she posed no actual threat.

Bass Reeves

Tell me how wrote: »

Let's talk about what happened instead of the hypothetical What Ifs.

Everyone could see what was happening.
No one reacted with any element of panic.
Mr Field used excessive force.

Ya she had to be carried away on a strecher

Faugheen

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Ya she had to be carried away on a strecher

Why is it that people have to post sh*t like this that clearly isn't true to dismiss what another person is saying?

That post is absolute sh*te.

gctest50

Faugheen wrote: »

Why is it that people have to post sh*t like this that clearly isn't true to dismiss what another person is saying?

That post is absolute sh*te.

Was she carried away on a stretcher ?

[....] YES

[....] NO

Faugheen

gctest50 wrote: »

Was she carried away on a stretcher ?

[....] YES

[....] NO

So is the only result of excessive force to be carried away on a stretcher?

You're chatting absolute nonsense now.

Bass Reeves

Faugheen wrote: »

Why is it that people have to post sh*t like this that clearly isn't true to dismiss what another person is saying?

That post is absolute sh*te.

No it is not we have a load of drama queens here that are trying to make out that just because Fields took action that he is guilty of assault.

Lets look at the facts The protester was an uninvited guest, she had got further in than any other protester. Other guests may have held back expecting security to handle it. Fields saw that she was beyond secirity and he too action to protect the top table.

We have people here expressing an opinion of him using excessive force. Excessive force is where some one at least injured where they have to be be seriously helped or carried away and even then that force may be appropiate. Excessive force is not grabbing or grappling with a person, spinning them around and frog marching them out of the room.

We have people trying to make out that because he carried out action one way way that he is guilty. If he knocked her to the floor and pinned here there they be say he could have carried out the action he did carry out to have controlled the situation. Could he have used less force to get control of the situation with 20/20 hindsight vision maybe he could. Then again the protester could have got past him if he was slightly less forceful. Pulled an egg out of her bag and threw it at someone at the top table

But Fields use appropiate force to control the situation. Nobody is in hospital. Nobody had hands or legs broken and neither the Chancellor or the head of the Bank of England have egg on there faces.

So grow up and live in the real world. If you protest, gate crash a private function and leave with a few bruises it is the least you can expect.

gctest50

Faugheen wrote: »

So is the only result of excessive force to be carried away on a stretcher?

You're chatting absolute nonsense now.

Was she carried away on a stretcher ?

Yes or No ?

Faugheen

gctest50 wrote: »

Was she carried away on a stretcher ?

Yes or No ?

What does that have to do with anything?

gctest50

Faugheen wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything?

Was she carried away on a stretcher ?

Faugheen

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No it is not we have a load of drama queens here that are trying to make out that just because Fields took action that he is guilty of assault.

He used excessive force on someone he knew wasn't of any threat.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Lets look at the facts The protester was an uninvited guest, she had got further in than any other protester. Other guests may have held back expecting security to handle it. Fields saw that she was beyond secirity and he too action to protect the top table.

Why didn't he just stand and block her way, wait for her to be the one forcing his hand. Instead he went straight on the offence. There's ways to deal with it and there's ways not to deal with it. How were security able to get the rest of them out without using the force Field did?

Bass Reeves wrote: »

We have people here expressing an opinion of him using excessive force. Excessive force is where some one at least injured where they have to be be seriously helped or carried away and even then that force may be appropiate. Excessive force is not grabbing or grappling with a person, spinning them around and frog marching them out of the room.

There is actually no legal definition for what constitutes excessive force, so your claim that someone must be injured is absolute bollocks.

Excessive force is grabbing someone by the throat. Before anyone tries to dispute this, watch the video again.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

We have people trying to make out that because he carried out action one way way that he is guilty. If he knocked her to the floor and pinned here there they be say he could have carried out the action he did carry out to have controlled the situation. Could he have used less force to get control of the situation with 20/20 hindsight vision maybe he could. Then again the protester could have got past him if he was slightly less forceful. Pulled an egg out of her bag and threw it at someone at the top table

Pulled an egg out of her bag how? By putting everything else down first? She had her phone in one hand and her bag in the other.

Why didn't Field disarm because nothing was going to stop her throwing imaginary eggs around the room anyway.

Stop making up ****.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

But Fields use appropiate force to control the situation.

In your opinion. In my opinion he used excessive force.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Nobody is in hospital. Nobody had hands or legs broken and neither the Chancellor or the head of the Bank of England have egg on there faces.

