MP Mark Field accused of assaulting Greenpeace activist

[Gordon]

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.

That is where he made his mistake: middle-aged men (Tory or otherwise) attending black-tie dinners shouldn't be frog-marching anyone anywhere whilst firmly gripping them by the neck in circumstances where, at best, he should only have blocking her progress without actually manhandling her; or, better still, he resisted the temptation to react impulsively in the absence of clear evidence of a threat, since it seems protest at this event was expected, and instead he requesting police or security support from people trained in how to manhandle people and in what circumstances manhandling is justified.

He comes across as a middle-aged and bumptious thug.

[SteveH]

So the legal one isn't sensible?

Apparently not.

[Nearly Sane]

Apparently not.

What would your 'sensible'  definition be?

[Aruntraveller]

I don't understand this apparent reluctance to face up to what is a very real problem. That problem being that some men think it is ok to physically abuse women. The issue really is as simple as that.

[Spud]

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

Looks like he basically used the sort of technique a bouncer would use, I notice that she was still trying to turn round when she got near to the camera. Pushing her by the neck avoided touching her chest and gave him more control, and she didn't appear to be hurt. But I still think it would have been better to just block her.

[Gordon]

The look in the clip isn't good: we see a Tory minister acting as male bully picking on someone smaller and female, and where his theatrical frog-marching is also demeaning.

The protest was going ahead anyway and would have attracted some limited coverage no matter what but now, ironically, Field's actions have attracted even more coverage that reflects badly on the Tory party (which is good) but doesn't involve climate change which was the aim of the protest (which is a shame).

 

 

[SteveH]

Using the minimum force necessary to eject someone from where they have no right to be is not assault.

[Udayana]

Using the minimum force necessary to eject someone from where they have no right to be is not assault.

This depends on a number of factors, including ownership of the property and whether or not the person(s) being ejected have refused to leave after being asked.

[Nearly Sane]

Using the minimum force necessary to eject someone from where they have no right to be is not assault.

And this wasn't minimum force. See Prof D 's point about the person at McVey's campaign launch.

[Nearly Sane]

Looks like he basically used the sort of technique a bouncer would use, I notice that she was still trying to turn round when she got near to the camera. Pushing her by the neck avoided touching her chest and gave him more control, and she didn't appear to be hurt. But I still think it would have been better to just block her.

There was no need to use any technique that a bouncer would use like this. Pushing someone by the neck hurts. Use of violence is always risky.

[Spud]

I agree with you NS. However, it is also important not to judge the book by it's cover, that is, from the video it looks like assault, but in context he may have genuinely thought she was a threat.

[Nearly Sane]

Not perhaps a source I would typically post from but absolutely agree.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7170991/ELIZABETH-DAY-Dont-tell-male-rage-just-private-matter.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top

[Nearly Sane]

I agree with you NS. However, it is also important not to judge the book by it's cover, that is, from the video it looks like assault, but in context he may have genuinely thought she was a threat.

Which he could have stopped by standing in the way. He's a thug.

[Walter]

Which he could have stopped by standing in the way. He's a thug.

just like me ,apparently.

[SteveH]

I've now seen the video - all I'd seen previously were photos - and, while it pains me to agree with Nearly Sane, I must admit that he went too far.

[Walter]

I've now seen the video - all I'd seen previously were photos - and, while it pains me to agree with Nearly Sane, I must admit that he went too far.

just leave the apple on his desk Steve

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

just leave the apple on his desk Steve

Just out of interest, if you were sitting in Field's chair and you spotted the protester walking behind you would you have done the same thing that he did? If not, why not? 

[Walter]

Walter,

Just out of interest, if you were sitting in Field's chair and you spotted the protester walking behind you would you have done the same thing that he did? If not, why not?

blue,
to be fair the only answer I can give is I don't know . But I can understand his reaction and don't blame him for it .

I can give you an example of why I think that. I've been travelling alone in a motorhome for the last 10 years and each night I am fully aware of potential risk of being attacked .
About 18 months ago I became very ill suddenly and was admitted to the nearest hospital . Long story short; during the night a doctor came to my bed to ask me some questions, I was fast asleep so he decided to rouse me by gently shaking my shoulder ,I immediately went into attack mode grabbing at his arms and shouting . He was totally taken by surprise at my reaction but within a few seconds had calmed me down and began to apologise profusely for his mistake   I told him he should never do that to people it might not end well .
We then carried on as normal

The point being ,it is impossible to guess what is going on in someone's head and so should not make judgments about their reactions / actions in a given situation where you are merely an observer

[SteveH]

Walter,

Just out of interest, if you were sitting in Field's chair and you spotted the protester walking behind you would you have done the same thing that he did? If not, why not?

