Also in the news

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, David Guiza said:

Act like a child, get shoved into a wall and a hand to your neck before being shoved out the room like a child. Famously rule number 1 in childcare. 

 

I don't think he has an opinion on this. 

 

Yes the video shows utter chaos. I think one woman may even pick up the wrong fork at one point, the heathen. 

 

They did want a fuss and, I imagine, fully expected to be removed from the building. I don't think making a fuss justifies the response. 

So if thy wanted a fuss and expected to be removed, everybody got what they wanted? Nobody has cause for complaint

 

Im sure that woman's neck will be fine. She'll probably rub one out later thinking about it 

 

On a serious note, i think its nitpicking a bit. As Izzy said, the guy isnt trained in that sort of thing and there is no way to do such a thing nicely. Instincts kick i  and aggression is a necessary tiger you have to grab the tail of in such situations. Woman was moving with intent in my view, probably not dangerous, but she's transcending the societal code of behaviour and so she instigated whatever happened next

 

Yes, he looks slightly aggressive, if he had grabbed her in a slightly better lookong way it would have been fine.... but thats nitpicking

 

She's not hurt mate

[StanSP]

39 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Some on here clearly don’t understand what happens to us when we go into fight or flight mode and our primal instincts kick in. 

 

Of course we then regret it afterwards but in the moment we’re not thinking rationally. 

 

None of us know in advance how we’d react in such circumstances so maybe stop judging Field for acting on his instincts and instead remember that none of this would have happened if these protesters weren’t there in the first place (which they shouldn’t have been)

 

36 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Yet Field clearly sensed she was a threat in that moment. 

Maybe he thought she was carrying something dangerous - who knows.

We all respond to perceived threat differently.

Yes, none of us know truly how we'd react but like you say, we all respond to perceived threat differently. And we're allowed to say how we we think we would respond - not sure why you're trying to quieten us down in saying how we'd respond differently to Field. 

Given you say 'perceived threat', what is the threat that Field thinks is there? There's a woman just walking through. It doesn't appear as if there's any weapon on her and she's hardly walking in a threatening fashion. I'm not saying there shouldn't be caution about her but her actions weighed up against Field's actions don't match up. Field went far over the top. 

 

14 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Act like a child, get frog marched out like a child

 

There is nothing controversial here, jesus

 

Protestors caused a chaotic situation and when there is chaos anything can happen

 

Dont make fuss if you dont want fuss

Sorry but how was she acting a child? Have you even seen the video? Where's the chaos? 

[Bobby Hundreds]

He's definitely done that to a woman before. Just sack him and have a by-election, MPs should not be behaving in such a manner.

 

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

. Woman was moving with intent in my view, probably not dangerous, but she's transcending the societal code of behaviour 

She is literally just walking 

 

There's absolutely no commotion or fuss or chaos or wild behaviour caused by her. If anything Field does that himself with his own behaviour. What's the societal code of behaviour for grabbing women by the neck? Tolerable? 

 

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

Yes, none of us know truly how we'd react but like you say, we all respond to perceived threat differently. And we're allowed to say how we we think we would respond - not sure why you're trying to quieten us down in saying how we'd respond differently to Field. 

Given you say 'perceived threat', what is the threat that Field thinks is there? There's a woman just walking through. It doesn't appear as if there's any weapon on her and she's hardly walking in a threatening fashion. I'm not saying there shouldn't be caution about her but her actions weighed up against Field's actions don't match up. Field went far over the top. 

 

Sorry but how was she acting a child? Have you even seen the video? Where's the chaos? 

You need to watch a longer video that shows the noise and general intrusion the protestors were making.

 

Its not dignified, its not productive.

 

Funny that Hammond commented on the irony that we have just signed off on a progressive promise to have zero emmissions by 2050

Edited 21 June 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

7 minutes ago, StanSP said:

She is literally just walking 

 

There's absolutely no commotion or fuss or chaos or wild behaviour caused by her. If anything Field does that himself with his own behaviour. What's the societal code of behaviour for grabbing women by the neck? Tolerable? 

