Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Mp Manhandles Protestor
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by thesshhh. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//NJ what was security team doing?//
Not a lot, apparently. That’s why Mr Field had to act. Quite how forty protesters gained access to the event is a little unclear.
// Technically its classed as assault and could be prosecuted .//
Indeed. But the question of “self-defence” is obviously a consideration. The CPS guidance on the matter is lengthy, but here’s the introduction:
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:
• self-defence; or
• defence of another; or
• defence of property; or
• prevention of crime; or
• lawful arrest.
In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:
• was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and
• was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?
So, was the force necessary? I would say so. Mr Field had no idea what The Idiot was going to do and the top table, where she was heading, accommodated, among others, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England.
Was the force reasonable? Again, I would say so. Mr Field simply intercepted the Idiot and forcefully removed her from the room. Self defence is not restricted to protecting one’s self and it is not restricted to one’s own property. The police are singularly abrogating their responsibilities when it comes to dealing with these protesters and the only option left to individuals is to take the kind of action Mr Field did. I would be extremely surprised if the CPS decided to bring charges against him (for the reasons I outlined above) and in any case The Idiot has magnanimously decided she would not want the police to take action. I would be even more surprised if a Magistrates' Court convicted Mr Field. Of course if the police were to act properly they would interview her under caution on suspicion of committing a Public Order Offence.
The person “out of order” following this event is Mrs May for summarily suspending Mr Field. However, Mrs May, of course, is not renowned for her sense of judgement.
Not a lot, apparently. That’s why Mr Field had to act. Quite how forty protesters gained access to the event is a little unclear.
// Technically its classed as assault and could be prosecuted .//
Indeed. But the question of “self-defence” is obviously a consideration. The CPS guidance on the matter is lengthy, but here’s the introduction:
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:
• self-defence; or
• defence of another; or
• defence of property; or
• prevention of crime; or
• lawful arrest.
In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:
• was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and
• was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?
So, was the force necessary? I would say so. Mr Field had no idea what The Idiot was going to do and the top table, where she was heading, accommodated, among others, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England.
Was the force reasonable? Again, I would say so. Mr Field simply intercepted the Idiot and forcefully removed her from the room. Self defence is not restricted to protecting one’s self and it is not restricted to one’s own property. The police are singularly abrogating their responsibilities when it comes to dealing with these protesters and the only option left to individuals is to take the kind of action Mr Field did. I would be extremely surprised if the CPS decided to bring charges against him (for the reasons I outlined above) and in any case The Idiot has magnanimously decided she would not want the police to take action. I would be even more surprised if a Magistrates' Court convicted Mr Field. Of course if the police were to act properly they would interview her under caution on suspicion of committing a Public Order Offence.
The person “out of order” following this event is Mrs May for summarily suspending Mr Field. However, Mrs May, of course, is not renowned for her sense of judgement.
I appreciate that it's an easy option to go for 'He didn't know what she was going to do, he was protecting the Minister and everyone else, he's a hero ...' and so on ad nauseum, because it defends what i still maintain is actually indefensible.
I can only repeat my interpretation of what I saw, which is not a man who was scared for his life, and that of those around him, and someone who restrained a potential attacker and called for help because he was frightened.
I saw a man who was instantly angry and acted without thinking, by pushing the woman against a wall, and then marching her out of the room by the neck - which is not the action of a man restraining a potential maniac, but it is the action of a man who is seriously annoyed by a protester, and dealing with her as he believes fit - ejection by force.
The interesting thing is, for all the bravado of the defenders on here, the gentleman himself feels he acted inappropriately, which is why he has apologized immediately to the lady involved, and refered himself immediately to the appropriate disciplinary body of The House.
That is not the action of a man who thinks he behaved correctly, or that he is a hero, or any of the other guff being trotted out in his defence.
He acted like a violent temper-tantrum yob, he knows, the PM knows it, and I know it.
