Mark Field,attacks protester.

[Little Londoner]

Watching the video clip of the incident, I would say there is an argument that could be presented to the effect that Field acted with disproportionate force. Was his pre-emptive restraint and then forcible removal of the intruder reasonable?

The (pre-emptive) self-defence position mighy be susceptibe to being disproved as I notice:

a) Barker, the intruder / activist was already in the course of walking past where Field was (or happened to be) sitting (in a long row of people / diners / invited attendees), when he rapidly turned, grabbed her, pushing and pinning her against an adjacent column (to her). He intercepted / tackled her in the course of her passing by him.

b) She appeared to be clutching a mobile phone in one hand, while clasping a wad of papers and a handbag using her other hand and arm (to control). Suffice to say there seemed to be no immediately visible evidence that she was carrying weapons, or carrying objects with intent to use such items as weapons (although it could be said she was clutching objects as well as moving at pace and he did have an obstructed line of sight to her). Her attire, a (somewhat) figure-hugging dress, is also suggestive of such an absence (of concelaed weapons). Add to this that she was there in capacity as part of an organistaion that is not particularly associated with violent types of protest. Indeed, he made no serious, consistent, organised effort to "disarm" her. Further, a woman wearing an evening dress, audibly clumping along on block-heeled court shoes (with ankle straps), on the venue's wooden floor, might not, all told, necessarily be automatically classed as a high-level threat.

c) Like it or not: Field is male, of stocky build and tall, and Barker is female, not of stocky build and is comparitively small - these are details that would be taken into consideration.

d) Field appeared to exhibiting a facial expression, at the moment immediately prior to his grabbing Barker that perhaps contained a hint of anger. It could otherwise be said that said expression was a grimace often associated with someone about to use physical force to pin and restrain, or that it was an expression of anxiety-stiffened resolve.

e) I also notice from the clip that subsequent to grabbing her, he seemed to be close to her chest area when he did so. The viewpoint angle afforded by the footage suggests that he appeared to be aiming for her left bicep, in order to facilitate stopping her progress past him, and to facilitate shoving her back-first into a pinned position against the column adjacent to her.

Here, I'm just presenting my immediate impressions and thoughts upon watching the videoclip, without any reference to any wider circumstance, context or climate.

That's a wider discussion that, I note, is already being broached and happening on this thread. I'm still in the course of making my way through this thread's posts, by the way.

I should add the rider that if I rewatched the clip I may find I arrive at a somewhat revised or different "take".

You missed something, did he do a proper risk assessment and considered a suitable method of control and expulsion before he instinctively grabbed her and pushed her out of a place she had no right to be in.

What is this blo ody country coming to when children/ travellers/ drug dealers/ and anyone of like minded troublemaking can carry on regardless yet their capture and punishment creates outrage. The dead of two world wars must be spinning in their graves. Will the last one out of the asylum switch off the light.

[local]

You missed something, did he do a proper risk assessment and considered a suitable method of control and expulsion before he instinctively grabbed her and pushed her out of a place she had no right to be in.

What is this blo ody country coming to when children/ travellers/ drug dealers/ and anyone of like minded troublemaking can carry on regardless yet their capture and punishment creates outrage. The dead of two world wars must be spinning in their graves. Will the last one out of the asylum switch off the light.

Well he did have an "angry face" which does have me laughing perhaps we should of course all be "cool" about everything.

[Toodles McGinty]

Politicians are terrorist and crackpot targets it was not that long ago we buried Jo Cox I bet she and her devastated family wished she had a Mark Field about.

Jo Cox? You mean where a man didn't like what a woman was saying and doing, so he decided he was perfectly entitled to attack her? I bet her devastated family wish there were less men like Mark Field, less men who feel entitled to place their hands on women in anger. Jo Cox might be alive today.

I imagine Jo Cox's devastated family would condemn Field's actions as strongly as possible.

Creating a false equivalence between this incident and Jo Cox's murder is about as low as you can get. We've already heard the right wing screeches of 'Jo Cox' after milk shakes were thrown at two fascists and a bloke who decided he 'wouldn't rape' Jess Phillips, or a woman (again) had the temerity to mention such on a radio programme.