Impossible hypothesis, because i wouldn't have been, but no, I'd leave her to ecurity.

[Aruntraveller]

blue,
to be fair the only answer I can give is I don't know . But I can understand his reaction and don't blame him for it .

I can give you an example of why I think that. I've been travelling alone in a motorhome for the last 10 years and each night I am fully aware of potential risk of being attacked .
About 18 months ago I became very ill suddenly and was admitted to the nearest hospital . Long story short; during the night a doctor came to my bed to ask me some questions, I was fast asleep so he decided to rouse me by gently shaking my shoulder ,I immediately went into attack mode grabbing at his arms and shouting . He was totally taken by surprise at my reaction but within a few seconds had calmed me down and began to apologise profusely for his mistake   I told him he should never do that to people it might not end well .
We then carried on as normal

The point being ,it is impossible to guess what is going on in someone's head and so should not make judgments about their reactions / actions in a given situation where you are merely an observer

While I can see what you are trying to say, the two situations are not comparable at all. You were at your most vulnerable, in a strange place (I've worked in hospitals, they are strange!) and asleep. Your reaction is not unheard of, or even unusual. Field was awake (although with Tories you can't always be sure), in control and aware of his surroundings. So I don't see it as a valid comparison.

[Walter]

While I can see what you are trying to say, the two situations are not comparable at all. You were at your most vulnerable, in a strange place (I've worked in hospitals, they are strange!) and asleep. Your reaction is not unheard of, or even unusual. Field was awake (although with Tories you can't always be sure), in control and aware of his surroundings. So I don't see it as a valid comparison.

perhaps I didn't make my point too well.

It is impossible to know what was in his mind at the time (you have made assumptions based on what you are observing) . You cant see inside his head .

Plus you and others on here are not Tory fans and therefore have a bias against him, I am a-political and have no emotional connection to this minister ,or any politician . I can only asses the situation from people I see in a video with the current climate of random attacks in mind
The fact it was a woman he restrained has no relevance . Substitute person for  woman/man

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walt,

It is impossible to know what was in his mind at the time (you have made assumptions based on what you are observing) . You cant see inside his head .

Yes it is, but how is that relevant? The point here was the inappropriateness of his actions, not the state of his mind. If, to take an extreme example, he'd killed her instead would that be ok too because that's just the character of the man? No-one (least of all Field himself)  is claiming that he acted as he did because the balance of his mind was disturbed - rather he acted as he did because he thought that was a reasonable way to behave.

It wasn't though.     

[Nearly Sane]

I've now seen the video - all I'd seen previously were photos - and, while it pains me to agree with Nearly Sane, I must admit that he went too far.

Always impressed to see someone willing to change their mind based on evidence.

[Walter]

Walt,

Yes it is, but how is that relevant? The point here was the inappropriateness of his actions, not the state of his mind. If, to take an extreme example, he'd killed her instead would that be ok too because that's just the character of the man? No-one (least of all Field himself)  is claiming that he acted as he did because the balance of his mind was disturbed - rather he acted as he did because he thought that was a reasonable way to behave.

It wasn't though.     

you will have to ask him. I cant speak for him and neither can you .You can have an opinion about the situation and so can I . The fact my opinion is different from yours does not mean yours is the correct  one

And opinions are just that, opinions, they are not scientific and are mainly based on emotions . Even juries get it wrong sometimes !

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Walt,

you will have to ask him. I cant speak for him and neither can you .You can have an opinion about the situation and so can I . The fact my opinion is different from yours does not mean yours is the correct  one

And opinions are just that, opinions, they are not scientific and are mainly based on emotions . Even juries get it wrong sometimes !

You're missing it still. Forget what was or wasn't in his mind - did he carry out the act, and is the act deemed by our society to be wrong? That's the beginning and end of it. Yes, juries do get things wrong but for the most part they concern themselves only with whether or not the accused did the burglary, committed the murder etc. Only exceptionally when the defence is temporary insanity or similar will a jury concern itself with the state of mind of the perpetrator.

This isn't one of those cases though - Field hasn't claimed temporarily to have lost his mind. Rather he thinks that what he did was reasonable, proportionate. We live in a society though in which needless assault isn't thought to be acceptable at all.