The defenders can carry on defending him, but this level of violence is simply not acceptable in any situation, much less from an MP who is sworn to uphold the values of the society he represents.
I can only repeat my interpretation of what I saw, which is not a man who was scared for his life, and that of those around him, and someone who restrained a potential attacker and called for help because he was frightened.
I saw a man who was instantly angry and acted without thinking, by pushing the woman against a wall, and then marching her out of the room by the neck - which is not the action of a man restraining a potential maniac, but it is the action of a man who is seriously annoyed by a protester, and dealing with her as he believes fit - ejection by force.
The interesting thing is, for all the bravado of the defenders on here, the gentleman himself feels he acted inappropriately, which is why he has apologized immediately to the lady involved, and refered himself immediately to the appropriate disciplinary body of The House.
That is not the action of a man who thinks he behaved correctly, or that he is a hero, or any of the other guff being trotted out in his defence.
He acted like a violent temper-tantrum yob, he knows, the PM knows it, and I know it.
The defenders can carry on defending him, but this level of violence is simply not acceptable in any situation, much less from an MP who is sworn to uphold the values of the society he represents.
Sqad - // A-H...well written, well presented and maybe, the correct interpretation of the incident.
However, one must appreciate that it is not everyone's interpretation and assessment of the incident. //
Thank you - and for the record, I absolutely appreciate that not everyone sees this situation as I do - indeed I am in a serious minority, both on here, and indeed in the Hughes household!
However, one must appreciate that it is not everyone's interpretation and assessment of the incident. //
Thank you - and for the record, I absolutely appreciate that not everyone sees this situation as I do - indeed I am in a serious minority, both on here, and indeed in the Hughes household!
There are no rule books on how to handle a situation like this. People react differently . However I don't think anyone would have stood up and politely asked the woman to leave. She was an intruder and should not have even been in that room. Had she got to the top table and stabbed, thrown acid, shot someone this scenario would be quite a different tale. No good saying-- 'she didn't have a weapon'.At the time no-one knew what she had in her bag?
Cloverjo.
We live in violent times when one assumes the worst shoots first and then asks questions.
My No4 son was in the R.A.M.C attached to an S.A.S unit and asked about his opinion on the following killing and had he any comment to make.
"Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes was a Brazilian man killed by officers of the London Metropolitan Police Service at Stockwell station on the London .."
The criticism being that he was shot 8 times and in the head.
My son's reply was yes, he had a criticism which was "Why shot only eight times?"
One now sees terrorism and violence behind every tree....and dinner event.
We live in violent times when one assumes the worst shoots first and then asks questions.
My No4 son was in the R.A.M.C attached to an S.A.S unit and asked about his opinion on the following killing and had he any comment to make.
"Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes was a Brazilian man killed by officers of the London Metropolitan Police Service at Stockwell station on the London .."
The criticism being that he was shot 8 times and in the head.
My son's reply was yes, he had a criticism which was "Why shot only eight times?"
One now sees terrorism and violence behind every tree....and dinner event.
Cloverjo....that is my point.....she was an unknown factor and perhaps 40 years ago it would not have happened, BUT, we are fed up with these protesters and their "peaceful" antics =, that one tends to act on instinct coloured by the mood at the present time.
It may be reasonable or unreasonable ....some think it is, others think not.
It may be reasonable or unreasonable ....some think it is, others think not.
//But she didn’t do anything! She only walked up to the table. Yes she could have had a gun, knife or whatever. She could have also just been a waitress doing her job.//
Nonsense! These women in red dresses were all shouting at the back of the room, Hammond had stopped speaking because of the interruption and another woman was simultaneously being removed from across the room, you even admit yourself that she could have been carrying a weapon.
I really don't understand you.
Nonsense! These women in red dresses were all shouting at the back of the room, Hammond had stopped speaking because of the interruption and another woman was simultaneously being removed from across the room, you even admit yourself that she could have been carrying a weapon.
I really don't understand you.
Latest Posts
News6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.