MP Mark Field accused of assaulting Greenpeace activist

[Walter]

Hi Walt,

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.   

blue,

yes we do live in a society as you describe it . In this case though, I think what he did was reasonable and proportionate

I suppose we (you and I) would have to devise a sliding scale of 'reasonable and proportionate' to determine where each of us is on it .
It would appear that I am in a different part of that scale than you are .

How do we resolve that discrepancy ?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

yes we do live in a society as you describe it . In this case though, I think what he did was reasonable and proportionate

I suppose we (you and I) would have to devise a sliding scale of 'reasonable and proportionate' to determine where each of us is on it .
It would appear that I am in a different part of that scale than you are .

How do we resolve that discrepancy ?

Easily - by limiting the acceptable level of violence to that which is strictly necessary. The protester could have been blocked and forced back without assaulting her, and Field taking it upon himself to play the big man was in excess of what was necessary. Hence it was disproportionate.     

[Spud]

In Mark's defence: if a security person is standing and already in a state of readiness then he is less likely to use his arms forcefully (but his body, propped up by his leg muscles) to stop her, than someone who has been sitting for quite a while and is not physiologically prepared for action. Mark's leg muscles not being watmed up, he wasn't in a state where he could block her, he used his arms to do the work, hence the appearance of excessive force.
Probably he shouldn't have done anything

[Nearly Sane]

In Mark's defence: if a security person is standing and already in a state of readiness then he is less likely to use his arms forcefully (but his body, propped up by his leg muscles) to stop her, than someone who has been sitting for quite a while and is not physiologically prepared for action. Mark's leg muscles not being watmed up, he wasn't in a state where he could block her, he used his arms to do the work, hence the appearance of excessive force.
Probably he shouldn't have done anything

Are you a friend of Field's? If not why refer to him as Mark? He didn't use his arms to block her, he used them to choke her.

[Walter]

Walter,

Easily - by limiting the acceptable level of violence to that which is strictly necessary. The protester could have been blocked and forced back without assaulting her, and Field taking it upon himself to play the big man was in excess of what was necessary. Hence it was disproportionate.     

bleu

I don't think we are going to agree on this , we're going round in circles . So now what?         fight

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

In Mark's defence: if a security person is standing and already in a state of readiness then he is less likely to use his arms forcefully (but his body, propped up by his leg muscles) to stop her, than someone who has been sitting for quite a while and is not physiologically prepared for action. Mark's leg muscles not being watmed up, he wasn't in a state where he could block her, he used his arms to do the work, hence the appearance of excessive force.
Probably he shouldn't have done anything

Good grief. All he had to do was to stand up and block her way - what he actually did though was to shove her into a pilar, grab her forcefully to turn her round, and frog march her from behind while gripping the back of her neck (apparently quite hard). At no point by the way did she offer any resistance.

It was an excessive and disproportionate use of violence in response to little or no threat - and that's assault.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

I don't think we are going to agree on this , we're going round in circles . So now what?         fight

Actually I don't think we are. Either you think that using violence greater than is necessary to defuse a situation is acceptable or you don't. I don't. Field was florid and apparently angry, and he decided to play the big man by assaulting someone clearly weaker than him. Presumably those who decided to suspend him think so too.   

[Spud]

Are you a friend of Field's? If not why refer to him as Mark? He didn't use his arms to block her, he used them to choke her.

Just analysing what was going on at a deeper level. I may be wrong.

[Maeght]

Just analysing what was going on at a deeper level. I may be wrong.

Yep.

[SteveH]

Are you a friend of Field's? If not why refer to him as Mark? He didn't use his arms to block her, he used them to choke her.

No, he didn't. He grabbed her by the back of the neck, to propel her forwards in front of him.

[Walter]

No, he didn't. He grabbed her by the back of the neck, to propel her forwards in front of him.

Steve H

unless there is another video I haven't yet seen , I cant see him choking her either !!!!

[ProfessorDavey]

No, he didn't. He grabbed her by the back of the neck, to propel her forwards in front of him.

Yes he does, or at least he grabs her round the throat - before that point.

Look at the video at about 3s in when he wheels round and rams her against the pillar - he clearly has her round the throat. Then he turns her round and grabs her by the back of the neck.

[Walter]

have a look at what Loose Women are saying about it

https://youtu.be/bu9ulseTsRM


also I've looked again at the video and still cannot see where he has her by the throat

[ProfessorDavey]

also I've looked again at the video and still cannot see where he has her by the throat

About 3s in his left hand is grasped around the right side (the side furthest away from us) of her throat and you can see his fingers clasped around her throat. She then manages to push him away.

As he jumps up from the table he grabs her round the throat and rams her against the pillar - he doesn't go for her shoulder, or arm, he goes for her throat.

