Quizzes & Puzzles104 mins ago
Mp Manhandles Protestor
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by thesshhh. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
ChillDoubt - // I wonder what your response would have been if she’d been armed(like the nutter who shot Jo Cox) or if she’d suddenly gone ‘Bang’.
You are most insightful, we need you on terror watch, every violent armed incident would be avoided...... //
Since you are busy 'what if'ing' again, you'll excuse me for not indulging you, because it's a complete waste of time.
The lady was not armed, so imagining my response 'if she was' is neither here nor there.
You are most insightful, we need you on terror watch, every violent armed incident would be avoided...... //
Since you are busy 'what if'ing' again, you'll excuse me for not indulging you, because it's a complete waste of time.
The lady was not armed, so imagining my response 'if she was' is neither here nor there.
shoota - // I think interlopers and busters in anywhere, however laudable their intent, deserve to be manhandled. //
I think that's one of the most appalling sentences I have read in nineteen years and counting on this site - and you've had some strong competition.
If you really believe that a woman deserves to be assaulted for making a peaceful protest, however misguided the cause or timing may be, then you are a sad indictment of where our violent society is heading.
I think you should be ashamed of that post.
I think that's one of the most appalling sentences I have read in nineteen years and counting on this site - and you've had some strong competition.
If you really believe that a woman deserves to be assaulted for making a peaceful protest, however misguided the cause or timing may be, then you are a sad indictment of where our violent society is heading.
I think you should be ashamed of that post.
The right to protest does not give anyone, male or female, the right to trespass and cause a breach of the peace.
Having entered as trespassers those people, if they fail to leave quietly, must expect to be ejected. Forcibly if necessary.
Wets who let them get away with it are responsible for the increasing number of such incidents.
Having entered as trespassers those people, if they fail to leave quietly, must expect to be ejected. Forcibly if necessary.
Wets who let them get away with it are responsible for the increasing number of such incidents.
shoota - // The right to protest does not give anyone, male or female, the right to trespass and cause a breach of the peace. //
Indeed it does not - but the video evidence, which is what this debate is based on, shows no sign of a breach of anything. The lady entered the room and walked to the front, and was assaulted by a man. There was no request to leave, no overt threat to life or limb.
// Having entered as trespassers those people, if they fail to leave quietly, must expect to be ejected. Forcibly if necessary. //
There is an argument for that - but first the lady should have been asked to leave, and refused, before being assaulted, and it is clear that no such request was forthcoming in advance of her being assaulted.
Your post this time is qualifying circumstances which you did not offer at 15:45, when your position was 'shackling and sending the colonies' people like this protester, which is slightly over the top, I think you'd agree now you've had a chance to calm down and think about it.
Do I defend this woman's actions in entering the event uninvited in order to make a protest? No I do not, but the response from the MP was disproportionate, and a criminal act, and that is my response, as invited in the OP.
Indeed it does not - but the video evidence, which is what this debate is based on, shows no sign of a breach of anything. The lady entered the room and walked to the front, and was assaulted by a man. There was no request to leave, no overt threat to life or limb.
// Having entered as trespassers those people, if they fail to leave quietly, must expect to be ejected. Forcibly if necessary. //
There is an argument for that - but first the lady should have been asked to leave, and refused, before being assaulted, and it is clear that no such request was forthcoming in advance of her being assaulted.
Your post this time is qualifying circumstances which you did not offer at 15:45, when your position was 'shackling and sending the colonies' people like this protester, which is slightly over the top, I think you'd agree now you've had a chance to calm down and think about it.
Do I defend this woman's actions in entering the event uninvited in order to make a protest? No I do not, but the response from the MP was disproportionate, and a criminal act, and that is my response, as invited in the OP.
It might have been already said but i feel these protesters know exactly what they are doing and would be well versed as to how to behave if approached. I imaging she would be getting a high five from her pals when out of sight. Maybe a bit rough but I agree they did not know her intentions. Why was there no security in place ?
