Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on June 21, 2019, 10:07:42 AM
-
Apparently he was scared she was armed!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48714864
-
Apparently he was scared she was armed!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48714864
She wasn't supposed to be there. He ejected her.
Don't see any problem with that.
-
She wasn't supposed to be there. He ejected her.
Don't see any problem with that.
With excessive force
-
Apparently he was scared she was armed!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48714864
That would probably have been my feeling too at that particular instant,, (or that she was carrying something dangerous) given some of the events which have happened recently.
Far more worrying to my mind is how these people were allowed to gatecrash this event without being challenged.
-
That would probably have been my feeling too at that particular instant,, (or that she was carrying something dangerous) given some of the events which have happened recently.
Far more worrying to my mind is how these people were allowed to gatecrash this event without being challenged.
He slams a small women against a pillar and then chokeholds her and pushes her out. There is no evidence or indication of a threat. It's assault. And I see he's been dropped as a govt minister - good. I hope he is charged
-
He slams a small women against a pillar and then chokeholds her and pushes her out. There is no evidence or indication of a threat. It's assault. And I see he's been dropped as a govt minister - good. I hope he is charged
You suggested that he was scared she was armed. My response was in answer to that statement.I didn't mention anything about how he reacted at all so I'm not sure why you have brought this up as a response to what I've said??
-
She wasn't supposed to be there. He ejected her.
Don't see any problem with that.
Regardless of whether someone is supposed to be in a place that gives no right for them to be ejected using excessive force, which Mark Field clearly did in my view having watched the clip.
-
Regardless of whether someone is supposed to be in a place that gives no right for them to be ejected using excessive force, which Mark Field clearly did in my view having watched the clip.
We must be viewing different images , what did you look at . Are we commenting on the same video ?
-
You suggested that he was scared she was armed. My response was in answer to that statement.I didn't mention anything about how he reacted at all so I'm not sure why you have brought this up as a response to what I've said??
No, it was his claim which I used in the OP. Your comment read as if you thought his actions were justified. Hence my reply.
-
We must be viewing different images , what did you look at . Are we commenting on the same video ?
Say your daughter was in a protest, would you be happy if a man considerably larger than her did that?
-
He slams a small women against a pillar and then chokeholds her and pushes her out. There is no evidence or indication of a threat. It's assault. And I see he's been dropped as a govt minister - good. I hope he is charged
are you for real?
-
are you for real?
You want to ignore facts?
-
You want to ignore facts?
you want to willfully and foolishly ignore context?
-
We must be viewing different images , what did you look at . Are we commenting on the same video ?
I'm looking at the video in the link from the OP. What I see is:
1. A slightly built woman wearing a shoulder less red dress (hard to conceal a weapon) and carrying a mobile phone walk behind the seated people next to the wall.
2. Mark Field wheels round and grabs her by the throat and rams her against the pillar.
3. He turns her round still grabbing her by the neck and forces her away from the area.
Completely inappropriate behaviour. What do you see Walter?
Look at him - he is angry, he is pumped up, red faced. He isn't acting calmly and appropriately - he has lost it. Worth having a look at the table - all cleared after the dinner has finished (ready for after dinner speaker Hammond) but plenty of wine glasses in view. Suspect Field had had a few prior to this incident.
-
Say your daughter was in a protest, would you be happy if a man considerably larger than her did that?
It is very unwise to make reference to my daughter in this thread.
-
you want to willfully and foolishly ignore context?
What context justifies that? Again if it had been your daughter peacefully protesting and some much larger bloke did that to her, what would be your reaction?
-
It is very unwise to make reference to my daughter in this thread.
Why?
-
I'm looking at the video in the link from the OP. What I see is:
1. A slightly built woman wearing a shoulder less red dress (hard to conceal a weapon) and carrying a mobile phone walk behind the seated people next to the wall.
2. Mark Field wheels round and grabs her by the throat and rams her against the pillar.
3. He turns her round still grabbing her by the neck and forces her away from the area.
Completely inappropriate behaviour. What do you see Walter?
