MP Mark Field accused of assaulting Greenpeace activist

[ProfessorDavey]

What are you taking issue with given bhs already takes issue with it?

I'm not taking issue with BHS at all, but with Field's claim that it was “in the heat of the moment” - hence both he and I using quote marks. BHS was saying that even if it were “in the heat of the moment” wouldn't justify it (I agree) but I was pointing out that I wasn't convinced that it was “in the heat of the moment” (i.e. a sudden decision as she walked right behind him), rather I think there was a level of premeditation to the actions as he was fixated on her as she waled around the table. He decided to jump on her and he decided not to get up and simply block her path.

[jeremyp]

True but not directly toward the top table - walking around the edge of the room.

Because the alternative would be to climb over a table.

All that was needed was for Field (or anyone else) to stand up, which would have effectively blocked any further progress as the space was so tight. The aggression and violence was completely unnecessary and also unprovoked.

If he blocked her way and left it at that, what happens next? Do they both just stand there until the event is over? He wanted her out of the room. He did what he thought was necessary.

[jeremyp]

If that is quickly, then I hope your arthritis gets better. Still no excuse for assault.

Would you agree on purposefully?

In the video, I saw somebody heading towards the top table at a fairly brisk pace and in a fairly determined manner. She was not ambling. She was not edging.

[ProfessorDavey]

If he blocked her way and left it at that, what happens next? Do they both just stand there until the event is over? He wanted her out of the room. He did what he thought was necessary.

As both BHS and I pointed, he could easily have moved forward, arms wide forcing her back the way she'd come and back to security.

Have a look at the McVey video - that's what they do. They deal with the situation effectively without any resort to violence whatsoever.

[Nearly Sane]

Would you agree on purposefully?

In the video, I saw somebody heading towards the top table at a fairly brisk pace and in a fairly determined manner. She was not ambling. She was not edging.

I would call it walking, and not very fast. If that is brisk again I suggest you have some issues walking. The chokehold push from the thug you want to support is much brisker.

[Nearly Sane]

Because the alternative would be to climb over a table.
If he blocked her way and left it at that, what happens next? Do they both just stand there until the event is over? He wanted her out of the room. He did what he thought was necessary.

Which was assault which you support.

[jeremyp]

I would call it walking, and not very fast. If that is brisk again I suggest you have some issues walking. The chokehold push from the thug you want to support is much brisker.

But you are the one who called a push a slam and who called a normally built woman slight and who thinks it’s fine to gate crash other people’s functions and not have to face the consequences of them getting angry at you.

[jeremyp]

Which was assault which you support.

Not agreeing with you on the severity of an altercation is not the same as supporting assault.

You seem to be very good at telling other people what they think, perhaps you should stop doing that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

But you are the one who called a push a slam and who called a normally built woman slight and who thinks it’s fine to gate crash other people’s functions and not have to face the consequences of them getting angry at you.

Someone "getting angry" at you and someone assaulting you are not the same thing. Do you really not think that Field's behaviour was excessive?   

[Walter]

she tells me you're a thug and and an idiot. And she is right.

we obviously see the world differently, which one of us is right ?

[Nearly Sane]

But you are the one who called a push a slam and who called a normally built woman slight and who thinks it’s fine to gate crash other people’s functions and not have to face the consequences of them getting angry at you.

So she was asking for it? I am not reading your mind when I saw you are supporting assault just your posts.

[Walter]

NS

I too read his posts and nowhere do I see jeremyp supporting assault so either my laptop is playing tricks on me or your mind is tricking you

[Udayana]

Not agreeing with you on the severity of an altercation is not the same as supporting assault.
...

Might be worth comparing with the milkshake attack on Farage? This certainly seems more severe and potentially damaging.

My feeling is that he would not have attacked her as he did if she was male or there was any likelihood of her being armed or dangerous.

[Spud]

I think he should have just stood blocking her way and called for assistance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I think he should have just stood blocking her way and called for assistance.

Yes, and had he done so and had she then attacked him he'd have been entitled to use sufficient force to prevent the attack. What some people seem to be arguing for though is that it was right that Field acted to punish her with violence disproportionate to that necessary to defuse the situation, which is odd. Reminds me a bit of the Tony Martin case - the farmer who shot in the back and killed a fleeing burglar - when some people argued that the burglar deserved to be shot.   

[ProfessorDavey]

jeremy,

Someone "getting angry" at you and someone assaulting you are not the same thing.

Quite right - again look at the McVey protester video. At least one of the three people who confronted the protester was clearly extremely angry, but none of them used violence at all. Indeed I'm not sure any of them laid a finger on the protester - they surrounded him, arms outstretched and ushered him out. That's the appropriate way to deal with an incident of this sort, not violence, which was completely unjustified.

[Spud]

Spud,

Yes, and had he done so and had she then attacked him he'd have been entitled to use sufficient force to prevent the attack. What some people seem to be arguing for though is that it was right that Field acted to punish her with violence disproportionate to that necessary to defuse the situation, which is odd. Reminds me a bit of the Tony Martin case - the farmer who shot in the back and killed a fleeing burglar - when some people argued that the burglar deserved to be shot.   

Difficult to know unless you can cross examine him, whether he thought the woman was going to attack him. But from the video he clearly used excessive force, although I don't think he intended to cause harm.

[Nearly Sane]

Difficult to know unless you can cross examine him, whether he thought the woman was going to attack him. But from the video he clearly used excessive force, although I don't think he intended to cause harm.

Not sure how using excessive force isn't in some sense intending to cause harm

[Maeght]

I think he used more force and with more aggression than was necessary and acted in a way as to try to punish her for being there. He doesn't have that right.

[SteveH]

I hate defending a bastard Tory bastard, especially against a greenpeace activist, but all he did was frog-march her out of somewhere where she shouldn't have been.

[Nearly Sane]

I hate defending a bastard Tory bastard, especially against a greenpeace activist, but all he did was frog-march her out of somewhere where she shouldn't have been.

And here we have another supporter of assault.

[SteveH]

And here we have another supporter of assault.

Don't be silly.

[Nearly Sane]

Don't be silly.

It was assault and you support it.

[SteveH]

Was it buggery assault, by any sensible definition.

[Nearly Sane]

Was it buggery assault, by any sensible definition.

So the legal one isn't sensible?