Mark Field

[TennesseeKing]

Originally Posted by dogstar721

Lone wolf terrorists don't turn up with a bunch of protesters. The lone wolf bit is the give away.

Mark Field sees her on her own at the time. Politically motivated lone wolves don't exactly follow the same pattern.

[strawberry mivi]

Originally Posted by dogstar721

Well, armed terrorists don't try to sneak their way past security, that's why they carry weapons. If you watch the full video of the protest you can see they were being restrained by security at the door, and she slipped past them (and clearly he's aware that she's part of the protest, because he confronts her).

Where as armed terrorists, when confronted, shoot / fight their way into the situation, and either take hostages (more traditional) or keep shooting until they run out of targets.

Thanks for the heads-up.
I will printout your 'this is a terrorist checklist' and carry it with me at all times.
That way I can refer to it in the future.

Keep 'em peeled people.

[bubbs11]

Not passing judgement on the actual incident, but my instinct is that is not the first time he’s man handled a woman.

[Joe85]

Originally Posted by Walter Wort

Did you gatecrash the event too?

[GrayP41ace]

People are over reacting ultimately because little to no harm was done or evidently intended, aside from a potential sore neck.

It could have been a whole lot worse, with far worse intentions, and a far worse outcome, or in fact entirely the same intentions, with a far worse outcome in 1000's of places around the world. The woman in question would have been well aware she could be seen as a threat, regardless of what SHE KNEW of her intentions.

[Pete79]

Originally Posted by TennesseeKing

I completely agree that not all protests should or can be done legitimately. But by the same token when you play the game by a certain set of rules, you can't then complain when somebody ends up reacting given she was trespassing. And all Mark Field has essentially done is use force on a trespasser, where her intentions at the time were unknown, he's used force in order to gain control, restrain and escort her out.

Sure but is the use of force on tresspassing protesters by definition always justified? If so is excessive use of force justified? Is the use of immediate force always justified? I think the answer to all 3 is 'no'.

He says that he acted instinctivelly. That's not quite true. We're confronted with 'potentially' threatening situations every day, the vast majority are not actually threatening - but dare we wait to find out? We make a judgement. He must have noticed that she wasn't a guest but a protester. How did he know this? When he made that judgement did he fail to make a judgement on her potential threat? I don't think it was as 'instinctive' as he makes out.

In terms of tresspassing - if she had been invited would it then have been ok for her to walk up to the podium to protest? Or to heckle from her seat? Would force have been unacceptable then? Is the lack of an invitation alone sufficient to justify any response? That would be very convenient for those in power. Do we need an invitation to protest against the Chancellor of our country? How else do we gain an audience?

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Pete79

Sure but is the use of force on tresspassing protesters by definition always justified? If so is excessive use of force justified? Is the use of immediate force always justified? I think the answer to all 3 is 'no'.

He says that he acted instinctivelly. That's not quite true. We're confronted with 'potentially' threatening situations every day, the vast majority are not actually threatening - but dare we wait to find out? We make a judgement. He must have noticed that she wasn't a guest but a protester. How did he know this? When he made that judgement did he fail to make a judgement on her potential threat? I don't think it was as 'instinctive' as he makes out.

In terms of tresspassing - if she had been invited would it then have been ok for her to walk up to the podium to protest? Or to heckle from her seat? Would force have been unacceptable then? Is the lack of an invitation alone sufficient to justify any response? That would be very convenient for those in power. Do we need an invitation to protest against the Chancellor of our country? How else do we gain an audience?

I don’t understand how you can ask how did Field know she was a protestor rather than a guest....have you not looked at the video and seen what she was wearing?!

[Pete79]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I don’t understand how you can ask how did Field know she was a protestor rather than a guest....have you not looked at the video and seen what she was wearing?!

That's my point. We're being told that Field observed that she was a protester but at the same time failed to observe that there was a climate protest outside, that none of the other guests appeared concerned by protesters in the hall and that the protester was a young female in a dress walking past the tables. He claims that his act was instinctive but I think he made a choice to use force out of anger. That's presumably why he apologised and why the PM suspended him.

[cockneyrebel]

One of the best comments on here so far is “our Nige”. Yeah the Dulwich College educated posh boy who looks down on you. And you call him our Nige. Sad.

As for protestors being near MPs it happens all the time. Should they all be physically restrained on the spot?

Agree with whoever said this was clearly a privileged irritated Tory annoyed that some oik was interrupting his dinner at the Ritz.

[Maz]

Originally Posted by Pete79

And in terms of 'legitimacy' - well, it was a protest and needs to be considered on those terms. She wasn't trying to nick the silver. .

I would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of the law that legitimises trespassing on private property in the context of a protest, whether theft is the intention or not.

[TennesseeKing]

Originally Posted by Pete79

Sure but is the use of force on tresspassing protesters by definition always justified? If so is excessive use of force justified? Is the use of immediate force always justified? I think the answer to all 3 is 'no'.