Look at him - he is angry, he is pumped up, red faced. He isn't acting calmly and appropriately - he has lost it. Worth having a look at the table - all cleared after the dinner has finished (ready for after dinner speaker Hammond) but plenty of wine glasses in view. Suspect Field had had a few prior to this incident.
She deserves everything she got and I saw what you saw.
-
She deserves everything she got and I saw what you saw.
That's because you support violence against women
-
She deserves everything she got and I saw what you saw.
Are you really saying that someone protesting in a completely non violent manner deserves to be, in effect, assaulted!?! :o
-
Why?
you are attempting to invoke an emotional response from me using my daughter as an instrument and that is wrong and cheep .
You may or may not remember a couple of years ago when I posted that my daughter and her colleges were terrified by an intruder at her workplace which resulted in an evacuation of the building .
No one at the time knew they were not in danger however the reaction was the same.
Perhaps if someone had jumped up and restrained the intruder before he could do any damage then she and her colleagues may not have been so distressed
-
That's because you support violence against women
thanks for informing me , I wasn't aware of that . ::)
-
Are you really saying that someone protesting in a completely non violent manner deserves to be, in effect, assaulted!?! :o
I do hope you don't think you hold the 'moral high ground' Prof
-
Ffrom what I have heard, not seen of course, on Radio 4, I think I'm on the MP's side. The woman was an intruder, who had got past security presumably, and, whether or not she was dressed to make it look as if she was not an intruder, she should not have been there.
-
you want to willfully and foolishly ignore context?
I'm not ignoring the context that the guests at the event are likely to have been drinking throughout the pre-dinner drinks reception and through three courses prior to the speech.
Look at Field's body language and face - he isn't a man in control of his actions, he is furious and angry and very likely drunk.
-
Ffrom what I have heard, not seen of course, on Radio 4, I think I'm on the MP's side. The woman was an intruder, who had got past security presumably, and, whether or not she was dressed to make it look as if she was not an intruder, she should not have been there.
And he then slammed a woman much smaller than him against a pillar and chokeholdered her. If you think that's acceptable you support violence against peaceful protesters.
-
I saw the same as ProfessorDavey and Nearly Sane. Sometimes it's useful to imagine yourself or someone you care about in a scenario you're judging, to test your unconscious bias. I don't think that's trying to evoke an emotional response. If you'd have been happy seeing someone you care about being treated like that, at least you're consistent.
-
Ffrom what I have heard, not seen of course, on Radio 4, I think I'm on the MP's side. The woman was an intruder, who had got past security presumably, and, whether or not she was dressed to make it look as if she was not an intruder, she should not have been there.
You need to watch the video before commenting - that gives you all the context you need.
Sure she was a protester and dressed exactly as such with a sash - she was non violent, she wasn't 'rushing' at anyone. Field was unnecessarily aggressive and violent toward her. Given the tight space between the table and the wall all he needed to do was stand up, arms outstretched (as security would have done) and chaperoned her back the way she'd come. No need to touch her at all.
I heard the guy on radio 4 and was appalled at the suggestion that he needed to grab her by the throat because she wasn't wearing a collar - did he think she was a dog or something.
-
you are attempting to invoke an emotional response from me using my daughter as an instrument and that is wrong and cheep .
You may or may not remember a couple of years ago when I posted that my daughter and her colleges were terrified by an intruder at her workplace which resulted in an evacuation of the building .
No one at the time knew they were not in danger however the reaction was the same.
Perhaps if someone had jumped up and restrained the intruder before he could do any damage then she and her colleagues may not have been so distressed
No, I exactly do recall that. But you are supporting the abuser here. Which makes you a hypocrite and someone who supports violence against women. It's using emotion but also logical consistency.
-
You need to watch the video before commenting - that gives you all the context you need.