As Suzanne Moore wrote:
The gut knows. The gut processes what the eye sees. A woman slammed up against a wall. A man, eyes bulging with rage, his hands on her. He pushes her out of the posh dinner, his hands gripping her neck. She is shocked. The gut twists at the familiarity. Male violence so everyday that many will have experienced it, many will have felt sick watching it...We have seen the shady brotherhood that will defend this in the name of some “anti-terror” alertness. We know where the terror really comes from. It is from those who sanction male violence.

Jesus Christ, even Piers Morgan condemned Field's actions. How does it feel to be lower than that world class bell end?

Not found that 'InCel' channel yet?

[local]

Jo Cox? You mean where a man didn't like what a woman was saying and doing, so he decided he was perfectly entitled to attack her? I bet her devastated family wish there were less men like Mark Field, less men who feel entitled to place their hands on women in anger. Jo Cox might be alive today.

I imagine Jo Cox's devastated family would condemn Field's actions as strongly as possible.

Creating a false equivalence between this incident and Jo Cox's murder is about as low as you can get. We've already heard the right wing screeches of 'Jo Cox' after milk shakes were thrown at two fascists and a bloke who decided he 'wouldn't rape' Jess Phillips, or a woman (again) had the temerity to mention such on a radio programme.

As Suzanne Moore wrote:
The gut knows. The gut processes what the eye sees. A woman slammed up against a wall. A man, eyes bulging with rage, his hands on her. He pushes her out of the posh dinner, his hands gripping her neck. She is shocked. The gut twists at the familiarity. Male violence so everyday that many will have experienced it, many will have felt sick watching it...We have seen the shady brotherhood that will defend this in the name of some “anti-terror” alertness. We know where the terror really comes from. It is from those who sanction male violence.

Jesus Christ, even Piers Morgan condemned Field's actions. How does it feel to be lower than that world class bell end?

Not found that 'InCel' channel yet?

Its entirely relevant the people who stop aggressors rather than standing watching are the ones society relies on.


Only with hindsight can you determine the true level of threat,


many of our terrorist attacks have been carried out by unassuming people who most of us wouldn't give a second glance to.

Waiting till she attacked is not much use.

We all only knew afterwards what she was carrying and "what she said" she was planning to do.

Trying to equate this to domestic violence is simply shabby ill thought cheap journalism.

[birdbath]

Field has bragged about being physically threatening to a woman on twitter. Any argument that he was acting on "perceived threat" isn't borne out by the footage.
That defence seems to be the go to tactic of rogue cops and people like Gerard.

[AdmiralAckbar]

Those who stood at the back voicing their protest were simply blocked the one who broke away was the one Mark Field intercepted.

Field clearly saw that any security had broken down and reacted correctly.

I've seen the video a few times... here is a link to it ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48717002

The "gentleman" could have easily just stood his ground - the space between the table and the wall were blocked by the "gentleman"when he stood up.

The female protestor had leaflets in one hand and a mobile phone in the other, the "gentleman" was clearly not in a life threatening situation, and she was never going to get past him.

You say the others at the back were blocked ... why couldn't this "gentleman" just block this one protester and wait for the security personnel to deal? The "gentleman" was clearly much bigger than her and she was never getting past him.

If she had then tried to get past his block then perhaps a stronger (and measured) reaction from the "gentleman" could have been justified, but she didn't and it couldn't.

[local]

I've seen the video a few times... here is a link to it ... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48717002

The "gentleman" could have easily just stood his ground - the space between the table and the wall were blocked by the "gentleman"when he stood up.

The female protestor had leaflets in one hand and a mobile phone in the other, the "gentleman" was clearly not in a life threatening situation, and she was never going to get past him.

You say the others at the back were blocked ... why couldn't this "gentleman" just block this one protester and wait for the security personnel to deal? The "gentleman" was clearly much bigger than her and she was never getting past him.

If she had then tried to get past his block then perhaps a stronger (and measured) reaction from the "gentleman" could have been justified, but she didn't and it couldn't.

Simply wrong his first physical interaction with her was whilst he was sitting down he put his hand across to stop her at the pillar

At that point she was level with him.

https://youtu.be/Eq4ke8A-tHE

She then pushed forward to get past him she was then past the pillar (not a wall) as he got up and then used both hands to turn her back.

It is not clear what she had in her hand bag.

As she was being pushed away she turned to have another go at getting past him he then pushed her on the back of the neck.

The diners could then be seen applauding his actions as she was ejected.

I have left a link to the video its clear you haven't watched the video "a few times"

If he had lost his temper and started punching and kicking her or threw her to the ground you would have a point, the women herself has said she was unharmed.

