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 **** 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.

theyre not called the nasty party for nothing!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48713978

Really? In what way?.

In a way that someone who can’t type the word “think” thinks. lOLZ

To answer a common question, the same principles apply to using force to eject trespassers from private property. However there is a requirement that the owner must first ask the trespasser to depart before using force. pic.twitter.com/dglE00lRTx

— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) June 21, 2019

. 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.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/21/greenpeace-activist-mark-field-needs-anger-management

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 **** 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 😆

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2019/apr/17/steve-bells-if-mark-francois-of-the-ta-on-the-march