Sure she was a protester and dressed exactly as such with a sash - she was non violent, she wasn't 'rushing' at anyone. Field was unnecessarily aggressive toward her. Given the tight space between the table and the wall all he needed to do was stand up, arms outstretched (as security would have done) and chaperoned her back the way she'd come.
Err given SD is mostly unsighted mebbes think about your phrasing here?
-
Err given SD is mostly unsighted mebbes think about your phrasing here?
Indeed - my apologies - but the point remains that you really do need to see what happened to be able to judge. The guy on radio 4 described her as 'rushing' forward (as if to make an attack) - she does no such thing.
-
Indeed - my apologies - but the point remains that you really do need to see what happened to be able to judge. The guy on radio 4 described her as 'rushing' forward (as if to make an attack) - she does no such thing.
Indeed, slightly edging might be a better description.
-
With excessive force
A little bit maybe. But she was a protestor who wasn't supposed to be there and she knew it. It seems she put herself in harm's way.
-
He slams a small women against a pillar and then chokeholds her and pushes her out. There is no evidence or indication of a threat. It's assault. And I see he's been dropped as a govt minister - good. I hope he is charged
He pushes her against a pillar. There was no choke hold. He has his hand firmly on her shoulder as he pushes her out of the room.
-
I'm not ignoring the context that the guests at the event are likely to have been drinking throughout the pre-dinner drinks reception and through three courses prior to the speech.
Look at Field's body language and face - he isn't a man in control of his actions, he is furious and angry and very likely drunk.
you really do amuse me prof , you sound like a Sally Army lady who comes collecting in the pub on a Friday night
-
No, I exactly do recall that. But you are supporting the abuser here. Which makes you a hypocrite and someone who supports violence against women. It's using emotion but also logical consistency.
Hold on; are you saying there are NO circumstances where violence against women is acceptable ?
(not wishing to derail this thread but clarification is needed)
-
No, it was his claim which I used in the OP. Your comment read as if you thought his actions were justified. Hence my reply.
I made a comment on what he thought(about her being armed). At no point did I seek to justify his reactions. I talked only about his feelings and that they might well have been my feelings too. If you choose to interpret that as me having some sort of justification for his actions, I think you are jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted and are certainly not present in any words that I have conveyed. I actually think that his actions were over the top, ill thought out(if thought out at all), and could amount to assault. I do not condone them at all. Explanations do not necessarily lead to justification for a person's actions.
-
Indeed, slightly edging might be a better description.
She was walking quickly towards the top table.
-
She was walking quickly towards the top table.
True but not directly toward the top table - walking around the edge of the room.
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.
-
She was walking quickly towards the top table.
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
-
you really do amuse me prof , you sound like a Sally Army lady who comes collecting in the pub on a Friday night
Bizarre comment - as a retort you sound like a guy in the pub who thinks it's OK to assault someone who poses no threat to you because you've got a bit angry and had one too many.
I simply think that we should resolve issues without aggression and violence wherever possible. And in this case the situation could have (and should have) been resolved without any resort to violence. No trained security person would have done what Field did - a trained person would have simply blocked her progress and walked forward with arms outstretched to usher her back the way she came. In fact you see people later in the clip doing exactly that to the other protesters.
-
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
[/quote Because you make stuff up to justify violence against women.
-
She was walking quickly towards the top table.
If that is quickly, then I hope your arthritis gets better. Still no excuse for assault.
-
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
Because you make stuff up to justify violence against women.
-
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
Pathetic comment. The person sitting next to him could have done exactly the same.
Well actually neither of them could have done as the table had already been cleared of everything except the wine and coffee.
-
I made a comment on what he thought(about her being armed). At no point did I seek to justify his reactions. I talked only about his feelings and that they might well have been my feelings too. If you choose to interpret that as me having some sort of justification for his actions, I think you are jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted and are certainly not present in any words that I have conveyed. I actually think that his actions were over the top, ill thought out(if thought out at all), and could amount to assault. I do not condone them at all. Explanations do not necessarily lead to justification for a person's actions.