Proof she had eggs please.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

So grow up and live in the real world. If you protest, gate crash a private function and leave with a few bruises it is the least you can expect.

Grow up? You're literally making up imaginary eggs and making up what defines excessive force. You have posted a load of absolute bollocks of hypotheticals and conspiracies yet I'm the one that needs to 'live in the real world'?

Absolute spoofer.

Bass Reeves

Faugheen wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything?

It has a huge bearing on whether Fields used excessive force and I posted earler force of that magnitute may have been appropiate in a similar situation.

Faugheen

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It has a huge bearing on whether Fields used excessive force and I posted earler force of that magnitute may have been appropiate in a similar situation.

I also told you that the idea someone has to be injured for it to constitute 'excessive force' is absolute bull****.

gctest50

Faugheen wrote: »

......

Absolute spoofer.

Was she carried away on a stretcher ?

malinheader

I'm sure the compensation package she receives will soon help to heal her life threatening bruises and scratches.
She should of got a kick in the hole as well before he let her go.

Tokyo

gctest50 wrote: »

Was she carried away on a stretcher ? (x3)

Mod:

gctest50 - up your standard of posting, or don't post here again.

Bass Reeves

Faugheen wrote: »

He used excessive force on someone he knew wasn't of any threat.

She was a threat, She was an uninvited guest that got past security who were tied up with 39 other univited guests all dressed the same. The question to ask was the force he used reasonable before we deem it excessive, this is a legal definitation of reasonable force.

A person is generally justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. The person is also generally justified in using such extreme force to prevent or terminate another's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling, if: (1) the entry is made or attempted in a violent manner and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent personal violence to himself or another then in the dwelling, or (2) he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

So we can see the defination of reasonable force. It carries a long way. Fields action were reasonable in the sitautaion

Tell me how

I missed the part where Mr Farage climbed on to a stretcher to ensure the thrower of the milkshake would be charged with assault.

I wasn't aware it was a qualifying element.

(I also wasn't aware some people can't understand that there are varying degrees of excessive force.) Mr Fields was at the lower end, but, it was excessive. According to Mr Field anyway.

Danzy

The protester was guilty of criminal trespass, there have been numerous politicians attacked recently by those convinced of their moral righteousness and purity.

He has fair grounds to use reasonable force.

The protester will not press charges because she would be laughed out of court and the Mansion House could press charges against her which she has no defence against.

She should not be charged, nor should people pretend he assaulted her and gun for his job.

Danzy

osarusan wrote: »

If I had genuinely felt there was a threat, the first thing I'd be doing is knocking whatever they had out of their hands and then out of their handbag, or at least limiting their ability to get at their bag.

He didn't do that. She was still carrying all her stuff as she was being taken out.

To me, that's far more indicative of him seeing her as a disruptive nuisance rather than a threat.

Maybe he is not trained like you, or he was reacting in the real world.

the_syco

Faugheen wrote: »

He used excessive force on someone he knew wasn't of any threat.

And how would he have known?

Faugheen

the_syco wrote: »

And how would he have known?

Because he didn't even try to disarm her.

Danzy

Tell me how wrote: »

Let's talk about what happened instead of the hypothetical What Ifs.

Everyone could see what was happening.
No one reacted with any element of panic.
Mr Field used excessive force.

He had reasonable grounds, the trespasser had already worked to evade security, marked herself out as a different level.

Why the police or security were not there to apprehend her is as big a story. Leaving it up to someone at a dinner table, the next time someone does this it might not be a bourgeois twat on a mission.

gctest50

Faugheen wrote: »

....

He used excessive force on someone he knew wasn't of any threat.

....

He probably saw the glint of her phone in her right hand and thought she had a knife


She is holding her shiny phone by the end of it :








Watch the video again and keep an eye on her phone, it's in her right hand, he is on her left


He reacts just as she walks past the spotlight illuminating the wall

Her phone is silvery/shiny

You can see the spotlight down at floor level illuminating her arm

a split second before that, it would have lit up her phone

Here you can see the light from floor level on one of the other pillars, right at elbow height

end of the road

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No it is not we have a load of drama queens here that are trying to make out that just because Fields took action that he is guilty of assault.

he didn't simply take action. he slammed the woman up against the wall and grabbed her by the neck.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Lets look at the facts The protester was an uninvited guest, she had got further in than any other protester. Other guests may have held back expecting security to handle it. Fields saw that she was beyond secirity and he too action to protect the top table.

