MP Mark Field grabs female protester by throat

[summerofresistance]

I hope she presses charges. Totally unnecessary and unacceptable.

Wouldn't be at all surprised if he has form for DV.

twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1141819192020295680

I’m just so thankful this was filmed

Otherwise he’d have gotten away with it. The scum bag

Only recently he inappropriately kissed Jeremy Hunt's wife by grabbing her head, I expect there will be more stories to come out about this man

He is this bad IN PUBLIC god only knows how he is in private.

I watched the vid some hours ago and now recounting without refreshing my memory.

His left arm goes out to block her path before he shifts his body around or start to stand out of his chair. This is a man who is confident that he can block her easily or he would have stood earlier and is intent to catch her by surprise.

She seems to shift to try to avoid the block but he stands rapidly and with the same left hand pushed her right shoulder around with enough force to spin her body about 90 degrees and into the pillar.

His right hand seems to touch her chest as she puts her head down (maybe instinctively) to protect her neck.

He pushes her hard from behind, making her stumble somewhat before he grabs her by the neck and pushes her forward for some time.

apparently it was the woman’s fault for wearing a dress without a collar

Fucking ridiculous

What a twat

MrsBethel

Sounds like what you're talking about hurts.

Judge people by what they say, not whatever's going on inside your own head.

I am sorry is this an attempt to say I am a victim of domestic abuse and thus taking violence against women personally. Is this...victim shaming?

How is that for judging people by what they say? May I remind you that you are the one who said “no one was hurt” so let’s move on? I am judging you on that. That is actually not the legal standard fortunately for assault.

I am not a victim of domestic violence. But I have worked with victims. I also care about women. I care about violence against women. If you don’t, and think that someone being concerned about violence against women is just being “inside their own head” you really need to check your own misogyny.

It''s just irrelevant to what I was saying.

If you want to make a separate point about it, fine.

It is not irrelevant. You seem to think no physical “signs” mean no one is hurt and we should just move on. Why is that? Do you think violence and abuse must leave marks to be violence and abuse? To pose a threat?

"Removed in the reshuffle..."

Don't hold your breath:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2017-40140992/boris-johnson-and-labour-s-ian-lavery-have-heated-debate

I don't know where you're getting this "'leave a mark" stuff from. It was on video. No one needs to try to guess what happened based on whether or not there are any marks. We can all see full well.

If you read "it was never enough to hurt" and what comes out the other end is "you think strangling people is okay" then there's no point trying to have discussion in good faith about it.

No MrsBethel the point is why do you think whether it hurts or not, or leaves a mark or not, is important? It's not.

No MrsBethel the point is why do you think whether it hurts or not, or leaves a mark or not, is important? It's not.

This.

Aside from that, bruising is not instantaneous. We have no idea if the woman has marks or tenderness or not based on the video! If I walk into a cabinet it hurts right away but the bruise shows up later.

MrsBethel

Sorry but how do you know it was “not enough to hurt”? The woman was pushed, held at her chest, and forced by the back of her neck out. So super curious how you can determine it was “not enough to hurt”.

Silver lining.

‘All of a sudden we can see gender clear as day’

twitter.com/awilliamscomedy/status/1142034491860496385?s=12

She'll be feeling a little sore this morning. He was really violent with her.
This is actually what DV looks like. It vividly reminds me of one incident where I was forced in the same fashion into the kitchen where I then had my head shoved into a saucepan of stew.

Pity she won't make a police statement.

Well, MaudBaileysGreenTurban I think whether it hurts or not is important because I am person who judges people on their actions. I am not a copper and I am not a lawyer.

When I see this, I see a man being overly aggressive to a protester, which is bad. A bit bad. Not the end of the world. He was never going to hurt anyone by it, so I'm not going to pretend it's something worse than that.

It may well fit the definition of assault. That's probably why he's playing the "I thought she may be armed" card. A copper or a lawyer will be more interested in that than I am. The law does not inform how harshly I judge someone for something. I make my own mind up on that. For me, on the scale of bad things it's probably worse than Gove's coke thing, but not as bad an MP cheating on a committed spouse.

I don't know that it's possible to be sure if he'd have been as aggressive with a male. It's not really all that uncommon to have male protestors treated aggressively either. Security people and the police have become a little better at this over the years but it happens.

So, in your own words, that man was 'overly aggressive' towards a woman. But it doesn't really matter unless it actually hurts her. Or leaves a mark.

OK. I see you.

This is actually what DV looks like. It vividly reminds me of one incident where I was forced in the same fashion into the kitchen where I then had my head shoved into a saucepan of stew.

It is important to post that this is what violence looks like, including DV, and especially from women like you who have experienced it. Too often I have seen people excuse DV, even the victims themselves, with “well, they don’t hit (her/me), they just get pushy or a little aggressive sometimes”.

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.

I am person who judges people on their actions

But you aren’t judging him on his actions.

You are judging on what you see as visible signs of “hurt” or the “consequences” as you see them, judging on assumptions about his intent (favorable ones it seems), and judging on assumptions about the woman’s experience of how the assault felt (she was, it seems you believe, “not hurt”).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.