The actions are assault.
-
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
So you support pre-emptive violence in circumstances where there is no evidence of a threat of violence. Bonkers.
-
So you support pre-emptive violence in circumstances where there is no evidence of a threat of violence. Bonkers.
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
-
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
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.
-
I see decisive preventative action.
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.
-
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 !
-
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.
-
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.
-
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,
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
'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.
-
'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).
-
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 .
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
In which a large man slams a small woman against a pillar and then chokeholds her.
-
Pretty much
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/21/mark-field-video-male-violence-minister-female-protester?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
-
Violence was carried out on woman. Not seeing the misinterpretation.
I think you are being unforgivably sexist here . You should at least say 'person'
-
I think you are being unforgivably sexist here . You should at least say 'person'
I think you are being unforgivably an idiot here.
-
Pretty much
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/21/mark-field-video-male-violence-minister-female-protester?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
I hope you don't expect me to respond to that link
-
I hope you don't expect me to respond to that link
Why would I when you support violence against women?
-
Walter - do you think that someone should have assaulted the protester in the Esther McVey launch? If not, why not given that you think that violence was appropriate in the Field case.
-
Why would I when you support violence against women?
what time did you start drinking today , it's obviously affecting your judgment?
-
what time did you start drinking today , it's obviously affecting your judgment?
Walter it was me who made the comment about drinking and judgement, not NS - do keep up.
Would you like to answer my question please, namely:
'do you think that someone should have assaulted the protester in the Esther McVey launch? If not, why not given that you think that violence was appropriate in the Field case.'
-
Walter - do you think that someone should have assaulted the protester in the Esther McVey launch? If not, why not given that you think that violence was appropriate in the Field case.
you are comparing apples and oranges Prof.
you should know better !
-
you are comparing apples and oranges Prof.
you should know better !
No I'm not - both involved a protester interrupting a political event. Please tell us whether you think violence should have been used to eject the shouty bloke in the McVey launch - and if not why not given that you think violence was justified by Field to eject a protester who was clearly acting in a less aggressive manner than shouty bloke.
-
what time did you start drinking today , it's obviously affecting your judgment?
Your lack of argument is obvious
-
No I'm not - both involved a protester interrupting a political event. Please tell us whether you think violence should have been used to eject the shouty bloke in the McVey launch - and if not why not given that you think violence was justified by Field to eject a protester who was clearly acting in a less aggressive manner than shouty bloke.
Prof this is futile so I won't be answering . You already know what I think
-
Prof this is futile so I won't be answering . You already know what I think
No I don't - that's why I am asking. It really isn't a hard question is it.
-
Prof this is futile so I won't be answering . You already know what I think
Indeed, you think violence against women is fine.
-
Indeed, you think violence against women is fine.
You do seem to be fixated with the gender aspect. I think Field's actions would have been just as inappropriate if the protester had been a man of similar physical stature.
-
You do seem to be fixated with the gender aspect. I think Field's actions would have been just as inappropriate if the protester had been a man of similar physical stature.
I am fixated on what happened.
-
I am fixated on what happened.
Would it have been any less inappropriate had the protester been male in your view?
-
Would it have been any less inappropriate had the protester been male in your view?
his view is what his wife tells him it is ;)
-
his view is what his wife tells him it is ;)
Eh :o
-
Isn’t the nub of the problem here proportionality? If someone (male or female) is marching towards an intended target with a raised gun in their hand then a certain level of violence (whacking them on the back of the head with a chair for example) to prevent the shooting is justified – it’s the (probable) lesser of two evils. That’s not what happened though – the woman was walking behind a row of chairs and Field saw her, moved his chair back to block her, then assaulted her.
Might she have had a concealed weapon? Yes she might have done, but so might anyone in the street – that doesn’t give me the right to assault them though because I think they might be carrying heat.
What he should have done if he'd wanted to intervene reasonably was to have blocked her way, then either waited for security to arrive or walked toward her such that she would have been forced to retreat. In other words, acted proportionately.
