Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
He stopped a protester getting to the top table and potentially assaulting a Cabinet Minister
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
I'd have carried out a citizens arrest and accordingly used reasonable force to remove the threat and in short order transfer the potential attacker from my lawful custody to the first available constable.
I think however that 'using reasonable force' does not include grabbing someone by the neck, which is a very stupid and risky (in all senses of that word) thing to do. It's doubly so given he was not security and had no actual standing in the case. I don't think he'll be charged, because it seems unlikely he would be convicted on this evidence, but I reckon he'll be given a very strong telling off.
At the same time, Greenpeace are a bunch of fat, pompous, hypocritical and often violent toadies who are absolutely unfit to lecture anyone else on violence or over-reaction, so they are unlikely to get much sympathy. Meanwhile Aaron Bastani, who under his real name Aaron Peters has a criminal record for violence and public disorder, is worse.
It wasn’t “grabbing someone by the neck
He held the back of her neck with one hand in the standard method to control movement without injuring someone
I see that Johnny Mercer, Boris’ stooge of the day, said on R4 that you just have to believe in GATT 24 enough and we can use it as a “standstill” agreement.
Mark Carney (I know, noted Remainer and subversive) thinks otherwise.
GATT 24 only applies if an FTA has been agreed by both sides, it does not apply in the event of a No Deal Brexit.
Why is it that so many of our MPs do not understand the basics, 3 years after the referendum?
Because (1) they know the Tory selectorate are stupid, (2) they know that the wider Brexit vote pool is stupid, and (3) at the point where facts become unavoidable they'll just blame Johnny Foreigner for changing the rules
Mark Field is not really my cup of tea, but my sympathies are with him, rather than the tosser he ejected.
I don't see why we have to choose. Surely it's possible to be unimpressed with the behaviour of both.
Agreed.
Indeed, this rush to "oh, you have to choose a side" is frankly sick.
Should the protestor have been there? No. And she should have been escorted from the premises by security. (And possibly charged, if she broke a crime.)
And should Mr Field have grabbed her by the neck, bashed her against the wall, and pushed her out the room? Nope, that neither. If a police officer did that with a peaceful protestor (especially one who hadn't even been ask to "move along" yet), I hope we'd say that excess force was used.
There's no need to take sides here. They both behaved poorly, and requiring that there is some "ranking" is wank.
One of my worries at some of the reaction is that some of the people defending Mark Field are doing so because this was a protestor for a cause they oppose, but if they'd been a protestor for an impeccably right-wing cause then they would have a different view.
That's a deeply worrying sign of the polarisation of our politics.
Thought about that. Nope. If she was campaigning about Hammond's frankly bizarre refusal to allow preparations for a no deal Brexit or failure to address the inconsistencies between IT and NI she would still have deserved to be chucked out.
I think I live a pretty sheltered life but even I have seen vastly more violent confrontations and much greater force used by bouncers, security staff and of course police officers on many occasions.
The protestors were highly disruptive, sounding off foghorns and rape alarms, and trespassing on private property into a private function to which they hadn’t been invited. They were asked to leave and didn’t leave, after they had already disrupted Hammond’s speech.
Mark Field was clearly furious but the way he forcibly escorted her from the building was not assault, was reasonable and was no worse than I’ve seen many security guards, bouncers or police use when escorting people from the premises. It’s now become a meme as people seek to make points about domestic violence, climate change and get one in on the Tories.
Get a grip.
I completely agree. In the light of the milkshake issue and subsequent comments by lefties that they wished it was acid, I think it was completely reasonable. Bottomly was super on the BBC and made a lot of valid points calmly in the face of very aggressive questioning.
I'd have carried out a citizens arrest and accordingly used reasonable force to remove the threat and in short order transfer the potential attacker from my lawful custody to the first available constable.
I think however that 'using reasonable force' does not include grabbing someone by the neck, which is a very stupid and risky (in all senses of that word) thing to do. It's doubly so given he was not security and had no actual standing in the case. I don't think he'll be charged, because it seems unlikely he would be convicted on this evidence, but I reckon he'll be given a very strong telling off.