[Maeght]

Although I think he acted wrongly I do not see that he grabbed her by the throat or rammed her against the pillar. He blocked her and wrestled with her. She fell or was pushed against the pillar but not rammed. At no point did I see his hand on her throat.

[Walter]

About 3s in his left hand is grasped around the left side (the side furthest away from us) of her throat and you can see his fingers clasped around the front of her throat. She then manages to push him away.

As he jumps up from the table he grabs her round the throat and rams her against the pillar - he doesn't go for her shoulder, or arm, he goes for her throat.

prof
please post a link to the video you are watching/referring to

[ProfessorDavey]

prof
please post a link to the video you are watching/referring to

The one in the OP - watch it 2s-3s and you will see exactly what I referred to (except I got my left and right mixed up - it is his left hand around the right side (far side of neck and throat) - you you can see the end of his fingers round the back of her neck as she turns with the rest of his had round the front - how she moves is what someone would do if you'd been grabbed by the neck, fingers round the back, thumb on your throat.

He doesn't go for her shoulder, nor her arm - he goes for her throat.

And if you watch the Guardian link I provided which has more time before the incident - he matches her with eagle eyes all the way around the table but only moves when she is right upon him. He was aware of her and had plenty of time to simply stand up and block her way - he chose not to.

[ProfessorDavey]

prof
please post a link to the video you are watching/referring to

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48714864 - 2-3s in
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/mark-field-suspended-as-minister-after-grabbing-climate-protester-by-neck - 7-8s in

Sure later he grabs her by the back of the neck, but his initial action is to grab her by the throat

[Walter]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48714864 - 2-3s in
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/mark-field-suspended-as-minister-after-grabbing-climate-protester-by-neck - 7-8s in

Sure later he grabs her by the back of the neck, but his initial action is to grab her by the throat

prof
I have looked and looked at 6 differentently sourced videos . I have slowed it down to 0.25 x speed, gone over and reversed , stop started and gone back over then again and again , enlarged the images and reversed them again and still can't see where he has his hand round her throat !!!!

I really am genuinely puzzled

[ProfessorDavey]

prof
I have looked and looked at 6 differentently sourced videos . I have slowed it down to 0.25 x speed, gone over and reversed , stop started and gone back over then again and again , enlarged the images and reversed them again and still can't see where he has his hand round her throat !!!!

I really am genuinely puzzled

Or perhaps you'd don't want to accept what it clear in the video. His hand goes to her throat - she makes the automatic response of bringing her chin down and turns towards us at which point Field's left hand slides around her neck and you can briefly see the ends of his fingers at the back of her neck.

[Walter]

Or perhaps you'd don't want to accept what it clear in the video. His hand goes to her throat - she makes the automatic response of bringing her chin down and turns towards us at which point Field's left hand slides around her neck and you can briefly see the ends of his fingers at the back of her neck.

prof

It is NOT clear in the video or we would NOT be having this conversation .
Or perhaps you are seeing what you want to see because you have an agenda and are looking for anything which might support it

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing

[ProfessorDavey]

prof

It is NOT clear in the video or we would NOT be having this conversation .
Or perhaps you are seeing what you want to see because you have an agenda and are looking for anything which might support it

Wrong - regardless of whether he grabs her by the throat or the neck or the shoulder, all action are unjustified and unnecessary. It matter not to my argument whether or not he goes for her throat - that the video clearly indicates that he does is neither here nor there in terms of my argument - I am just describing what happened.

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing

Indeed it is - which is perhaps why you are claiming not to see that which is obvious in the video as it doesn't align with your 'thesis' that he was entitled to act as he did and was acting appropriately.

[Walter]

Wrong - regardless of whether he grabs her by the throat or the neck or the shoulder, all action are unjustified and unnecessary. It matter not to my argument whether or not he goes for her throat - that the video clearly indicates that he does is neither here nor there in terms of my argument - I am just describing what happened.
Indeed it is - which is perhaps why you are claiming not to see that which is obvious in the video as it doesn't align with your 'thesis' that he was entitled to act as he did and was acting appropriately.

prof

with respect , you appear Not to be able to describe what you are looking at accurately . I can only assume it's because of your political leanings and allegiance to a tribe
I personally have neither . 

[ProfessorDavey]

prof

with respect , you appear Not to be able to describe what you are looking at accurately .

I have described what is in the video (2-3s on BBC and 7-8s on Guardian) completely accurately.

Would you like to do the same - where is Field's left hand - on which part of the protester's body is in, using the evidence both of his moving arm/arm and the protester's response.

I can only assume it's because of your political leanings and allegiance to a tribe

And what 'tribe' would that be exactly?

I personally have neither .

Really - from the off you have denied to accept what is clear in the video and then made bizarre comments that were this to have happened to your daughter that she'd get the blame

[Maeght]

I think you are seeing things which are not there Prof.

When his left hand appears from behind her he is holding her hand. At no point can I see him with his hand on her throat having watched it frame by frame several times.