Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 35 36 37 38 39 40

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

SassyBadger · 22/06/2019 14:25

Whatabout
Whatabout
Whatabout

Buster72 · 22/06/2019 14:42

@cinnamontoast

Why the need to change the subject? We were discussing a single incident. Have I swayed you over to an understanding of trespass and the use of force to remove a trespasser? Probably not.

I am a firm believer in protest.

But there is a line and trespass is it.

As for the example you sited, it breaks my heart think of his wife locked up on a trumped up charge. He has my support and I hope he gets the justice he deserves.

Mistigri · 22/06/2019 14:44

the right to trespass is not....

Trespassing is not a crime.

But in any case, even if it was, it wouldn't give a member of the public the right to assault someone.

IcedPurple · 22/06/2019 14:46

Also, isn't the Mansion House a public building? The event may have been invitation only, but that would make her only 'guilty' of gate-crashing, not trespassing. Gatecrashing is not a crime. In any case, for all that Mark Field knew, she might have been invited. What gave Mark Field the authority to eject someone from a public building?

Mistigri · 22/06/2019 14:47

These protestors can count themselves lucky not to have been shot

I assume this poster is American because I find it very hard to imagine a Briton saying this. Our police aren't armed and even when they are, they have to follow very strict rules of engagement. The U.K. is not America and randomly assaulting or murdering members of the public because they are black or female and not sufficiently submissive is not, yet, acceptable.

mummmy2017 · 22/06/2019 14:50

If we respect the rights of a woman to
be treated as an equal, and accept that these two people are not in a relationship, then this is not about domestic violence....

cinnamontoast · 22/06/2019 14:50

I am not changing the subject, Buster. A protest IS the subject. And I understood trespass perfectly well without any help from you, thanks.

According to the Iranian embassy, Ratcliffe’s presence is disruptive because it is blocking the entrance and preventing them carrying out their normal activities. Would you support the embassy’s use of physical force to remove him?

Mistigri · 22/06/2019 14:53

isn't the Mansion House a public building?

It is although the public usually has to book to go in.

There is security at the entrance so everyone at the event, invited or not, will have been through bag checks etc.

In my experience of attending corporate events in London it is not usually difficult to get through a door if you are dressed right, and politely dealing with gate crashers is something event organisers are used to.

Buster72 · 22/06/2019 15:02

But he is not on embassy land....hence not a trespasser...chalk and cheese. Sure if he set foot on the embassy land he would be ejected.

(Sorry all along I thought this was a about a use of force on a trespasser)

Pp. Correct trespass is not a crime and they (all 39) became trespassers when asked to leave (there is a longer video on line) most did with a use of force. So why did she not leave ? this will feed into field,s assesment that she meant harm. It does not matter in law if he is incorrect. She also upped the ante by turning back toward this apparently angry man....Which is when he changes her direction back to the exit and places a hand on her neck.

Buster72 · 22/06/2019 15:07

Mansion house is the official residence of the mayor....Not a public building any more than say....Buckingham palace

IcedPurple · 22/06/2019 15:09

Pp. Correct trespass is not a crime and they (all 39) became trespassers when asked to leave

Again, though, the Mansion House is a public building. Mark Field was simply one of hundreds of guests at an event. He has no right to decide if she was a 'trespasser' or not.

this will feed into field,s assesment that she meant harm.

Who cares about his 'assessment'? I might see you on the street and 'asess' that you mean harm. Does that give me the right to do what I like to you?

Oh, and if Field had 'assessed' that she meant 'harm', why on earth did he let her stroll out into the street? Why didn't he alert the police as to the presense of this dangerous individual, rather than let her do 'harm' to the general public?

It does not matter in law if he is incorrect.

But what is the 'law' here? Trespass is not a crime, even if she is 'guility' of it.
She also upped the ante by turning back toward this apparently angry man...