This does seem a case where party politics override common sense.

[AdmiralAckbar]

Simply wrong his first physical interaction with her was whilst he was sitting down he put his hand across to stop her at the pillar

At that point she was level with him.

https://youtu.be/Eq4ke8A-tHE

She then pushed forward to get past him she was then past the pillar (not a wall) as he got up and then used both hands to turn her back.

It is not clear what she had in her hand bag.

As she was being pushed away she turned to have another go at getting past him he then pushed her on the back of the neck.

The diners could then be seen applauding his actions as she was ejected.

I have left a link to the video its clear you haven't watched the video "a few times"

If he had lost his temper and started punching and kicking her or threw her to the ground you would have a point, the women herself has said she was unharmed.

This does seem a case where party politics override common sense.

At no point does her body get past his arm, so she doesn't get past him.

Unlike some of the other pillars in that room, this "end" pillar appears to be part of the wall - if that wasn't the case (which it clearly is if you look again in more detail) why wouldn't the protester walk around that way avoiding walking through the small gap past the "gentleman".

With her body turned around, she gets pushed and attempts to look back but clearly can't as by that time his hand is clearly gripped around the back of her neck/shoulder so she is not capable of turning back.

... and what was in the bag? With a phone in one hand and leaflets in the other, if that's one of your stronger arguments to justify his actions then you need to try harder.

[local]

At no point does her body get past his arm, so she doesn't get past him.

Unlike some of the other pillars in that room, this "end" pillar appears to be part of the wall - if that wasn't the case (which it clearly is if you look again in more detail) why wouldn't the protester walk around that way avoiding walking through the small gap past the "gentleman".

With her body turned around, she gets pushed and attempts to look back but clearly can't as by that time his hand is clearly gripped around the back of her neck/shoulder so she is not capable of turning back.

... and what was in the bag? With a phone in one hand and leaflets in the other, if that's one of your stronger arguments to justify his actions then you need to try harder.

You simply haven't advanced your point at all.

and resort to fantasy to try and enhance it, apparently his grip is now so strong she can't turn, you are making him out to be something of a Marvel Book character.

His hand has now grown into some sort of vulcan death clamp device to hold her neck and shoulder.

He has now developed X-ray eyes to see what she may conceal.

The pillar she was pushed against has now been flattened into a wall
(pillars do not have to be stand alone) for the purposes of identification this area of masonry can reasonably be called a pillar.

The only reason she didn't advance further was because of his intervention perhaps if he had been a Labour Party member it would be so much easier for you.

The worst point is you belittle her as some sort of feeble woman held back by a beastly Tory the rest is forgivable that isn't.

[Desert Region]

Well he did have an "angry face" which does have me laughing perhaps we should of course all be "cool" about everything.

I take your point.

Typically, it's an experienced professional that could appear business-like prior to (and then during) an imminent physical confrontation.

A pertinent point.

It still remains so that in the read of a visual incident, people tend to look to the face of a protagonist to assess that person's "temperature" and the motives behind that protagonist's actions.

It goes to intent.

As in this example of a filmed, reviewable incident, it does matter if only anger (and / or exasperation) is seen in the face of Field. If he is primarily angry then this perhaps indicates that he snapped at the compound inconvenience caused by, and effrontery of, another of the ubiquitous, interfering, trespassing protestors. At his wit's end frustration-anger.

If fear or anxiety (and / or desperation) is primarily perceivable in Field's facial expressions than this perhaps indicates he was in fear for the immediate safety and welfare of himself and / or others.

It goes to belief, perception, motivation and intent.


Am rewatching the video I watched yesterday. I'd now summarise his thinking-mood as successively: "Right!", "Gotcha!", "Do as you're told!", "Out you go!"

He seems experienced in physically intervening?

And certainly confident in his abilities to perform the restraint and removal of the intruder.

[AdmiralAckbar]

You simply haven't advanced your point at all.

I didn't try to because it was a point well made in the 1st place.

You tried to rebuke my post with your own imagery, and all I did was point out where your interpretation was factually incorrect.

... and resort to fantasy to try and enhance it, apparently his grip is now so strong she can't turn, you are making him out to be something of a Marvel Book character.

His hand has now grown into some sort of vulcan death clamp device to hold her neck and shoulder.

He has now developed X-ray eyes to see what she may conceal.

