Protesters complaining of assault

  • Thread starter Deleted member 13294
  • Start date
Hindsight is great, especially from a comfortable armchair. Human instinct can't specifically use hindsight as the actual current event has happened yet, he was at his party, maybe had a drink, someone gatecrashed who was unwelcome making a quick step to the stage, and he prevented any possible outcome or harm both to her and the other delegates. A little heavy handed true, but thats life. She wasn't welcome, so she expected that something like this would/could happen.

I think there is a clear separation between a political event, that has 'time' to warrant a reaction, over something that was based on an immediate reaction.

As mentioned, I have no love for Tory scum, but I'd rather have someone like this on my team, than someone who hides under the table. I like to see politicians being human rather than, well, how a politician is denoted to act. Example - John Prescot, never liked him, but completely happy he smashed that guy for what he did to him.
He wasn't at a party but a formal event. Are you suggesting he was drunk when he 'assaulted' the woman. Nothing like pouring petrol on a fire to dowse the flames...

I'd suggest people look at the time line of the event and where everybody was in the room. There are enough photos and videos to see that well before Mark Field took his action the area to the left and in front of the chancellor was full of protestors. And that he (Field) was a long way away from the centre of what was going on.

A male protestor was actually two or three seats away from Hammond standing just behind the top table at the event. The worst thing he did was say to one of those sitting "as a fellow Canadian....I think you're doing a good job" before laying a gaudy leaflet on the table 1.02 https://media.greenpeace.org/collec...27MZVNT2EM8I&POPUPPN=1&POPUPIID=27MZIFJ8TWFQ6

hammond.jpg

You may notice from that video that Hammond doesn't look concerned and that there isn't a ring of steel around him. So if the Personal Protection Officers didn't consider there to be a risk next to the Chancellor from all the protestors there, why was Field playing the hard man card out on the fringes....
 
He wasn't at a party but a formal event. Are you suggesting he was drunk when he 'assaulted' the woman. Nothing like pouring petrol on a fire to dowse the flames...

I'd suggest people look at the time line of the event and where everybody was in the room. There are enough photos and videos to see that well before Mark Field took his action the area to the left and in front of the chancellor was full of protestors. And that he (Field) was a long way away from the centre of what was going on.

A male protestor was actually two or three seats away from Hammond standing just behind the top table at the event. The worst thing he did was say to one of those sitting "as a fellow Canadian....I think you're doing a good job" before laying a gaudy leaflet on the table 1.02 Greenpeace - Search Result

View attachment 1165540

You may notice from that video that Hammond doesn't look concerned and that there isn't a ring of steel around him. So if the Personal Protection Officers didn't consider there to be a risk next to the Chancellor from all the protestors there, why was Field playing the hard man card out on the fringes....

The law dosen't believe any assault happened, hence why no one was arrested or charged.

No one mentioned anyone being drunk.

So what are you are referring to is that an intruder was removed using reasonable force, by guests who may or may not have had a drink, being a private party where alcohol was served.

I dont think there is any real need to review any of the footage, it won't change the facts.

Was he a bit of a jerk? possibly, but no crime for that.
 
He wasn't at a party but a formal event. Are you suggesting he was drunk when he 'assaulted' the woman. Nothing like pouring petrol on a fire to dowse the flames...

I'd suggest people look at the time line of the event and where everybody was in the room. There are enough photos and videos to see that well before Mark Field took his action the area to the left and in front of the chancellor was full of protestors. And that he (Field) was a long way away from the centre of what was going on.

A male protestor was actually two or three seats away from Hammond standing just behind the top table at the event. The worst thing he did was say to one of those sitting "as a fellow Canadian....I think you're doing a good job" before laying a gaudy leaflet on the table 1.02 Greenpeace - Search Result

View attachment 1165540

You may notice from that video that Hammond doesn't look concerned and that there isn't a ring of steel around him. So if the Personal Protection Officers didn't consider there to be a risk next to the Chancellor from all the protestors there, why was Field playing the hard man card out on the fringes....

It seems everyone else appeared to know what was going on in that room and no one was looking concerned. In fact there are good examples of how to behave as you can see some of the protesters being blocked.

Just goes to show that the "I thought she might have had a gun" was complete BS.
 
It seems everyone else appeared to know what was going on in that room and no one was looking concerned. In fact there are good examples of how to behave as you can see some of the protesters being blocked.

Just goes to show that the "I thought she might have had a gun" was complete BS.

I guess the Police where happy with it eh?
 
Alcohol shouldn’t matter, people are still expected to act in a proper manner.

If they can’t, they shouldn’t drink.

I'm going to use this word again... there are some unbelievably sanctimonious and self-righteous contributors on here.

Some people are just SO out of touch with the real world. It's not all just black and white.

I hope you never reach a point in life where the only way you can deal with the crap hand you've been dealt in life is to self-medicate with drink.
 
I guess the Police where happy with it eh?

I guess it comes down to why he felt he needed to make excuses for his overly rough manhandling behaviour by implying he thought she might have been armed.

I'm not sure why you keep quoting whether there is a criminal action or not.
 
As ridiculous actually as this thread has now become, with the notion of "what if" taking over all reasoning. Now discussion seems to have shifted from what actually happened, to what "might" have happened.

