MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Another Conservative MP, Bob Stewart, told BBC Radio 4's World at One that Mr Field had "probably" placed his hand on Ms Barker's neck because if he had "touched her anywhere else he'd probably have been deemed highly inappropriate".
"She might have a belt of explosives on her," he added. "She might have a weapon."
Bob Stewart sounds like a total xxxxing xxxx.
An explosive belt on her!!...get a grip man. She was a middle aged lady wearing a cocktail dress FFS..
The world needs a few more billion with that lady’s convictions and few less of Field
Agree, although the world is run by the likes of Field rather than that lady and it doesn't seem to be changing in the right direction...
few less of Field
One less would do me fine
Here is what an actual lawyer constacted by the BBC thins
Mr Rawson said there may still be questions about the level of force applied.
"I would think it's the grabbing around the neck which is the most concerning part for the MP," he says.
How much force is reasonable comes down to the circumstances of each case.
But Mr Baskind says the law explicitly acknowledges that people may not be able to weigh up exactly the right level of force in the heat of the moment.
It says if a person only does what they think is "honestly and instinctively" necessary for self-defence, that is "strong evidence" for the force being reasonable.
Mr Baskind says he would have been surprised if charges had been brought against the MP.
"If this was you or me, it was clearly within the realms of what a person may do. No question."
STW in getting it totally wrong shocker.
That’s very open-ended – on that basis, anyone in the room could be a threat. But other than being in a place where she wasn’t welcome, there were no threatening behaviours exhibited.
I'm not sure what planet you are on if you think that gate crashing a party no ****s given, does not implicitly convey some kind of aggression.
STW in getting it totally wrong shocker.
In fairness quite a few said similar. Hardly anyone suggested what he did was optimal.
Anyway, off to take a ‘long hard look at myself’.
“She might have a belt of explosives on her,” he added. “She might have a weapon.”
bit like the milkshake thrower claiming Farage was on fire and he only threw it to put him out. :/
I’m not sure what planet you are on if you think that gate crashing a party no **** given, does not implicitly convey some kind of aggression.
Singing climate campaigners in red dresses handing out leaflets, you class that as aggressive? I'd love to live in your bucolic surroundings, stay out of the pubs round our way of a Friday night! 🙂
Yeah, hippies could never do something violent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack
STW in getting it totally wrong shocker.
Really? In what way?
“She might have a belt of explosives on her,” he added. “She might have a weapon.”
Thankfully his instincts meant he knew grabbing someone by the neck defuses explosive belts.
Really? In what way?.
In a way that someone who can't type the word "think" thinks. lOLZ
. Fields assertion that he felt she could be a threat of some sort isn’t completely unreasonable. If he maintains that defence it’s unlikely that charges will be brought or if they are result in conviction.
I think his assertion is unreasonable given that the guys with earpieces - you know, trained security, - had not put a hand on the protestors they were so concerned. Also her hands were in plain sight the whole time, in fact were folded across her body holding what looked like a bunch of papers. So unless she was going to stab him to death with a rolled up sheet of A4, his assessment of threat was unreasonable, or more likely, made up when he realised he was in the soup.
Which is why you should leave it to the pros.
Meanwhile this is what Nazir Afzal a top solicitor specialising in violence against women says.
I think the idea that it was a panic/heat of the moment reaction can make sense if you've only seen the short video. But with the longer videos, when you know they're already there for some time, peacefully protesting without any threat of violence, and you see how hemanaged the situation, that falls down completely.
I don't think the amount of force was unreasonable myself- he acted pretty calmly and very controlled, and is obviously limiting the amount of force he uses- no punches, no follow-up when he's marching her away, no chucking her to the ground or excessive holds or anything like that- all of which he could easily have done, probably more easily. You can see in his face that he's pissed off but not out of control. Personally I think the right thing to do was to allow the protest to continue but if you believe that it's OK to act to stop a protest, he acted reasonably.
It's just, that this all puts the lie to the "genuinely worried she might have been armed" excuse. Of course he wasn't, he tackled her exactly like an unarmed person that you're confident isn't a threat. It'd be more impressive if he was honest and said "They were trespassing and causing a disturbance and I decided to stand up to them". People only usually lie when they think they've done wrong and are going to get in trouble.
taxi25
Member
She was walking past the others, but towards Field </quote>
This is a totally weird comment. She walked towards all the others too, then past them, that's how you walk. Towards things then past them. The only reason she didn't walk past him too was that he stopped her from doing so. Absolutely no different from the others.
