MP Mark Field grabs female protester by throat

It sounds like he has a big issue with climate protestors.

Phew, LOJ quickly turns the focus round to himself. I was worried for a minute there that he had managed a whole piece without Me-ing it up

Why? Because he wrote a column? That is his job

God munsnet is such a magnet for MRAs these days. 'Coulda shoulda weaker sexer blah blah blah...'

Every 2 years frontline staff at my Health Board have training in how to deal with aggressive patients/members of the public. If we ever used the kind of force and technique that Mark Field did we would be disciplined . And that is even if someone is actually attacking you. Totally unsafe and unnecessary.

His actions are the actions of a violent man with anger issues. If in real life I saw a man act like that towards anyone walking past him, woman or man, I would conclude he was an abuser, probably with a criminal record. He acted like a thug. Who are these people? In what world is that kind of reaction normal? The Tory party are a bunch of pigs.

And the gaslighting on this thread from some posters... wow. I have no words. And this is FWR on Mumsnet. Imagine what people are saying on the Daily Mail et al. This normalisation of violence against women is becoming mainstream, even on here.

If I had a weapon and he grabbed me by the neck like that I'd be like 'make my day punk'
I mean come on, was that really the best excuse he could muster

Some actual quotes from the AIBU thread:

*He went into protective mode that's all. He got up to stop her walking any further and you can see her pushing aggressively against him so he stepped up his force to remove her as he probably felt a slight surge of panic and anxiety as to why she wasn't simply turning around and walking away.

It's an insult to Greta Thunberg the way these women behaved last night,

a nobody is getting her 15 minutes of fame

I think it's being somewhat over-analysed!*

And leaving the 'best' till last:

I think he was quite brave actually and acted in the moment to get rid of someone who shouldn't have been there. You can see in the video she pushes back on him so he had to use more force than he had anticipated to remove her

Phew, LOJ quickly turns the focus round to himself. I was worried for a minute there that he had managed a whole piece without Me-ing it up.

Totally agree with Owen jones there.

Well, what is it they say about stopped clocks? They have a particular habit in being 'right' when, as you say, there are gains to be made.

Yes Iced

LOJ has suddenly remembered that VAWG is bad when there's political capital to be had from it.

twitter.com/ruthserwotka/status/1141997724889419781

Bizarre.

I know , MrsBethel, what kind of pedantic dick would do that? Tchuh.

Saucery
God forbid anyone else dares state a point that you haven't even made.

Guess who's talking sense?

Our very good friend, young Jonesy himself:

Field’s defence should be treated with derision and contempt. He claims that “many guests understandably felt threatened and when one protester rushed past me towards the top table I instinctively reacted”, and that “there was no security present and I was for a split-second genuinely worried she might have been armed”. The term “gaslighting” – used to describe psychological abuse in which the victim is made to doubt their recollection of events and even sanity – is often abused in political debate, but here surely is a prima facie case. Mr Field, we can see the video. No one appears threatened by a young Greenpeace activist in a red dress, and a friend of the ITV journalist Robert Peston – who was in attendance – vouches that they did not feel so. She does not “rush”, but calmly strides. She doesn’t even acknowledge Field until the moment he pushes her against a pillar. Anyone who believes a climate protester would be armed needs an urgent appointment with reality. Anyone watching the video can see not fear, let alone panic, in Field’s eyes, but rather rage: unsurprising for a man who just two months ago wrote a letter demanding the Metropolitan police adopt “a much firmer grip” on climate protesters.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/21/mark-field-conservative-grabs-climate-protester-neck-far-right-cheer

I think most victims of DV recognise that deranged look on that mans face. He needs help.

It goes without saying that I do not approve of any violence between humans regardless of gender but it surely cannot be denied that sometimes it is legitimate to prevent anti social behaviour.

I'm not sure it does 'go without saying' but however.

Anyway, who made Mark Field the guardian of 'anti social behaviour'? Surely violence should always only be used as a last resort. Mark Field is not trained or authorised to use force. He is not a law enforcement officer. And as has been said, even if we buy the spurious 'she may have been armed' excuse, no trained security officer would have dealt with a potentially armed person in such a way. Her hands were still free, so she could easily have grabbed the gun, knife or whatever lethal weapon we're suppposed to think she had tucked away in that tiny black handbag.

It's nonsense.

Aright to protest means they should be allowed to stay, surely?

The protesters had as much right to be there as they would have had to make their protest in your private dining room.

A right to protest means they should be allowed to stay, surely?

No, you can't protest just anywhere. You can't go into a meeting and expect to protest in a disruptive way without being escorted out, though in some instances it's overlooked. But if it was always allowed you could just stop any sort of event you didn't like.

Well, we’ll see if it’s sufficient, but thank you awfully for over explaining a point I hadn’t even made

I agree the self defence angle is bollocks.

Legally, though, it's probably sufficient to avoid an assault charge.

Doesn't make it right. That's the just the law. Very often what is right and what is legal are two very different things.

The self defence aspect is absolute bollocks. The security decision was obviously to remove the peaceful protestors as calmly as possible and with as little contact or fuss as possible. The threat had already been assessed but it wasn’t enough for this man, who thought he’d add his own threat to the situation.

Surely a right to protest means a right to be removed? Forcibly if necessary. No it doesn't make particularly pleasant viewing and I do think he over reacted but 'victim'? I don't think so.

Security was there removing other protestors without issue and without “force”.

What circumstances do you think were there that meant Mark Field personally (not security who was there) had to remove this woman, and what circumstances do you think meant it was “necessary” to do so with the force he used?

Especially when he himself has said he reacted “instinctively” and said nothing about “necessity”.

I always look forward to people explaining how someone “deserved it”. So far this woman has been told she deserved it for being part of a peaceful protest, for carrying a handbag, for walking past a table, and for wearing a dress without a collar.

Look, I said it's bad, a bit bad, I just think people are getting carried away and making it out to be some sort of battery.

I've no idea how you arrive at "doesn't really matter". It's not like there are only two options: completely lose our minds about it, or just accept it as fine.

It's a bit bad. It really just is.

A right to protest means they should be allowed to stay, surely? If there is no right if entry for protesters to the room they should still be removed with the least possible force.