 

 

Well, ive never grabbed a woman by the neck, but i dont mind what he did

Horses for courses

 

I think those protestors are some of the worst kinds of vapid hypocrites, so maybe that colours my view somewhat

 

Having said that, the whole thing reminded me of when my usually peaceful Grandad once grabbed my sister by the arm when she was kicking off in angsty teen years, she went from angry punk to immediately submissive (no neck grabbing, but i dont care about that cos im not looking to lynch a guy)

 

Sometimes when we kick out at life the strong arm of discipline rightly kicks back and we're all the better for it

 

Most people justify any sort of behaviour from climate nut jobs because of the moralistic stance. They were setting off rape alarms and had horns and were shouting and whatnot. If you think that is a serious attempt to tackle a problem.....

Edited 21 June 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[Lionator]

Basically if you're left wing you'll think he's a woman beating, piece of rubbish who should resign.

If you're right wing then you'll think that he was justified and well within his rights.

 

Truth is, she shouldn't have been there in the first place and he should not have acted violently like he did. 

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, Izzy said:

All very well analysing the event afterwards and making judgments. 

I’m sure even you Alf have done something in the moment on instinct and then regretted it afterwards.

Its called being human and humans are clumsy and make mistakes.

 

Yes, I've made plenty of mistakes in the heat of the moment that I've regretted afterwards.

 

Field seems to recognise that he made a mistake. But you seemed to be arguing that he had NOT made a mistake.

 

There's also a point at which instinct (grabbing or immoblising someone perceived as a threat) becomes attitude & rational decision-making (frogmarching by neck with hands free).

A human mistake, maybe, but one that should be recognised, not denied. Anyway, enough micro-analysis from me, I'm off to the Joke Thread. 

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, I've made plenty of mistakes in the heat of the moment that I've regretted afterwards.

 

Field seems to recognise that he made a mistake. But you seemed to be arguing that he had NOT made a mistake.

 

There's also a point at which instinct (grabbing or immoblising someone perceived as a threat) becomes attitude & rational decision-making (frogmarching by neck with hands free).

A human mistake, maybe, but one that should be recognised, not denied. Anyway, enough micro-analysis from me, I'm off to the Joke Thread. 

 

Are people looking at it like that though?

Or are they calling for his head?

Edited 21 June 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

Yes, none of us know truly how we'd react but like you say, we all respond to perceived threat differently. And we're allowed to say how we we think we would respond - not sure why you're trying to quieten us down in saying how we'd respond differently to Field. 

I’m not trying to quieten anyone down but thanks for making that assumption.

You can say all you like how you ‘think’ you’d respond but how do you know? Of course we’d all like to think we’d handle it in the right way, but when we’re running adrenaline and cortisol with no blood in our pre frontal cortex, our limbic system kicks in and anything can happen.

 

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Given you say 'perceived threat', what is the threat that Field thinks is there? There's a woman just walking through. It doesn't appear as if there's any weapon on her and she's hardly walking in a threatening fashion. I'm not saying there shouldn't be caution about her but her actions weighed up against Field's actions don't match up. Field went far over the top. 

How do I know what threat he perceived? He’s at an organised event and sees a stranger wearing a climate change sash hurrying behind people sat down.

Shes got a phone in her hand (I think) but who knows Field thought it was or what she was doing.

Hes acknowledged he went OTT but the protester shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

[Facecloth]

On the fight or flight argument, I don't think it washes. He wasn't panicking, there was no scuffle or scrap from him. He was calm and collected in his violence, he knew what he was doing. He didn't feel threatened at all, he was angry and annoyed, and wanted her gone. As someone who grew up in a house with a violent father, I've seen this numerous times. Field was pissed off and his first response was to be violent, he wasn't scared or worried or protecting himself.

Edited 21 June 2019 by Facecloth

[David Guiza]

Just now, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

So if thy wanted a fuss and expected to be removed, everybody got what they wanted? Nobody has cause for complaint

 

Im sure that woman's neck will be fine. She'll probably rub one out later thinking about it 

 

On a serious note, i think its nitpicking a bit. As Izzy said, the guy isnt trained in that sort of thing and there is no way to do such a thing nicely. Instincts kick i  and aggression is a necessary tiger you have to grab the tail of in such situations. Woman was moving with intent in my view, probably not dangerous, but she's transcending the societal code of behaviour and so she instigated whatever happened next

 

Yes, he looks slightly aggressive, if he had grabbed her in a slightly better lookong way it would have been fine.... but thats nitpicking

 

She's not hurt mate

It's the way in which she is removed and the person doing it that is the issue. If she were restrained in a reasonable manner and removed, rather than what actually happened, it wouldn't even be news outside of a dark hole on Twitter perhaps. 

 

I imagine not.

 

You can't just excuse certain behaviour because it's instinctive at a given moment in time. It's instinctive to some to do many awful things, but that's not a defence or justification. The law caters for instinctive behaviour to a threatening incident with self defence, but it still has caveats of being reasonable and justified. 

 

Yes exactly, and he didn't. That's why some people aren't happy. Nobody wants him locking up in jail and nobody thinks the protester is without fault, the fact of the matter is that he should and could have dealt with the situation far better than he did and as a result he will face the consequences of his actions as we all do on a daily basis. The only argument in question is that some people seem to think Field was justified either because she shouldn't have been there in the first place and or he reacted instinctively. 

 

Again, this just seems to boil down to some people, predominantly left leaning, believing that his response was aggressive, uncalled for and wrong (but not the worst thing in the world) and in retaliation some, predominantly right leaning, twisting the complaints against Field to make the arguments against him seem pathetic. This sort of circle of events seems to be happening on an almost daily basis and it's just exacerbated by the whole 'snowflake' nonsense. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Are people looking at it like that though?

Or are they calling for his head?

 

I only speak for myself, nobody else.

 

I've not called for his head or said anything about any punishment. I've only criticised his behaviour. That's what most others have done in this thread.

Since you (implicitly) ask, I'd say that a quick investigation and warning about future conduct might be enough, as he seems to recognise he's messed up. Any repeat and calls for his head would be justified, I think.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

It's the way in which she is removed and the person doing it that is the issue. If she were restrained in a reasonable manner and removed, rather than what actually happened, it wouldn't even be news outside of a dark hole on Twitter perhaps. 

 

I imagine not.

 

You can't just excuse certain behaviour because it's instinctive at a given moment in time. It's instinctive to some to do many awful things, but that's not a defence or justification. The law caters for instinctive behaviour to a threatening incident with self defence, but it still has caveats of being reasonable and justified. 

 

Yes exactly, and he didn't. That's why some people aren't happy. Nobody wants him locking up in jail and nobody thinks the protester is without fault, the fact of the matter is that he should and could have dealt with the situation far better than he did and as a result he will face the consequences of his actions as we all do on a daily basis. The only argument in question is that some people seem to think Field was justified either because she shouldn't have been there in the first place and or he reacted instinctively. 

 

Again, this just seems to boil down to some people, predominantly left leaning, believing that his response was aggressive, uncalled for and wrong (but not the worst thing in the world) and in retaliation some, predominantly right leaning, twisting the complaints against Field to make the arguments against him seem pathetic. This sort of circle of events seems to be happening on an almost daily basis and it's just exacerbated by the whole 'snowflake' nonsense. 

I dont disagree with you massively tbh

 

I agree he looked a bit over the top

 

I dont agree that it sugggests anything sinister or terrible about him. He was affronted by the audacity of these idiots marching on his friends and colleague and was clearly angered.

 

But whatever she had in mind we wil never know because he prevented it. I dont think thats too bad a thing

[Facecloth]

He's been suspended.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I only speak for myself, nobody else.

 

I've not called for his head or said anything about any punishment. I've only criticised his behaviour. That's what most others have done in this thread.

Since you (implicitly) ask, I'd say that a quick investigation and warning about future conduct might be enough, as he seems to recognise he's messed up. Any repeat and calls for his head would be justified, I think.

Go down that route and next time when its a real lunatic with  perhaps a concealed weapon everyone standing there will do nothing because of fear of losing their jobs.

 

I look at the protestors in hong kong and think, how pathetic our protestors are, ineffective moralistic stances not really fighting anything or putting anything on the line

 

In Hong Kong they have a real issue and are reallg suffering for something worth fighting against

 

We need to get some perspective

 

 

[David Guiza]

Jim Davidson with his finger on the pulse. If the pulse is of a dead, rotting carcass that held bizarre racist, homophobic and sexists views.  

 

A particular highlight is 'a woman MP'.

 

 

 

[Kopfkino]

Chris Davies sacked by a recall petition. Another by election to come in a very marginal Leave-Remain seat that has been LD before so could well put us closer to a general election if the Conservatives were to lose it. 

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Go down that route and next time when its a real lunatic with  perhaps a concealed weapon everyone standing there will do nothing because of fear of losing their jobs.