I don’t think the amount of force was unreasonable myself- he acted pretty calmly
Calm would be standing up stopping her getting past like others did with the protestors. Pushing he against a pillar is not calm.
Pushing he against a pillar is not calm.
And if it was, I'd hate to see him angry. He'd probably have shivved her with a butter knife.
If pinning a woman up to a pillar by what may or may not have been her neck is calm, isn't that the mark of a psychopath?
And if it was, I’d hate to see him angry. He’d probably have shivved her with a butter knife.
Only after she'd stuffed that rolled up pile of leaflets down his throat.
Only after she’d stuffed that rolled up pile of leaflets down his throat.
Or given him death by a thousand paper cuts.
"And if it was, I’d hate to see him angry. He’d probably have shivved her with a butter knife"
A steak knife would've been better.
Only after she’d stuffed that rolled up pile of leaflets down his throat.
Maybe he thought she was going to hit him with a major - and I mean, major - leaflet campaign?
If pinning a woman up to a pillar by what may or may not have been her neck isn’t calm, isn’t that the mark of a psychopath?
I’m not sure the diagnosis is that straightforward.
I’m not sure the diagnosis is that straightforward.
yeah his pre-dinner "pick me up" was kicking in and was feeling pumped.
I can't agree with Morgan.
Woman got off lightly. That's what I'm sticking to now.
Never heard of a “Chelsea brick” chromolyolly
Drac
Subscriber
Calm would be standing up stopping her getting past like others did with the protestors. Pushing he against a pillar is not calm.
That's a bit of a daft argument tbh- you can be totally calm, and still use an inappropriate level of force. That's a matter of judgement as well as state of mind.
But it's pretty undeniable that he was regulating the amount of force, isn't it. Whether you think it's proportionate or excessive, he didn't go in as heavy as he could have, or as heavy as he would have if he'd thought he was dealing with a threat rather than a nuisance.
Or, put it another way, he was either heavyhanded with someone he didn't think was a threat, or, he was incredibly gentle with someone he thought was a threat. Which is more likely? His actions are pretty clear.
People seem fixated on what the law says about Field's actions, but basically it boils down to whether you think using force against a clearly peaceful protester who wasn't causing danger or even much inconvenience to others, is justifiable.
The fact that he effectively turned himself in suggests that he knows he's behaved appallingly. The bigger question isn't whether 'she deserved it', 'it was common assault / ABH / a good neck grab' but whether someone in elected public office should feel it's acceptable to behave like that.
Personally I don't think it is and I struggle to see why anyone would think it was. Read the Guardian article above and ask yourself whether she seems to have been in any way dangerous. And if she doesn't, ask yourself what the justification is for the way he behaved. Just being cross doesn't give you carte blanche to manhandle anyone - except of course on the internet.
I’ve just realised that a climate change campaigner was attacked by a field. You’d think it would ****ing appreciate the work she’s doing. Deserves to be developed on, the bastard.
That’s a bit of a daft argument tbh- you can be totally calm, and still use an inappropriate level of force. That’s a matter of judgement as well as state of mind.
Its not a daft argument at all pinning someone up against a pillar for walking towards you is not calm behaviour no matter how try to spin it.
But it’s pretty undeniable that he was regulating the amount of force, isn’t it.
Is it now? I’d say he wasn’t regulating the amount of force or he’d used many other options before grabbing her throat and pining her up.
A few observations. I’d like to think I’ve got a little knowledge in the area of security/the public and control and restraint. 11 years of managing, investigation and planning.
1. His reaction is last minute. Therefore driven by anger rather than a planned intervention. He had plenty of time to decide what to do but he bursts up. Lack of control.
2. There’s no attempt to block the path with open hands. Look at his body position. All anger
3. His face tells you his mental state as does the hand round the back of the neck.
4. There’s absolutely NO WAY he would have responded like this to another fully grown male.
It’s a disproportionate use of force against someone he had already decided did not pose a threat to his personal safety. All of the bluster and bullshit about concealed weapons etc is nonsense. If he really believed that he’d have been under the table or out of the room. He got angry and lost control. Simple as that. What that says about him as a person , his party etc I’ll leave for others to debate.
I'm sure it'll all blow over & he'll be back in the day job before long, certainly Johnson will have him back in a flash.
Unless his ex wife pops up with some claims of dodginess (tho apparently she left him because he was having an affair with Liz Truss 🙄🤯)
"I remember a chair being pushed out. Then being shoved. I was saying, over and over: ‘This is a peaceful protest, a peaceful protest.’ I was saying it quite audibly, certainly loud enough.”