//Good for him. She could have been carrying a knife.//
or an atomic bomb
or a petri dish with anthrax or god knows what
tear gas - poison gas! - novichok!! ( I luff you dollink, as she gives the handshake of death)
he said he was apprehensive at first - which covers the first five seconds, but his later actions - vulcan death grip on neck is not REALLY the way to deal with someone with a knife, atomic bomb....tear gas, novichok etc
(their hands are free - so they can still stab, sxplode, infect etc see)
or an atomic bomb
or a petri dish with anthrax or god knows what
tear gas - poison gas! - novichok!! ( I luff you dollink, as she gives the handshake of death)
he said he was apprehensive at first - which covers the first five seconds, but his later actions - vulcan death grip on neck is not REALLY the way to deal with someone with a knife, atomic bomb....tear gas, novichok etc
(their hands are free - so they can still stab, sxplode, infect etc see)
shoota - // Andrew, entering the building is trespass, busting into a private function is a breach of the peace. //
Firstly, my name is Andy. Thank you.
There is no information advising that the protestors did anything other than walk through the front door, which does not count as trespass, as I understand the law, but I am of course open to correction on that point.
As for 'busting in' - if that is a breach of the peace, then it is the responsibility of security to restrain the invaders and call the police for them to deal with the situation.
// They had no right or justification to be there. //
Again, no argument.
// Shackle them and exile them I say, and their defenders. //
Well again, we come up against that pesky 'free speech concept there Shoota.
You see, the same rights of free speech that allow you to applaud assault by a man on a woman, also allows her to be defended on here, and elsewhere.
Again, I do not condone the woman's actions, but the fact remains, she presented no apparent threat, she was not asked to leave, she was assaulted by a man considerably bigger and heavier than she was, who then manhandled her out of the room.
The law that prevents the woman from protesting, is the same law that prevents her being violently assaulted.
You can't have it all ways.
Firstly, my name is Andy. Thank you.
There is no information advising that the protestors did anything other than walk through the front door, which does not count as trespass, as I understand the law, but I am of course open to correction on that point.
As for 'busting in' - if that is a breach of the peace, then it is the responsibility of security to restrain the invaders and call the police for them to deal with the situation.
// They had no right or justification to be there. //
Again, no argument.
// Shackle them and exile them I say, and their defenders. //
Well again, we come up against that pesky 'free speech concept there Shoota.
You see, the same rights of free speech that allow you to applaud assault by a man on a woman, also allows her to be defended on here, and elsewhere.
Again, I do not condone the woman's actions, but the fact remains, she presented no apparent threat, she was not asked to leave, she was assaulted by a man considerably bigger and heavier than she was, who then manhandled her out of the room.
The law that prevents the woman from protesting, is the same law that prevents her being violently assaulted.
You can't have it all ways.
bodeker - // Maybe a bit rough but I agree they did not know her intentions. //
'Maybe a bit rough' was an unprovoked and sustained physical assault by a man old enough and supposedly responsible enough to know better.
It is indefensible, despite the continued efforts of some on here to make it appear so.
'Maybe a bit rough' was an unprovoked and sustained physical assault by a man old enough and supposedly responsible enough to know better.
It is indefensible, despite the continued efforts of some on here to make it appear so.
spath - // It's important to remember people see things differently. Some will feel it was acceptable, some won't. //
It's also important to remember that some things are acceptable, and some things are not, and that is not influenced in any way by what people think.
Some people think baiting badgers with dogs is acceptable, but clearly by any measure of civilised thought, it is not.
It's also important to remember that some things are acceptable, and some things are not, and that is not influenced in any way by what people think.
Some people think baiting badgers with dogs is acceptable, but clearly by any measure of civilised thought, it is not.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles144 mins ago
Strands#265 Did You Hear That?
Quizzes & Puzzles175 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles179 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles289 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.