It's generally called a risk assessment.

Risk assessments are about what might happen... not necessarily what has happened.

And it's what a fair few contributors to this thread are saying they can do instantaneously.
 
Mark Field was sitting in a pinch point in the hall with just a narrow gap between the table and the pillar. All he needed to do was stand up, pull his chair out (which he had to do anyway to stand up) and just stand there behind the chair physically blocking the route with his arms extended.

Have you never done something in the immediacy of a moment on impulse?

So I guess you would also be one of the people who would pull out a questionnaire and ask the protester a series of probing questions before deciding what to do?

Very easy to say what somebody should of done when you weren't even present.
 
I guess it comes down to why he felt he needed to make excuses for his overly rough manhandling behaviour by implying he thought she might have been armed.

I'm not sure why you keep quoting whether there is a criminal action or not.

Already discussed multiple times in the 13pages of this thread. Re-read for info/clarification.
 
It's generally called a risk assessment.

Risk assessments are about what might happen... not necessarily what has happened.

And it's what a fair few contributors to this thread are saying they can do instantaneously.

You probably should watch the full Green Peace video to see what else was going on in the room at the same time. There was no need for a snap risk assessment because there was no threat to the room.

There was a lot of disruption from protesters, but the sensible people were just blocking the protesters passage to minimise disruption.
 
Yep he'd really only be a target to someone like Allison Pearson, who'd certainly have enough room for that toothbrush and nail file.

I should have said a toothbrush, nail file and a jar of Vaseline.

My bad.
 
You probably should watch the full Green Peace video to see what else was going on in the room at the same time. There was no need for a snap risk assessment because there was no threat to the room.

You only know there was no threat to the room from watching a video AFTER the event.

In the moment, do you expect someone who intervenes to just think... "hang on a minute, I'll just go off and build a time machine, go 24 hours into the future, check the video and then come back to this moment and act accordingly."

This is basic common sense.
 
You only know there was no threat to the room from watching a video AFTER the event.

In the moment, do you expect someone who intervenes to just think... "hang on a minute, I'll just go off and build a time machine, go 24 hours into the future, check the video and then come back to this moment and act accordingly."

This is basic common sense.

If you watch all of the videos and photos then it is "common sense" there was no threat in that room:

Greenpeace - Search Result

If you want to see a potential threat, what about the male protester that gets within 5 metres of our Chancellor? The Chancellor doesn't move away and no one appears that bothered apart from his speech is being interrupted.
 
If you want to see a potential threat, what about the male protester that gets within 5 metres of our Chancellor?

Totally! and no one stepped in. Hence why its better to have someone proactive about safety rather than hiding under the table. Good call! but in this instance nothing happened. Which is good also.
 
Totally! and no one stepped in. Hence why its better to have someone proactive about safety rather than hiding under the table. Good call! but in this instance nothing happened. Which is good also.

No threat, no need for overly manhandling, end of. Everyone else in the room gets this :smashin:
 
You only know there was no threat to the room from watching a video AFTER the event.

In the moment, do you expect someone who intervenes to just think... "hang on a minute, I'll just go off and build a time machine, go 24 hours into the future, check the video and then come back to this moment and act accordingly."

This is basic common sense.

I think he thinks he is some moral superpower with Minority Report style senses! Literally wants to be Tom Cruise.
 
No threat, no need for overly manhandling, end of. Everyone else in the room gets this.

Situation was monitored, and no threat was found. They probably said that about the people on the planes that took the twin towers out. Not everyone is a threat but it pays to be cautious and those making a run for something, in a place they do not belong or are invited should be taken down. End of.

*taken down added in those terms to watch you go all steamed up and respond not understanding the terminology :laugh:*
 
That was probably the other person who you mixed me up with earlier.

Lol, I definitely havent mixed you up with anyone. There isn't anyone else posting with your level of.....Christ, I cant even finish that in a polite way. So lets just say, no one can confuse you.
 
Situation was monitored, and no threat was found. They probably said that about the people on the planes that took the twin towers out. Not everyone is a threat but it pays to be cautious and those making a run for something, in a place they do not belong or are invited should be taken down. End of.

*taken down added in those terms to watch you go all steamed up and respond not understanding the terminology :laugh:*

You are comparing a peaceful Greenpeace protest that has happened in the UK lots of times to a one off major attack of the Twin Towers. I have no hope!
 
Lol, I definitely havent mixed you up with anyone. There isn't anyone else posting with your level of.....Christ, I cant even finish that in a polite way. So lets just say, no one can confuse you.

The Mod IronGiant pointed this out to you that you have mixed me up :rotfl:

I'm out of here, too many foil hats for my liking!
 
You are comparing a peaceful Greenpeace protest that has happened in the UK lots of times to a one off major attack of the Twin Towers. I have no hope!

Again, misunderstanding the reference.

It's about taking risk assesments and how, they can go wrong. Either way.

I am bemused the amount of time you have invested into trying to convince others that this is like some heavy handed Frank Bruno style wallop that smashed this womans face in and left her in a coma.

I mean, you do sound either completely deluded from reality, or scared of the world, I fear for your family if you ever needed to handle a situation to defend them. You'd ask for video footage first:rotfl:
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom