MP Mark Field accused of assaulting Greenpeace activist

[Walter]

Are you unable to understand that the 'preventative action' could have been completed just as successfully without the need for violence. All he needed to do was stand up and block her further progress - job done.

hind-sight Prof !

[SusanDoris]

pushing past a government minister then reaches out , picks up a knife from the table and thrusts it into his neck . (imagine it)

It didn't happen but could have . That is why I support Mark Fields actions

On TWatO, the Army Commander, whose name I've forgotten, was pointing out some of the things that women terrorists do.
Also mentioned was the fact that she, an intruder, is now getting the publicity, whether sought or not, and that the MP was the only person who did anything.
It shouldn't have happened in the first place; there was presumably a failure in security.

[ProfessorDavey]

It must be lovely living in your fairyland prof

What fairyland - I live in the real world where violence should be a last resort and only used with complete justification - in other words the UK according to our legal system.

[Nearly Sane]

It must be lovely living in your fairyland prof

We have both seen the same video but we both have differing views on it . You see unnecessary violence , I see decisive preventative action.

We will never convince each other

Preventative  action of what? And any chance of you answering whether you think some large bloke using similar 'preventative action' on your daughter would be approved of,

[Nearly Sane]

On TWatO, the Army Commander, whose name I've forgotten, was pointing out some of the things that women terrorists do.
Also mentioned was the fact that she, an intruder, is now getting the publicity, whether sought or not, and that the MP was the only person who did anything.
It shouldn't have happened in the first place; there was presumably a failure in security.

And chokeholding a women who presents no obvious threat is ok. Nice to see you support violence against women.

[ProfessorDavey]

hind-sight Prof !

Nope - if he had the time to jump up and grab her by the throat and force her against the pillar, he had time to simply stand up and block her way.

Watch him in this extended video:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/mark-field-suspended-as-minister-after-grabbing-climate-protester-by-neck

He follows her every move as she comes towards him - he could easily have just stood up and blocked her way, but in a fit of (likely alcohol-fuelled) anger, he grabs her and forces her against the pillar.

There was need need for, nor justification for the violence.

[Walter]

Preventing what exactly? It would need to be something pretty serious to justify the aggression in order to 'prevent' it.

Apparently she planned to read out a statement and hand out some leaflets.

I DISPAIR

[ProfessorDavey]

On TWatO, the Army Commander, whose name I've forgotten, was pointing out some of the things that women terrorists do.
Also mentioned was the fact that she, an intruder, is now getting the publicity, whether sought or not, and that the MP was the only person who did anything.
It shouldn't have happened in the first place; there was presumably a failure in security.

I heard that interview and it was disingenuous in the extreme - he was the person who claimed she 'rushed' the stage - she did no such thing.

And she was wearing a sash saying 'climate change' on it - climate change activists aren't known for suicide bomb activities.

Perhaps there was a failure of security - perhaps not. Given that the Chancellor was there there would certainly have been a highly trained security presence there. But they will also be mindful of the need to protect freedom of speech and freedom of protest. So they likely would have rapidly assessed the situation and concluded that there was no security threat from the protesters, so best to allow them to make their point and then be persuaded to leave without violence.

[ProfessorDavey]

I DISPAIR

You despair at what?

You seem to think that pre-emptive violence was justified as a preventative measure - yet you appear totally unclear as to what was being prevented that would justify such violence.

[Walter]

Preventative  action of what? And any chance of you answering whether you think some large bloke using similar 'preventative action' on your daughter would be approved of,

Did you answer my question at #35?

and if my daughter had done the same as this woman I would still support his actions (then have a serious word with my daughter)

[ProfessorDavey]

Did you answer my question at #35?

and if my daughter had done the same as this woman I would still support his actions (then have a serious word with my daughter)

Still not answering the question - preventative action of what?

[ProfessorDavey]

Did you answer my question at #35?

It wasn't aimed at me, but no problem I will answer it.

Firstly however I take issue with the sexism of the question 'Hold on; are you saying there are NO circumstances where violence against women is acceptable ?' - why is the gender of the recipient of the violence relevant.