“He continued to grip me by the neck and the arm all the way to the door of the building. Then, when we got to the door, he shoved me outside on to the street, and said: ‘This is what happens when people like you disturb our dinner.’”
“I had a phone, and a tiny handbag, which was open and full of leaflets. The only thing I was armed with was peer-reviewed science.”
“The pressure on my neck never eased all the way down the stairs and until we were outside.”
And it turns out Mr Field used to be a member of the T.A.
You'd like to think he received some training in how to deal with people without grabbing them by the neck.
4. There’s absolutely NO WAY he would have responded like this to another fully grown male.
Absolutely no way - are you sure? Because despite that little knowledge, I doubt if even he knows for certain how he would respond in a hypothetical situation.
He recently defended the sultan of Bruneis death penalty for homosexually, in the 80s thought that 'AIDS awareness campaigns were a waste of taxpayer money' & said AIDS charities were 'little more than a front for gay rights'
What a lovely chap 🤢
And it turns out Mr Field used to be a member of the T.A.
You’d like to think he received some training in how to deal with people without grabbing them by the neck.
Wait till you hear about Mark Francois 😆
Wasn't he in the Catering Corps?
He's probably damaged more people than Brexit.
MMA fighter with a vegetable peeler. Both represent a potential lethal force
I know quite a few MMA fighters, and despite having several degrees among them (one in astrophysics!), they’d probably do more damage to themselves with a vegetable peeler. 😁
Wait till you hear about Mark Francois 😆
STW in getting it totally wrong shocker.
Not totally wrong, not in the slightest dear fellow of the internet.
Its a matter of interpretation and post(s) below yours (by other solicitors and notables) prove a very different story to the one you proclaim is the “reasoned action”
So, the internet wombles seem to provoke an argument where aggressive actions should be applauded.
I’ll applaud you with a slow handclap....
👎👏 👏 👏 👏 👎
STW in getting it totally wrong shocker.
Yup and then pretended the argument was about something else. These are from the first page only, and I was skim reading so might have missed some:
That is not reasonable and justified use of force.
Not reasonable force by any definition.
that wasn’t reasonable force.
Nah it was still unreasonable way to handle someone handing out leaflets
Of course it's s huge win for Greenpeace, making Tory MP at posh dinner for the elites look like a violent bully, he's given them far more publicity than their stunt would've ever warranted, had he sat there like a normal person and ignored her.
That said Tories reputation with younger people is already mud so attacking a climate protestor is just what they'd expect
While with the Tory membership that's a plus point, and now his record as a homophobic bigot has been dug up and him fathering an illegitimate child with Liz truss ending his marriage,we only have to find out that his aggression was just a coke fuelled rage & he's leadership potential!
him fathering an illegitimate child with Liz truss
Cite.
Drac
Subscriber
Is it now? I’d say he wasn’t regulating the amount of force
Really? That's absurd tbf. He could easily have used more force, but didn't. QED basically.
Ok, since in typical STW fashion we can’t agree that the person who caused harm to another is in the wrong..
Let all those do exactly the same tomorrow.
Go have lunch somewhere, wait for a woman to walk behind and get up.. go grab her by the throat and push her against a wall.
100% of you wouldn’t do that action.
100% of you wouldn’t even think of doing that action.
Location in this instance is irrelevant, the fact that it’s full of people who seem to think they’re above any moral or statutory Law of this land can be mooted for the next 100 years.
So, pick any restaurant or cafe that serves food and pick a target...
Then come on here after you’ve been released on bail, and tell the truth about what charges are being brought against you and how long your family members support your actions.
And how long we support you too... I’d suggest about 11secs after you posted the response.
Try it out, find the real answer to our own moral conundrum.
Apalling behavior by Mark Field. I won't pretend to have much time for Tories, but I am amazed that so many of them are seeking to defend his actions with entirely disingenuous "security concerns".
Really? That’s absurd tbf. He could easily have used more force, but didn’t. QED basically.
So whay you’re saying because he didn’t nuke her from orbit as it’s the only way to be sure then that makes it ok.
Ok, since in typical STW fashion we can’t agree that the person who caused harm to another is in the wrong..
Let all those do exactly the same tomorrow.
Go have lunch somewhere, wait for a woman to walk behind and get up.. go grab her by the throat and push her against a wall.
100% of you wouldn’t do that action.
100% of you wouldn’t even think of doing that action.