or alternatively, based on the fact he wrote a letter to the met in relation to their absolutely correct all be it slow methods of dealing with the extinction rebellion protesters.
up on seeing the protester, having his dinner disrupted, still being annoyed that the police didn't deal with extinction rebellion in the way he had hoped, the mist descended and he decided he would deal with this protester as an "i will show m"

Bass Reeves wrote: »

We have people here expressing an opinion of him using excessive force. Excessive force is where some one at least injured where they have to be be seriously helped or carried away and even then that force may be appropiate. Excessive force is not grabbing or grappling with a person, spinning them around and frog marching them out of the room.

actually no, excessive force is force beyond what is actually required to be used within a given situation. one doesn't need to injure someone to have used excessive force. pushing someone up against a wall and grabbing them by the neck is excessive force.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

We have people trying to make out that because he carried out action one way way that he is guilty. If he knocked her to the floor and pinned here there they be say he could have carried out the action he did carry out to have controlled the situation. Could he have used less force to get control of the situation with 20/20 hindsight vision maybe he could. Then again the protester could have got past him if he was slightly less forceful. Pulled an egg out of her bag and threw it at someone at the top table

she could have put her phone in her pocket, grabbed her bag and pulled an egg out and threw it while fields was removing her. she had plenty of opportunity before and during to do it. therefore his actions prevented nothing and what she may or may not have potentially done is irrelevant in terms of mark field's actions.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

But Fields use appropiate force to control the situation. Nobody is in hospital. Nobody had hands or legs broken and neither the Chancellor or the head of the Bank of England have egg on there faces.

well no he didn't use appropriate force because as i said, you don't need to cause someone to end up in hospital to have used excessive force, and the force used by fields wouldn't have prevented people from having egg on their faces if the protester threw one, which she would have been able to do because fields didn't act in a manner that would have prevented such.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

So grow up and live in the real world. If you protest, gate crash a private function and leave with a few bruises it is the least you can expect.

it wasn't a private function. it was a government held function for invited guests. leaving with bruises is not the least such protesters should expect unless they are actually violent.

end of the road

Danzy wrote: »

The protester was guilty of criminal trespass, there have been numerous politicians attacked recently by those convinced of their moral righteousness and purity.

and yet so far no charges brought against her. the police would be able to get such evidence rather quickly and the cps would likely be able to bring charges very quickly. yet nothing.

Danzy wrote: »

He has fair grounds to use reasonable force.

reasonable force, sure. he could have stood up and blocked her path and called security. he didn't do that.

Danzy wrote: »

The protester will not press charges because she would be laughed out of court and the Mansion House could press charges against her which she has no defence against.

again, that is just speculation with no basis as the police could bring charges against her anyway, they have all of the evidence.
her not pressing charges does not get her out of facing any potential charges. as for being laughed out of court, i wouldn't bank on that in any way.

Danzy wrote: »

She should not be charged, nor should people pretend he assaulted her and gun for his job.

people are not pretending he assaulted her, they are satisfied that it is exactly what he did based on all of what we do know.

lawred2

And another viewer of law and order... Nobody gets to 'press charges' in the UK but the CPS.

All that anyone can do is report an incident to the police.

gctest50

You have this in the UK



(7) In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3) the following considerations are to be taken into account (so far as relevant in the circumstances of the case)—

(a) that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action;

and

(b)that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.



10)In this section—

(a)“legitimate purpose” means—

(i)the purpose of self-defence under the common law, or

(ia)the purpose of defence of property under the common law, or

(ii)the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of persons mentioned in the provisions referred to in subsection (2)(b);

(b)references to self-defence include acting in defence of another person; and

(c)references to the degree of force used are to the type and amount of force used.

tritium

end of the road wrote: »

and yet so far no charges brought against her. the police would be able to get such evidence rather quickly and the cps would likely be able to bring charges very quickly. yet nothing.

No charges against either of them actually

reasonable force, sure. he could have stood up and blocked her path and called security. he didn't do that.

And if she’s armed he gets stabbed....

again, that is just speculation with no basis as the police could bring charges against her anyway, they have all of the evidence.
her not pressing charges does not get her out of facing any potential charges. as for being laughed out of court, i wouldn't bank on that in any way.







people are not pretending he assaulted her, they are satisfied that it is exactly what he did based on all of what we do know.

No people are jumping on ideological bandwagons. The poster above just gave the UK perspective, do you really think a prosecution of Fields is likely against that standard?