Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Man-handling climate change protestors

999 replies

Leafyhouse · 20/06/2019 23:17

Anyone else watch with horror as a climate change protestor was forcefully removed by Mark Field from the Mansion House speech? I mean, I'm no fan of political activism, 'direct action' and so on, but she wasn't presenting him with any direct threat, just shouting and being annoying. AIBU to think that his behaviour was totally unacceptable there?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Isatis · 21/06/2019 20:01

my point is that on that occasion, the man was is a secure area inside the parliamentary estate. He’d managed to by-pass security

Except he hadn't.

cinnamontoast · 21/06/2019 20:02

mummy2017

Trespass. Trespass is a civil offence, not a crime.
Disturbing the peace Are you referring to a breach of the peace? Because that involves threatening behaviour and we have all seen from the video that Janet Barker's behaviour wasn't threatening.

Mark Field's behaviour, on the other hand, was assault. When I was assaulted by my ex-partner, a police officer said to me, 'If he so much as lays a finger on you without your consent, that is assault.'

Now why are you defending a man who has been filmed assaulting a woman?

Buster72 · 21/06/2019 20:03

They were trespassers once the guy with very nice medal stood up and asked them to leave. Which a large number did....no-one went hands on because they cooperated with the request.

This protestor decided otherwise. She makes more than one attempt to get past Mr field, befoe he grabs the back of her neck and propels her to the door. She upped the ante.

Isatis · 21/06/2019 20:05

But the one your talking about very clearly was making her way towards Hammond, what do you think she knew him and wanted a kiss...

No, I think she wanted to talk to him and give him climate change leaflets. Not the most dreadful threat, really.

Mummmy17, you seem to have forgotten to answer the question about what you claim the protester was guilty of?

cinnamontoast · 21/06/2019 20:06

But the one your talking about very clearly was making her way towards Hammond, what do you think she knew him and wanted a kiss...
Probable cause to think she had an agenda....

She did have an agenda, Mummy2017. She wanted to give Hammond a copy of the speech.

Thank God you weren't around at the time of the Suffragettes. We'd never have got the vote.

GeneticTest · 21/06/2019 20:06

isatis well what would you call it?
A man entered the parliamentary estate, carrying several weapons. Palace yard is INSIDE parliament. Inside the secure zone. If you are in place yard, you presume people there have been security screened. In the same way that the people in mansion house would presume that people there had been security screened.
The terrorist DID by-pass security- by getting through carriage gates. He killed a police man inside the parliamentary estate. It wasn’t inside a building, but it’s still inside Parliament.

MaudBaileysGreenTurban · 21/06/2019 20:06

What if she'd been armed?

What if she had grabbed a table knife?

What if she'd been wearing a hat, made of FIRE ANTS??

What if her hair was ALL SNAKES???

What if she'd been 9ft tall and full of POISONOUS JELLY??!!!11?!!1!

mbosnz · 21/06/2019 20:07

A bientot

However, ka kite ano. . .Smile

Isatis · 21/06/2019 20:07

Ah, apologies, mummmy17, I see that you have tried to answer that question. Unfortunately, of course, you haven't succeeded.

GeneticTest · 21/06/2019 20:07

I’ve crossed palace yard enough times to know a bit about parliamentary security.

cinnamontoast · 21/06/2019 20:07

Mummy 2017 has answered my question, Isatis - finally. Her answer was trespass, 'disturbing' the peace, and 'something to do with political protests that she's forgotten'.

So that's clear.

Buster72 · 21/06/2019 20:09

@cinnamontoast

Glad you got that trespass is a civil matter, please look up the use of reasonable force to remove a trespasser. Which is what happened here.

It is an anticipated breach of the peace.

Mr fields actions are entirely legal. Even if they look bad.

mummmy2017 · 21/06/2019 20:11

He stopped a person heading towards Hammond....and she was not just standing the being nice.... She had intent, therefore he is allowed to use force to stop her...
If she had never moved from the main body of the group she would not have been in this position....

mbosnz · 21/06/2019 20:11

Field's actions are arguably legal, on the grounds of reasonable force. However, that's a two step test, with an objective element, and I also wonder if his previous assertions about how police ought to deal with protesters more firmly could perhaps go against him.

IcedPurple · 21/06/2019 20:12

Glad you got that trespass is a civil matter, please look up the use of reasonable force to remove a trespasser. Which is what happened here.

The Mansion House is a public building. How did Mark Field know that she had not been invited to the event? What authority did he have to claim that she had 'trespassed'?

Interesting that we've rolled back from the 'she was about the stab the Chancellor with a table knife' line.

Isatis · 21/06/2019 20:12

Genetic you said that the attacker went through security screening. You can't "presume" that he got through it, when we know perfectly well that he didn't. Feel free to complain about the lack of a security screen, but don't claim that this man got into the premises by going through a screen that didn't exist.

AgileLass · 21/06/2019 20:12

Buster72 Mr fields actions are entirely legal. Even if they look bad.

are you speaking from professional experience? I’ve seen at least 2 barristers on twitter stating precisely the opposite.

cinnamontoast · 21/06/2019 20:13

Buster72, please explain why you think Mark Field's actions represented 'reasonable force'. Bearing in mind that he said, 'That's what happen when people like you disturb our dinner.'

IcedPurple · 21/06/2019 20:13

He stopped a person heading towards Hammond....and she was not just standing the being nice.... She had intent, therefore he is allowed to use force to stop her...

Can you clarify precisely what laws you are referring to here? The ones that allow someone to use force against someone because you suspect they have intent not to be 'nice'?

Isatis · 21/06/2019 20:13

Glad you got that trespass is a civil matter, please look up the use of reasonable force to remove a trespasser. Which is what happened here.

How is it reasonable force when all the other protesters were removed without these measures, and none of the other guests felt that this sort of intervention was needed?

GeneticTest · 21/06/2019 20:14

Eh? I didn’t say he got through security screening- I’m saying he by-passed it.

Isatis · 21/06/2019 20:16

She had intent, therefore he is allowed to use force to stop her...

You're entitled to use any force to stop someone who intends to give a man a piece of paper? Again, mummmy, do give us chapter and verse of the law which states this.

cupofteaandcake · 21/06/2019 20:16

If you watch the video closely you will see her walking past at least 6 people who do not appear to think that she is a threat. Mark Field perhaps has some ninja sixth sense which tells him that this women in a sash is going to draw out a samari sword or zap him with her phone at any moment!

Sorry to be flipant but please watch the video closely and you will see that no-one felt threatened by this woman. Look at the wider video that is available. This man completely over reacted.

RomanyQueen · 21/06/2019 20:17

He should be sacked and I've no idea why she isn't pressing charges.
What a wanker, she only walked past his chair.
She walked past plenty others too without being grabbed round the neck.
Conservatives are bloody thugs, no idea who'd vote for such chavs.

GeneticTest · 21/06/2019 20:17

The point is that when you’re IN Parliament, you presume that people have been security screened. When walking around Parliament, I ‘know’ that everyone there is either a pass-holder (having had extensive background checks) OR they’ve been through security.
So if you’re in a secure area you feel secure. Except- after that attack, when it was shown that people CAN and DO get around security, I don’t think any MP would presume that just because there is security screening at an event, that everyone has been subject to it.

Swipe left for the next trending thread