Protests Erupt In Syria Over Christmas...
News5 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.
Jackdaw - // If I were at a posh black tie dinner listening to a senior government minister I;d be bloody angry too. Note, "lives off the grid, has 38 rabbits." Says it all about the woman. //
How someone lives their life does not mean that a man is entitled to assault them.
I might have been angry as well, but I am not in the habit of grabbing people of either gender by the neck and frogmarching them out of a room.
That is assault, and it doesn't matter if you are the Lord High Everything Else, and she is Molly Lee the witch from Burslem town, it was not appropriate behaviour.
How someone lives their life does not mean that a man is entitled to assault them.
I might have been angry as well, but I am not in the habit of grabbing people of either gender by the neck and frogmarching them out of a room.
That is assault, and it doesn't matter if you are the Lord High Everything Else, and she is Molly Lee the witch from Burslem town, it was not appropriate behaviour.
A-H
"This video shows an angry man assaulting and then manhandling a woman out of a room by the neck, his reaction is nothing to do with fear and concern, and everything to do with temper and over-reaction."
Yes, I think that may well be an accurate interpretation of the event as seen on the video.
However , we all have differing personalities, differing reactions to the same situations and these differing reactions may be borne out of previous experiences. this principle applies to everyone and anyone given the right trigger.
Most people, particularly of my generation are just fed up with these "peaceful" protesters who invade and disrupt our lives and he showed , possibly, that exasperation, that anyone may have evoked.
It was silly, it was understandable but it should not be career threatening.
"This video shows an angry man assaulting and then manhandling a woman out of a room by the neck, his reaction is nothing to do with fear and concern, and everything to do with temper and over-reaction."
Yes, I think that may well be an accurate interpretation of the event as seen on the video.
However , we all have differing personalities, differing reactions to the same situations and these differing reactions may be borne out of previous experiences. this principle applies to everyone and anyone given the right trigger.
Most people, particularly of my generation are just fed up with these "peaceful" protesters who invade and disrupt our lives and he showed , possibly, that exasperation, that anyone may have evoked.
It was silly, it was understandable but it should not be career threatening.
Sqad - // Most people, particularly of my generation are just fed up with these "peaceful" protesters who invade and disrupt our lives and he showed , possibly, that exasperation, that anyone may have evoked.
It was silly, it was understandable but it should not be career threatening. //
You can excuse his behaviour all you like, and plenty are queuing up to do so, but it was assault, and he is an MP and proper conduct in public is part of his remit - not assaulting people because he is miffed at an interruption to an event.
It was silly, it was understandable but it should not be career threatening. //
You can excuse his behaviour all you like, and plenty are queuing up to do so, but it was assault, and he is an MP and proper conduct in public is part of his remit - not assaulting people because he is miffed at an interruption to an event.
I do have sympathy for Mr Field in as much as the security obviously failed and had it not done so we would not be having this debate.
Having intervened, did he use reasonable force? Were his actions reasonable and prudent?
I don't think, and I don't consider that Mrs May did either, that he has a valid defence that the protester could have been carrying a weapon, acidic substance, etc because she didn't. The 'what might have beens' can't get in the way of facts.
Andy Hughes is unequivocal that Mr Field's facial features were representative of someone so irked that he saw fit to react in an unreasonable and forceful manner.
Some may review the footage and come to the conclusion that he was simply very determined and resolutely dealt with a situation that could have proven very dangerous.
In the heat of the moment we can all act impulsively but once the initial move had been made, did he then come to his senses and compound the matter by his subsequent actions?
He could have been a hero but the fact is he isn't. He made an instant judgement call which was always going to have the potential to backfire.
There were any number of people present who could have reacted but didn't. Why was that?
We can act with the best of intentions but sometimes one still has to take responsibility for one's own actions.
I'm reminded of the thread the other day where the cyclist was held jointly liable for knocking down the yoga teacher even though she was looking at her mobile phone and stepped out into the road.
Having intervened, did he use reasonable force? Were his actions reasonable and prudent?
I don't think, and I don't consider that Mrs May did either, that he has a valid defence that the protester could have been carrying a weapon, acidic substance, etc because she didn't. The 'what might have beens' can't get in the way of facts.
Andy Hughes is unequivocal that Mr Field's facial features were representative of someone so irked that he saw fit to react in an unreasonable and forceful manner.
Some may review the footage and come to the conclusion that he was simply very determined and resolutely dealt with a situation that could have proven very dangerous.
In the heat of the moment we can all act impulsively but once the initial move had been made, did he then come to his senses and compound the matter by his subsequent actions?
He could have been a hero but the fact is he isn't. He made an instant judgement call which was always going to have the potential to backfire.
There were any number of people present who could have reacted but didn't. Why was that?
We can act with the best of intentions but sometimes one still has to take responsibility for one's own actions.
I'm reminded of the thread the other day where the cyclist was held jointly liable for knocking down the yoga teacher even though she was looking at her mobile phone and stepped out into the road.
A-H
"You can excuse his behaviour all you like, and plenty are queuing up to do so, but it was assault, and he is an MP and proper conduct in public is part of his remit - not assaulting people because he is miffed at an interruption to an event."
Yes.....no argument there, except to say that he is a human being first, with human reactions and an MP second and I would have thought that many in that assembly given the chance would have done exactly the same.
Zac......I agree also.....but it does take force, initially and subsequently to reverse the direction of a determined female.
protester, who does not readily respond to reason or debate.
"You can excuse his behaviour all you like, and plenty are queuing up to do so, but it was assault, and he is an MP and proper conduct in public is part of his remit - not assaulting people because he is miffed at an interruption to an event."
Yes.....no argument there, except to say that he is a human being first, with human reactions and an MP second and I would have thought that many in that assembly given the chance would have done exactly the same.
Zac......I agree also.....but it does take force, initially and subsequently to reverse the direction of a determined female.
protester, who does not readily respond to reason or debate.
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.