Cougar has nailed it; it’s a common assault.
Common assault does not even need anyone to lay hands on the other - it’s merely a requirement that that a persons “apprehended immediate unlawful personal violence”.
If Mark Field was to use the S3 Criminal Law Act defence of preventing crime or effecting or assisting the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders he must also need to demonstrate that his use of force was “reasonable in the circumstances.”
A Police Officer would be particularly examined on this and would likely fall back to his/her use of force continuum:
Officer presence & tactical communication etc.
In this case it could be argued that a reasonable use of force would be to ask her to stop. To appeal to her, engage in some sort of dialogue... spell it out what she is doing is not allowed and so on. I would also think that a reasonable response would also be to stand up & bar her way (without laying hands on) & telling her she does not have permission to go past or be here. All of this is considered reasonable - to jump up and roughly grab hold (wherever) and March her out cannot be seen to be reasonable IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Well put Cougar.
Some other posters on here need to take a long hard look at themselves...
From the lady in question:
"350 people were there and only one person reacted that way. "
"It's more the behaviour of that individual. I want him to reflect on what he did and not do it again. Maybe he should go to anger management classes."
And yes, that she is a female of smaller stature in evening dress with few places to conceal a weapon would be considered in this. The Police refers to this has “impact factors”.
Everything from body language, physical size shape, specialist knowledge (martial arts etc) are all examined/considered in making a decision to use force or what level of force to use. For example, an OAP ambling towards you with a carving knife vs a MMA fighter with a vegetable peeler. Both represent a potential lethal force but the way you would deal with them would be very different, based on impact factors.
it was by any measure a disproportionate response. He could’ve simply stood up to stop her passing. That wasn’t the reaction of someone trying to block someone else’s passage, it was the reaction of someone who was angry.
I agree with you, and have said I believe he acted in anger. Doesn't mean the law will will feel he's committed a crime though. Not if he persists with the threat defence.
I'm sure we'll find out sooner or later though.
Why does the BBC footage have a female expressing a "Jeez" at the sight of events (4 seconds in), but the ITV footage doesn't have; they both appear to have been taken by the same camera...or do I need to take off my tinfoil hat?
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1141826667960078337
For example, an OAP ambling towards you with a carving knife vs a MMA fighter with a vegetable peeler. Both represent a potential lethal force
Roundhouse gran take her knife and throw it ninja style at Mr Roids.
Protestors dress up to gain entry to a private function where they intend to disrupt that event. They shouldn’t have been there and had no right to be there.
That's a point in itself actually. How were they even in there? It's slightly worrying that joe public can just wander in to a private room containing (presumably) most of our government. If they were a threat this might have wound up being a very different story indeed.
Roundhouse gran take her knife and throw it ninja style at Mr Roids.
I believe Roundhouse Gran and Mr Roids is coming soon to SyFy.
Mr Roids
Homer?
Roundhouse gran take her knife and throw it ninja style
A practitioner of Nanjutsu presumably.
I may be accused of being an internet hard man here, but if you were in that situation, and saw that woman walking towards you, and genuinely thought she was a threat, then you are a total pussy that needs to man up. As I've said before if it had been a real threat he's have been cowering under the table awaiting security to arrive.
He didn't do it as he felt threatened, he did it because he knew he could and because he is an angry little bully.
The world is full of people like that, it's just a shame that parliament appears to be as well.
Well done that lady. Good point well made. And Field helped her make it. The world needs a few more billion with that lady's convictions and few less of Field and and his palls turning the planet into an inhospitable greenhoused wasteland.
A practitioner of Nanjutsu presumably.
Granmaster
Just because she’s white, female in a posh dress doesn’t mean she couldn’t be a threat.
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.
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.