But to answer your question - yes there are circumstances where violence is acceptable - but only where it is necessary and proportionate. And if it isn't necessary then it can never be proportionate. In this case violence was not necessary to remedy the situation, it wasn't proportionate and it wasn't justified. Add to that the clear impression that the violence was fuelled by anger (and probably alcohol) so not a carefully considered response by someone 'in control' but an aggressive action by someone out of control, and all the more unjustified and worrying.

[ProfessorDavey]

and if my daughter had done the same as this woman I would still support his actions (then have a serious word with my daughter)

Your daughter isn't allowed to lawfully protest?

[Nearly Sane]

Did you answer my question at #35?

and if my daughter had done the same as this woman I would still support his actions (then have a serious word with my daughter)

Self defence which this wasn't. And even then man or woman you have to be careful about difference in size. I've had a friend murdered by one punch which could have happened here. That you would support this sort of violence against your daughter in any similar circumstances makes me think you are a misogynist and shite father.

[Walter]

You despair at what?

You seem to think that pre-emptive violence was justified as a preventative measure - yet you appear totally unclear as to what was being prevented that would justify such violence.

'such violence' you make it sound like he gave her a good hiding

And yes I do consider pre-emptive violence to be justified in some cases.

 

[Nearly Sane]

'such violence' you make it sound like he gave her a good hiding

And yes I do consider pre-emptive violence to be justified in some cases.

 

slamming her against the pillar could have killed her but hey it's all preventing leafleting so thar's ok.

[ProfessorDavey]

'such violence' you make it sound like he gave her a good hiding

He grabbed her by the throat and rammed her against a wall - that's pretty violent to me.

And yes I do consider pre-emptive violence to be justified in some cases.

Examples please?

And do you justify it in this case where there was no evidence that the protester was going to act in a violent manner herself (and indeed actually only wanted to make a statement and to hand out some leaflets).

[Walter]

Self defence which this wasn't. And even then man or woman you have to be careful about difference in size. I've had a friend murdered by one punch which could have happened here. That you would support this sort of violence against your daughter in any similar circumstances makes me think you are a misogynist and shite father.

only my kids could tell you about the last bit , my evaluation would probably be biased . And I think you appear to be getting rather triggered .

[Nearly Sane]

only my kids could tell you about the last bit , my evaluation would probably be biased . And I think you appear to be getting rather triggered .

You appear to support violence against women. Not triggered. Just disgusted.

[Walter]

He grabbed her by the throat and rammed her against a wall - that's pretty violent to me.
Examples please?

And do you justify it in this case where there was no evidence that the protester was going to act in a violent manner herself (and indeed actually only wanted to make a statement and to hand out some leaflets).

I have a good example but do not wish to share on here

how do you know what her intentions were , it's not evident from the video I saw ?

[ProfessorDavey]

I have a good example but do not wish to share on here

Than share another one.

how do you know what her intentions were , it's not evident from the video I saw ?

You need to use appropriate judgement of any threat or you'd end up assaulting people left right and centre because they just might be about to knife you etc. And the likelihood that a smallish woman wearing a red dress and with a climate change sash it likely to pose a threat to people in the room has to be minimal. And no doubt the real security people recognised this and therefore took the decision that the level of threat was not sufficient to take action that would prevent the right of freedom to protest.

Problem is that one of the first things that goes once you've had a few glasses of wine over a nice 3-course meal is ... judgement.

[ProfessorDavey]

There was a recent similar protester incident and the Esther McVey leadership launch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Ox3Y1CdGI

Watch this video and look at an appropriate way to deal with someone (who let's face it appears to be a much greater threat than the woman) - no violence but clear security action to surround and then usher out the protester.

That's what Field should have been doing, not assaulting her.

[Walter]

You appear to support violence against women. Not triggered. Just disgusted.

it is amazing how you can turn an opinion which you don't share into something as offensive as 'appearing to support violence against women' and then become disgusted by your own miss interpretation of what's going on here.

[Walter]

NS and Prof

look, you both think I'm wrong and I think you two are wrong  Whatever an investigation or the law says subsequently is not really relevant to our discussion

I was responding to what I saw in the few seconds of a video and that's all.

[Nearly Sane]

it is amazing how you can turn an opinion which you don't share into something as offensive as 'appearing to support violence against women' and then become disgusted by your own miss interpretation of what's going on here.

Violence was carried out on woman. Not seeing the misinterpretation.