I see by the way that Field claims to have acted “in the heat of the moment” as if that were some kind of defence or justification. It isn’t. Anyone can act in the heat of the moment, but they must expect to face the consequence when they do.
Short version: the guy’s a thug.
-
To bhs absolute ditto
-
his view is what his wife tells him it is ;)
she tells me you're a thug and and an idiot. And she is right.
-
Isn’t the nub of the problem here proportionality? If someone (male or female) is marching towards an intended target with a raised gun in their hand then a certain level of violence (whacking them on the back of the head with a chair for example) to prevent the shooting is justified – it’s the (probable) lesser of two evils. That’s not what happened though – the woman was walking behind a row of chairs and Field saw her, moved his chair back to block her, then assaulted her.
Might she have had a concealed weapon? Yes she might have done, but so might anyone in the street – that doesn’t give me the right to assault them though because I think they might be carrying heat.
What he should have done if he'd wanted to intervene reasonably was to have blocked her way, then either waited for security to arrive or walked toward her such that she would have been forced to retreat. In other words, acted proportionately.
I see by the way that Field claims to have acted “in the heat of the moment” as if that were some kind of defence or justification. It isn’t. Anyone can act in the heat of the moment, but they must expect to face the consequence when they do.
Short version: the guy’s a thug.
Agree entirely - it wasn't proportionate and wasn't justified.
I'd take issue with the “in the heat of the moment” bit too - sure this all happened fairly quickly but Field watches her all the way as she is walking past the table, he had ample time to simply stand up and block her. But he chose instead to wait until she was next to him to jump up, grab her and ram her against the pillar. That was a decision - a decision likely fuelled by anger and likely fuelled by alcohol - but that in no way excuses his actions.
-
Agree entirely - it wasn't proportionate and wasn't justified.
I'd take issue with the “in the heat of the moment” bit too - sure this all happened fairly quickly but Field watches her all the way as she is walking past the table, he had ample time to simply stand up and block her. But he chose instead to wait until she was next to him to jump up, grab her and ram her against the pillar. That was a decision - a decision likely fuelled by anger and likely fuelled by alcohol - but that in no way excuses his actions.
What are you taking issue with given bhs already takes issue with it?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
I think he should have just stood blocking her way and called for assistance.
-
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.
-
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,
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
And here we have another supporter of assault.
Don't be silly.
-
Don't be silly.
It was assault and you support it.
-
Was it buggery assault, by any sensible definition.
-
Was it buggery assault, by any sensible definition.
So the legal one isn't sensible?
-
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.
-
So the legal one isn't sensible?
Apparently not.
-
Apparently not.
What would your 'sensible' definition be?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
Using the minimum force necessary to eject someone from where they have no right to be is not assault.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Which he could have stopped by standing in the way. He's a thug.
just like me ,apparently.
-
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.
-
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 ::)
-
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,
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 !
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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
-
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,
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Just analysing what was going on at a deeper level. I may be wrong.
Yep.
-
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.
-
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 !!!!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 .
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
And what 'tribe' would that be exactly?
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
prof
If it is so difficult for us to agree on what we are seeing , which is what this whole thread is based on , then everything else is irrelevant
-
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.
No - the only time it is clear he is holding her hand is later - once she has grappled him off her. And if he was holding her hand, what on earth would he be holding is a throat level!?!
This version on 0.25 speed show everything pretty clearly - around 32s in - you can clearly see the cuff of his shirt right next to her throat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ge5yy-7AUo
-
prof
If it is so difficult for us to agree on what we are seeing , which is what this whole thread is based on , then everything else is irrelevant
As I have said previously is doesn't matter whether nor not he grabbed her throat (I'm clear he did as the video evidence shows) - even if he hadn't his actions were unnecessary and unjustified.
-
As I have said previously is doesn't matter whether nor not he grabbed her throat (I'm clear he did as the video evidence shows) - even if he hadn't his actions were unnecessary and unjustified.