If the use of force is reasonable at the time which in the case of Field it is in my opinion, it would be considered reasonable and justified. The force was used in order to remove somebody who wasn't welcome. Is it always justified? Of course not. If he had started laying into her with kicks and punches when he was perfectly able to gain control by use of restraint it would be universally condemned and pointed out as being unreasonable.

Use of immediate force can be justified in any case where it's reasonable & proportionate(saying that a lot on this thread). Consent is one of the first things you'd look at with usual common assault, however when you look at when it's okay to use force, her consent isn't required in such a scenario. She knows she shouldn't be there, therefore the force used is purely in order to get her out of the venue. Anybody has the right to use such force to remove people from their property/private venue. It's the same justification Police/Bouncers use when ejecting somebody from somewhere they have no permission to be. It would be far harder to argue justification for force being used in a place with implied right of access such as public areas.

So of course, you're absolute right it can't be justified in all situations however I think it's pretty clear she had no implied right of access to the event, therefore force was used in order to gain control, restrain and eject.

He says that he acted instinctivelly. That's not quite true. We're confronted with 'potentially' threatening situations every day, the vast majority are not actually threatening - but dare we wait to find out? We make a judgement. He must have noticed that she wasn't a guest but a protester. How did he know this? When he made that judgement did he fail to make a judgement on her potential threat? I don't think it was as 'instinctive' as he makes out.

I wasn't aware of what he'd said previous to replying on this thread I'll be honest. I think it's pretty clear the bloke is a bit of a dick regardless of what the video shows or doesn't show.

Instinctively would probably be a bit of a poor choice of words to justify it I agree. Based off what I see it seems pretty justified to me, and in fairness he had a fairly short window of time to process the situation in front of him. To me it looks like he's processed the situation, unsure of what her intentions were whether peaceful or violent, and proceeded to try and gain control and restrain her to prevent her going any further and neutralise any potential threat before it was a problem.

I take your point on 'potential' threats however people act differently dependent on situations. If there is any case to answer for unlawful assault then I'm sure the Police will investigate it and evaluate it accordingly. I can't see it going anywhere though based off the reasons mentioned in this thread.

In terms of tresspassing - if she had been invited would it then have been ok for her to walk up to the podium to protest? Or to heckle from her seat? Would force have been unacceptable then? Is the lack of an invitation alone sufficient to justify any response? That would be very convenient for those in power. Do we need an invitation to protest against the Chancellor of our country? How else do we gain an audience?

If she'd been invited and then proceeded to protest the implied right of access would probably be withdrawn and she'd then be escorted from the venue I would imagine. Difference in that scenario would be people would likely be aware of who she is if she was invited and it probably plays out differently on that basis.

Would force be justifiable in removing somebody heckling/protesting? Again, I'm probably a bit biased but if she doesn't have any right to be at the venue then people that are entitled to be at the venue have the right to use reasonable force to remove.

[cockneyrebel]

Originally Posted by Pete79

That's my point. We're being told that Field observed that she was a protester but at the same time failed to observe that there was a climate protest outside, that none of the other guests appeared concerned by protesters in the hall and that the protester was a young female in a dress walking past the tables. He claims that his act was instinctive but I think he made a choice to use force out of anger. That's presumably why he apologised and why the PM suspended him.

Very good point. He either knew it was a wider protest or if he didn’t how would he know she was a protestor?

[Maz]

Good post, Tennessee.

[Selhurst Celtic]

Originally Posted by dogstar721

I'm trying to think of an occasion where women MPs and Politicians have reacted with violence to men. I can't think of any.

The only woman I'd want in the trenches with me is Wendi Deng Murdoch; if the enemy were armed with custard pies.

[cockneyrebel]

So anyone protesting in a place they haven’t been invited to should all be bundled out? Sad.

[cockneyrebel]

She had a bag. It could have had a bomb in it. Why didn’t armed police gun her down and the others on the spot?

[Selhurst Celtic]

The protester should have played dead the moment she got bashed against the pillar. It would have drawn more attention & spotlight. And there'd be a chance that Field might have unceremoniously dragged her like an old bag of washing to the front door too.

[TennesseeKing]

Originally Posted by cockneyrebel

So anyone protesting in a place they haven’t been invited to should all be bundled out? Sad.

It's not whether they should be bundled out. It's the fact that legally it's justified, rightly or wrongly.

[cockneyrebel]

Originally Posted by TennesseeKing

It's not whether they should be bundled out. It's the fact that legally it's justified, rightly or wrongly.

Well that all comes back to reasonable force.

I mean if it was that she was a threat and could have had a gun, knife or bomb then gun her down?

If it’s not reasonable to think that’s the case then man handling her by the back of the neck isn’t in my view.

It’s ridiculous to say that you can take the view that any peaceful protestors could have a bomb.

The person who killed Jo Cox walked up to her do we assume it’s a risk anyone walking up to an MP so it should be banned?

[GrayP41ace]

Originally Posted by cockneyrebel

She had a bag. It could have had a bomb in it. Why didn’t armed police gun her down and the others on the spot?

Without knowing anything about the event, but were there armed police on the doors would she have tried to gain access illegally via trespass, with a bag in her hand? Cause that would be monumentally stupid in the extreme