Ah so now we have it... women, when faced with an 'apparently angry man' don't whatever you do 'up the ante'. If you do then it will be YOUR FAULT!

IcedPurple · 22/06/2019 15:11

Mansion house is the official residence of the mayor....Not a public building any more than say....Buckingham palace

It is a public building in the sense that it is not owned by an individual. The public can visit it, albeit usually only on guided tours. Mark Field is as much a member of the public as anyone else. He has no more rights than you or me to decide who can be in the Mansion House, let alone to eject them.

mummmy2017 · 22/06/2019 15:16

Let's travel 100's of miles, buy a very distinctive outfit, gatecrash an event, break away from the main group to approach someone who has had death treats against him...
Then plead I am a poor woman who did nothing wrong and have been attacked...

Buster72 · 22/06/2019 15:17

@icedpurple

I feel like a tag team between you and cinnamontoast

They were asked to leave....hence they were trespassers. There are longer videos doing the rounds...watch them.

The law allows a degree of force to be used to remove tresspassers.

You can rely on that if a guest in your home becomes disagreeable.

cinnamontoast · 22/06/2019 15:19

*But he is not on embassy land....hence not a trespasser...chalk and cheese. Sure if he set foot on the embassy land he would be ejected.•

But he is blocking the entrance, Buster, and, according to the embassy, being disruptive. If someone was blocking the entrance to your house, I’m guessing you would feel entitled to remove them?

Richard Ratcliffe is engaged in a peaceful protest; so was Janet Barker. He is accused of being disruptive; so was she (that is, after all, how protest works). He is arguably more disruptive - he has been there much longer and the embassy has complained about invasion of privacy as well as disruption. Yet you have problems with her actions and not his. I wonder why that is.

IcedPurple · 22/06/2019 15:22

They were asked to leave....hence they were trespassers.

No that is not the correct conclusion. You can ask someone to leave a place for many reasons, only one of which is 'trespass'. And tresspass is not in any case a criminal offence.

The law allows a degree of force to be used to remove tresspassers.

You still haven't told me what gave Mark Field the right to decide who is or is not a trespasser. The event had hundreds of guests. For all he knew she was one of them.

You also haven't told me why, if his great fear that this woman meant 'harm' spurred him to eject her, he left her free to do 'harm' to the general public.

Buster72 · 22/06/2019 15:23

a public building in the sense that it is not owned by an individual

But not a building you have unfettered access to....

SassyBadger · 22/06/2019 15:24

mummmy2017 , why do you keep repeating yourself over and over again? Have today's soundbites not been uploaded yet?

IcedPurple · 22/06/2019 15:25

But not a building you have unfettered access to....

Other than your own home, you don't have 'unfettered access' to any building. Mark Field also didn't enjoy 'unfettered access' to the Mansion House, and certainly didn't have the authority to eject people from it.

mummmy2017 · 22/06/2019 15:25

Richard Ratcliffe has not entered the property.
He is protesting alone about his wife.
He was not trying to approach anyone...

Buster72 · 22/06/2019 15:26

They were asked to leave.....at that point they become trespassers....it's not difficult.

She had opportunity to leave, 39 of her colleagues did so.

She remained. Hence a use of force is justified. That's the law.

mummmy2017 · 22/06/2019 15:27

You keep called this assult, I just keep pointing out this is premeditated on her part....

SassyBadger · 22/06/2019 15:27

She planned to be assaulted?

Cool

cinnamontoast · 22/06/2019 15:29

Premeditated dispensing of leaflets?

Asking for it!

Buster72 · 22/06/2019 15:30

The fact that Mr field took it upon himself to eject her is based on the fact that he saw them being asked to leave...and one who failed to do so. He was lawfully on the premises. She was not. Entirely justified.

( how would you react if a gatecrasher at your party was thrown out by one of your guests after you asked them to leave?)

Flip

1 2 ··· 35 36 37 38 39 40

Swipe left for the next trending thread