Ha ! You accused me of not looking at the video yet anyone viewing it will clearly see that once the "gentleman" had hold of her shoulder/neck it was physically impossible for her to turn around.

BTW Vulcans were in Star Trek, not Marvel ... and it was called a Vulcan nerve pinch used to incapacitate someone by rendering them unconscious ... am suprised you didn't actually mention Dr Spock (as it's Mr Spock to you). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_nerve_pinch

As for concealment, I have already pointed out she had a mobile phone in one hand and leaflets in the other ... do you think he was expecting death by Candy Crush, or a prolonged agony of weight gain caused by the offer of Two for Tuesday at Dominoes?

Didn't the other protesters (the ones that had been stopped a few moments earlier) also have the same attire on, including the small clutch bags which you think caused such a threat? If there was anything threatening in them don't you think they would have used their laser guided lippy, man melting mascara, or eviscerating nail varnish at the time their progress was blocked?

The pillar she was pushed against has now been flattened into a wall (pillars do not have to be stand alone) for the purposes of identification this area of masonry can reasonably be called a pillar.

... it can also reasonably be called a wall, which is what I called it in the first place. Not the 1st time I've suggested you need to try harder, on this occasion with your pedantic putdownery.

The only reason she didn't advance further was because of his intervention perhaps if he had been a Labour Party member it would be so much easier for you..

I have already clearly pointed out that she didn't get past him because of his actions, and my argument was that he could have just stood there blocking her path, and not resorting to any heavy handidness.

I also deliberately avoided any mention of political leanings because I knew at some stage you would accuse me of exactly what you are doing yourself, and that is trying to defend the indefensible just because of the politics.

The worst point is you belittle her as some sort of feeble woman held back by a beastly Tory the rest is forgivable that isn't.

More desperation setting in here as you now try to accuse me of sexism? Show me where I've called the woman feeble? It is clear that the aggressor was physically bigger and stronger than the victim (haha, can't wait for your response to that description) and it would have made no difference whether she might have been a small man in drag ... one was physically bigger and stronger than the other - the rest is just physics.

I repeat what I said in my 1st post on this thread ...

... why couldn't this "gentleman" just block this one protester and wait for the security personnel to deal? The "gentleman" was clearly much bigger than her and she was never getting past him.

If she had then tried to get past his block then perhaps a stronger (and measured) reaction from the "gentleman" could have been justified, but she didn't and it couldn't.

Politics and sex are irrelevant - it's all about the reaction ... I say he should have taken a more passive (yet equally effective) blocking response, yet you insist on defending a more violent response.

If you can't see the problem in that then you need to give your head a wobble

[AdmiralAckbar]

I also deliberately avoided any mention of political leanings because I knew at some stage you would accuse me of exactly what you are doing yourself, and that is trying to defend the indefensible just because of the politics.

Rereading that paragraph, I could have worded it better. What I meant to say was ...

I also deliberately avoided any mention of political leanings because I knew at some stage you would accuse me of exactly what you are doing yourself, defending something just because of the politics.

[gazaprop]

Should the protester have been where she was? - depends upon your point of view.

Was her choice of dress inspired, as part of a deception plan, to which, I take my metaphorical hat off? - undoubtedly yes.

Was any person entitled to use force to prevent an unlawful act being committed? - categorically yes.

Are there any restrictions placed upon that person in law on how much force is used? - yes there are.

One of those restrictions is proportionality - was the force used proportionate? - in my opinion no, it was disproportionate.

Has the argument on here been lost or obfuscated amongst a good deal of silliness? - absolutely!

[AdmiralAckbar]

Should the protester have been where she was? - depends upon your point of view.

Was her choice of dress inspired as part of a deception plan, to which, I take my metaphorical hat off? - undoubtedly yes.

Was any person entitled to use force to prevent an unlawful act being committed? - categorically yes.

Are there any restrictions placed upon that person in law on how much force is used? - yes there are.

One of those restrictions is proportionality - was the force used proportionate? - in my opinion no, it was disproportionate.

Has the argument on here been lost or obfuscated amongst a good deal of silliness? - absolutely!

Unlawful? What laws were being broken? Potential breach of the peace I suppose but very debatable.

Other than that, we are pretty much on the same page.

[gazaprop]

Unlawful? What laws were being broken? Potential breach of the peace I suppose but very debatable.

Other than that, we are pretty much on the same page.

For any offence - more likely to be Aggravated Trespass but yeah - I think we concur on the rest.