Prof
The video evidence does not show that and while you keep insisting it does then I no longer wish to carry this on
-
Prof
The video evidence does not show that and while you keep insisting it does then I no longer wish to carry this on
Use your eyes my friend.
But whether or not it does makes no difference to my view on the matter - his actions were unjustified and unnecessary (regardless of whether he grabs her throat or not) to my mind he was angry, out of control, and very likely drunk.
Why does this issue bother you so much - does it make a difference to your view, in other words - grabs her throat = wrong; doesn't grab her throat = OK
Is that what all this is about from your perspective?
-
Use your eyes my friend.
But whether or not it does makes no difference to my view on the matter - his actions were unjustified and unnecessary (regardless of whether he grabs her throat or not) to my mind he was angry, out of control, and very likely drunk.
Why does this issue bother you so much - does it make a difference to your view, in other words - grabs her throat = wrong; doesn't grab her throat = OK
Is that what all this is about from your perspective?
prof
See above !
-
prof
See above !
Perhaps you'd like to answer my question as to why this matters to you.
Does it make a difference to your view, in other words - grabs her throat = wrong; doesn't grab her throat = OK
-
No - the only time it is clear he is holding her hand is later - once she has grappled him off her. And if he was holding her hand, what on earth would he be holding is a throat level!?!
This version on 0.25 speed show everything pretty clearly - around 32s in - you can clearly see the cuff of his shirt right next to her throat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ge5yy-7AUo
Yes his cuff is beside her neck but you do not see his hand on her throat. A little after as she moves her head his hand grabs hers, which us up near her shoulder. As I see it he was trying to grab her hand which was raised, not her throat.
You said before that it was clear he grabbed her throat, now you say his cuff was at throat level so he must have grabbed her throat. Is it clear to see or not?
-
Yes his cuff is beside her neck but you do not see his hand on her throat. A little after as she moves her head his hand grabs hers, which us up near her shoulder. As I see it he was trying to grab her hand which was raised, not her throat.
You said before that it was clear he grabbed her throat, now you say his cuff was at throat level so he must have grabbed her throat. Is it clear to see or not?
If you look carefully you can see the ends of the fingers of his hand round the back of her neck as she turns. He isn't grabbing her by the shoulder or by the hand.
-
If you look carefully you can see the ends of the fingers of his hand round the back of her neck as she turns. He isn't grabbing her by the shoulder or by the hand.
So not on her throat then?
He was grappling with her and in my view trying to grab her hand or shoulder. Nowhere does he grab her by the throat as far as I can see, and I have watched it many times.
-
So not on her throat then?
He was grappling with her and in my view trying to grab her hand or shoulder. Nowhere does he grab her by the throat as far as I can see, and I have watched it many times.
Where is the rest of his hand - the only way your fingers could be in that position and your arm where it is is if the rest of you hand is wrapped around her throat. Think about it.
And her response is completely consistent with what someone would do if they were grabbed by the neck and throat.
-
Where is the rest of his hand - the only way your fingers could be in that position and your arm where it is is if the rest of you hand is wrapped around her throat. Think about it.
I have. It is not clear as you suggested and if they were grappling his hand could have been in various positions other than her throat.
He was wrong and over aggressive but the video doesn't show him grabbing herv throat or ramming her into the pillar in my view.
-
I have. It is not clear as you suggested and if they were grappling his hand could have been in various positions other than her throat.
Such as? With his arm in the position it is.
-
Such as? With his arm in the position it is.
Shoulder, hand, in the air. It could be on her neck with some contact with the throat but I don't see that and would certainly say that to claim he did, and that it is clear he did, is mistaken.
-
He was wrong and over aggressive ...
We agree on that regardless of our interpretations of the video.
-
We agree on that regardless of our interpretations of the video.
Indeed we do.
-
And his charm, it overfloweth
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/02/mark-field-calls-homeless-charity-a-magnet-for-undesirable