Location in this instance is irrelevant, the fact that it’s full of people who seem to think they’re above any moral or statutory Law of this land can be mooted for the next 100 years.
So, pick any restaurant or cafe that serves food and pick a target…
Then come on here after you’ve been released on bail, and tell the truth about what charges are being brought against you and how long your family members support your actions.
And how long we support you too… I’d suggest about 11secs after you posted the response.
Try it out, find the real answer to our own moral conundrum.tter.
Or we're all getting a bit carried away by a situation that, admitted by the perpetrator, could have been handled better.
Playing what if games is easy.
What if I went to left wing party, stuck on doc martins and started shouting about Brexit or PC culture? I'd get tackled by security, if Fields gets sent down - watch as this becomes a right wing tactic as well - trolling politicians into reacting.
If she'd been in a Niqab and screamed "Allah Ackbar" - what do you guys think would have happened? She'd have probably been tazered or shot several times in the head.
So what is the latest on how the rest of guests felt at the time? Admittedly I think he didn't handle the situation that well, but I don't think he was acting out of anger or intended to harm the woman. I think he probably genuinely thought what he was doing was reasonable in the heat of the moment and I think a lot of you too easily believe your own bullshit and jump to conclusions about his guilt.
STW in getting it totally wrong shocker.
You do realise finding one lawyer arguing something doesnt make it a closed case. Frankly I would be more shocked if you couldnt find a lawyer willing to defend something like this.
His response really doesnt support his claims about a serious threat either. I mean his claim was he thought she might be armed and so he felt the need to remove her from the room and "decisively close down the threat" (is he a mate of Mark "i wasnt trained to lose" Francois?)
He came nowhere close to the level of force required to handle a proper threat. More aggressive than I would expect to throw a peaceful troublemaker out of a pub but not enough to handle someone who was going to act up and nowhere close to handling a serious problem.
outofbreath
Member
him fathering an illegitimate child with Liz trussCite
You're right only a DNA test can solve this ! as the affair ended after she was pregnant
& Double apologies for the daily mail link🤪
https://www.****/news/article-387015/A-list-Torys-affair-married-Cameron-high-flyer.html
Maybe he's not quite up to Johnson's standard, just a cabinet role then ?
Both in the wrong but him massively more. Greenpeace say the protestors self-identified as they entered the event; if that is correct why were they not turned away?
As bikebouy above, change the setting and re-consider.
If it was your wife, mother, girlfriend, sister, daughter being subjected to that behaviour?
Field should be prosecuted for assault. It would then be for the defence to persuasively argue his case - unless the magistrate/judge has a bias.....towards tories, against greenpeace.
As for any suggestion of him and liz truss - enough to give you nightmares.
Mark Field MP grabs protestor by the throat
I am not sure what the protestor is expecting ... 🤔
I am not sure what the protestor is expecting …
Ah! Our resident court jester has arrived.
As for any suggestion of him and liz truss – enough to give you nightmares.
Pah, that's nothing...
https://twitter.com/RealNatalieRowe/status/805423681786839040?s=19
The man is a Tory and therefore a C***. Everything that comes after that follows is related and infinitely excusable by the establishment. Nothing to see here . . .
Not read all the replies, as only on mobile but will read the full thread tomorrow.
As a former soldier serving during the 80s and 90s, serving in places like NI and Greenham Common. My view is that the lady was uninvited but posed no security risk. I don’t in anyway believe he thought she was a risk. His action was completely incorrect and over the top, he grabbed her throat, didn’t in anyway look for a potential weapon, to remove what may have been in her hand. He walked her out, You don’t escort out a potential security threat.
We regularly had Green Peace to deal with whilst also dealing with genuine security concerns.
As much as people may say she was a potential threat, you genuinely know who is or isn’t, yes in movies the baddy pretends to be a peaceful protestor, in real life, green peace are just peaceful.
Drac
Subscriber
So whay you’re saying because he didn’t nuke her from orbit as it’s the only way to be sure then that makes it ok.
Look, you said something stupid, it's OK, we all do it. It's not OK to put words in other people's mouths to try and hide the stupid thing you said yourself. If you have to resort to making stuff up you're just admitting you know you're wrong- exactly like Mark Field funnily enough. Have a word with yourself.
w00dster
Subscriber
He walked her out, You don’t escort out a potential security threat.
Bingo. Everything he did disproves his claim that he thought there might be a threat.
That’s very odd Northwind as it’s you who has been making it up and now trying to resort to be insulting.
It's really not. He is spot on.