 

 

I've already said that serious questions should be asked about event security for that very reason - another time it might be a terrorist, not a peaceful, if disruptive protester.

 

I've also already said that I've no problem with him stopping her progress - and fair enough that she had to be removed. But talk of concealed weapons is nonsense. He knew (or assumed) she wasn't dangerous, just disruptive, which is why he didn't pin her arms or fling her to the ground. Everyone else knew or assumed the same, which is why they just sat there, rather than piling in to support him, yelling for security, running away or whatever. He knew or assumed he was dealing with a peaceful protester and chose to frogmarch her out by the neck, despite facing zero resistance. He's recognised that his response to the disruption was disproportionate; hard to see why others can't see that.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

I've already said that serious questions should be asked about event security for that very reason - another time it might be a terrorist, not a peaceful, if disruptive protester.

 

I've also already said that I've no problem with him stopping her progress - and fair enough that she had to be removed. But talk of concealed weapons is nonsense. He knew (or assumed) she wasn't dangerous, just disruptive, which is why he didn't pin her arms or fling her to the ground. Everyone else knew or assumed the same, which is why they just sat there, rather than piling in to support him, yelling for security, running away or whatever. He knew or assumed he was dealing with a peaceful protester and chose to frogmarch her out by the neck, despite facing zero resistance. He's recognised that his response to the disruption was disproportionate; hard to see why others can't see that.

It was disproportionate, no argument here. I just think what he basically did was fine.

 

Dont like the idea that we all have to sit around like statues whilst lunatics run around doing whatever they like

[StanSP]

9 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Dont like the idea that we all have to sit around like statues whilst lunatics run around doing whatever they like

No one is saying that though? 

 

Maybe we don't like people being heavy-handed unnecessarily doing whatever they like 

 

What was wrong with just politely asking her to leave and if she continued to refuse, then step it up a bit? That's neither sitting round like a statue or being violent. Field went straight for the jugular (literally) when I don't think it was necessarily required first off

 

[Facecloth]

 

[Buce]

 

I think it's disturbing the number of people who are equivocal as to how they'd behave when faced with a non-threatening, albeit irritating, woman. Even coming out with the perennial excuses of the wife-beater - "she made him (me) do it", "she asked for it", "she shouldn't have provoked him (me)".

 

 

[Buce]

By-election as petition to recall convicted Tory MP Chris Davies succeeds

A petition to recall the Conservative MP Chris Davies has secured the signatures of more than 10% of registered voters in his Brecon and Radnorshire constituency,
forcing a byelection in which he could stand again.

Residents of the Brecon and Radnorshire constituency had until 5pm on Thursday to sign the petition if they wanted their MP removed after his conviction for submitting fake expenses documents.

The petition was signed by 10,005 people, well above the 10% threshold – 5,303 signatures – needed for a recall.

Davies’ conviction was for submitting fake expenses invoices for nine framed landscape photographs, costing £700, to decorate his office in Builth Wells. He was fined £1,500 and ordered to complete 50 hours of community service.

 

In sentencing in April, the judge, Mr Justice Edis, told Davies: “It seems shocking that when confronted with a simple accounting problem you thought to forge documents. That is an extraordinary thing for a man with your position and your background to do.”

Davies declined to speak to the Guardian this week. In a statement on his website, he calls what he did an “administrative error” and said he had not tried to make any financial gain.

A defeat in the byelection would be a serious blow to the Conservative government, which has a working majority of just six.

A Welsh Labour spokesman said: “The recall result is another huge blow to Chris Davies’ credibility to serve as member of parliament. This is a mess all of his making.

“The Conservatives must not drag their feet. They should listen to the wishes of the voters of Brecon and Radnorshire, call an immediate byelection and let the people hold them to account.”

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

18 minutes ago, StanSP said:

No one is saying that though? 

 

Maybe we don't like people being heavy-handed unnecessarily doing whatever they like 

 

What was wrong with just politely asking her to leave and if she continued to refuse, then step it up a bit? That's neither sitting round like a statue or being violent. Field went straight for the jugular (literally) when I don't think it was necessarily required first off

 

Not an unfair point

 

I will say this, if it had slowly escalated it could have become an awkward struggle leading into a scuffle between the two, could have looked even worse

 

The way he did it kind of ended it then and there

 

It was kind of much though, but i dont think being polite would work, she wasnt being polite