It was excessive in my view, due to many reasons already mentioned.
Dancing the line of criminal /assault.
If the CPS decide it's not worth prosecution, I kinda get that, but he's certainly fallen below the professional standards expected for MPs, and should be deselected and face a by-election.
It's just not cricket, as his kind would say.
That cartoon of Francois is spot on. I currently train reservists, his generation were mostly dogshit, the TA was a drinking club, so all of his tales of derring-do are bloating of the highest order.
Let's say it hadn't been a woman and was, instead, an Alexander Gustafsson lookalike.
I can ****ing guarantee you the snivelling scumbag would have sat in his seat desperately pretending he hadn't seen a thing. He decided to become 'protector of the people' because he saw someone he figured he could take and fancied showing off his hard man status.
Prick. I'm just hoping one of these arseholes tries the same thing on Joanna Jędrzejczyk some day.
“Greenpeace say the protestors self-identified“
This doesn’t ring true. On the radio last night they had a Labour councillor from London who was on the same table as the Conservative MP. He explained that:
1) there appeared to be complete chaos for some time before the MP got up - with a lot of men and women suddenly entering the room screaming and shouting
2) he said he was actually quite scared on the seconds before the woman went past the table
3) he said that even as a GreenPeace supporter that he did not realise it was GreenPeace doing it
4) that when the MP got up he initially blocked the women who then tried to get past him anyway - she was very focussed on getting to the top table where the Chancellor was giving a speech with the Governor of the Bank of England sitting next to him.
So if a GreenPeace supported on the same place as the MP was scared and didn’t know what was going on it’s hardly a massive leap to assume the MP in the same space at the same time may have felt the same and reacted in a way that with hindsight was an over reaction but at that split second seemed right.
Here's the longer video again where they didn't suddenly enter the room, where they were giving a speech of why they were there and where you can see how easy others found it to escort them out without the need to pin them up against a pliiar.
greenpeace protestor or not he still acted like an angry bully
he said he was actually quite scared on the seconds before the woman went past the table
This whole "responding to threat" angle still completely disappears when it is observed that Field in no way acts like someone responding to threat - his response is angry, 'nuff said.
Ooh, page 8! Is this the one where we change our minds and start to see other people’s point of view?
(I bet I’m the only one who has changed their mind and that was Piers Morgan’s fault 🤣)
robdixon
Member
“Greenpeace say the protestors self-identified“This doesn’t ring true. On the radio last night they had a Labour councillor from London who was on the same table as the Conservative MP.
Can you provide a link for this, thanks. Unless you mean Tom Sleigh who tweeted similar and says they’re sympathetic to green peace rather than a member, isn’t a labour councillor and is a councillor in The City of London which is an old boys club / rotten borough given that the votes of businesses outnumber those of residents
Ooh, page 8! Is this the one where we change our minds and start to see other people’s point of view?
I think this is the page when the Tories finally give up and start defending Bozzer on another thread.
Bloody women eh? Can't live with 'em, can't spill wine on their sofas or 'grasp them firmly'.
Everyone in the hall where so scared they got their phones and cameras out to record it.
“Can you provide a link for this, thanks. Unless you mean Tom Sleigh who tweeted similar and says they’re sympathetic to green peace rather than a member, isn’t a labour councillor“
Yes - it is Tom Sleigh. Rather than judge on a tweet and go straight to character assassination why not listen to what he said?
It’s on the LBC app - look under “catch up”, then find Andrew Pierce 7pm on Friday and scroll to 6 minutes 15 seconds in.
I didn't asssasinate his character I assassinated your usual (lack of) accuracy.
Rotten borough, he got elected in an uncontested vote.
Drac
Subscriber
That’s very odd Northwind as it’s you who has been making it up
Oh go on, I was annoyed with your crap last night but today I'm more laid back- citation needed, show me what I made up? Nothing, is the answer. OTOH I quoted the bit that you were making up to misrepresent what I said already, but here it is again:
You: "I’d say he wasn’t regulating the amount of force"
Me: "Really? That’s absurd tbf. He could easily have used more force, but didn’t. QED basically. "
You : "So what you’re saying because he didn’t nuke her from orbit as it’s the only way to be sure then that makes it ok."
I won't push for an apology, just admitting you got it all wrong would be fine.
Nah it was still unreasonable way to handle someone handing out leaflets
Just popping into say "typical, angry Tory scumbag."
Nothing else to add.
Words cannot convey how much I loathe our 'prime minister'
It was a non event
Criag5: investigator