At the same time, Greenpeace are a bunch of fat, pompous, hypocritical and often violent toadies who are absolutely unfit to lecture anyone else on violence or over-reaction, so they are unlikely to get much sympathy. Meanwhile Aaron Bastani, who under his real name Aaron Peters has a criminal record for violence and public disorder, is worse.
It wasn’t “grabbing someone by the neck
He held the back of her neck with one hand in the standard method to control movement without injuring someone
I'd have carried out a citizens arrest and accordingly used reasonable force to remove the threat and in short order transfer the potential attacker from my lawful custody to the first available constable.
I think however that 'using reasonable force' does not include grabbing someone by the neck, which is a very stupid and risky (in all senses of that word) thing to do. It's doubly so given he was not security and had no actual standing in the case. I don't think he'll be charged, because it seems unlikely he would be convicted on this evidence, but I reckon he'll be given a very strong telling off.
At the same time, Greenpeace are a bunch of fat, pompous, hypocritical and often violent toadies who are absolutely unfit to lecture anyone else on violence or over-reaction, so they are unlikely to get much sympathy. Meanwhile Aaron Bastani, who under his real name Aaron Peters has a criminal record for violence and public disorder, is worse.
It wasn’t “grabbing someone by the neck
He held the back of her neck with one hand in the standard method to control movement without injuring someone
If he had simply stood up between his chair and the pillar she could not have got past.
I see that Johnny Mercer, Boris’ stooge of the day, said on R4 that you just have to believe in GATT 24 enough and we can use it as a “standstill” agreement.
Mark Carney (I know, noted Remainer and subversive) thinks otherwise.
GATT 24 only applies if an FTA has been agreed by both sides, it does not apply in the event of a No Deal Brexit.
Why is it that so many of our MPs do not understand the basics, 3 years after the referendum?
Those MPs, just like the army of ConHome posters behind them, *believe* in ‘no deal’ first, and worry about its implications afterwards, if at all.
It does seem crazy that there in not enough media scrutiny to debunk this nonsense. Being fair to all sides does not mean not challenging and ridiculing the earth being flat.
Does anyone on here believe we will go straight onto GATT24 without EU agreement?
The BBC did a reasonable job on R4 just now. Essentially it would be in the EU’s gift, and not a gift we would be receiving if we had just told them to stick their £39 bn.
Just as in the US, it’s not the reputable media that is the issue, but the lack of cut through to the wider population.
Mark Field is not really my cup of tea, but my sympathies are with him, rather than the tosser he ejected.
I don't see why we have to choose. Surely it's possible to be unimpressed with the behaviour of both.
Agreed.
Indeed, this rush to "oh, you have to choose a side" is frankly sick.
Should the protestor have been there? No. And she should have been escorted from the premises by security. (And possibly charged, if she broke a crime.)
And should Mr Field have grabbed her by the neck, bashed her against the wall, and pushed her out the room? Nope, that neither. If a police officer did that with a peaceful protestor (especially one who hadn't even been ask to "move along" yet), I hope we'd say that excess force was used.
There's no need to take sides here. They both behaved poorly, and requiring that there is some "ranking" is wank.
One of my worries at some of the reaction is that some of the people defending Mark Field are doing so because this was a protestor for a cause they oppose, but if they'd been a protestor for an impeccably right-wing cause then they would have a different view.
That's a deeply worrying sign of the polarisation of our politics.
Thought about that. Nope. If she was campaigning about Hammond's frankly bizarre refusal to allow preparations for a no deal Brexit or failure to address the inconsistencies between IT and NI she would still have deserved to be chucked out.
I think I live a pretty sheltered life but even I have seen vastly more violent confrontations and much greater force used by bouncers, security staff and of course police officers on many occasions.
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
He stopped a protester getting to the top table and potentially assaulting a Cabinet Minister
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
What did he do wrong?
If he didn't do anything wrong, why has he apologised unreservedly?
On topic I can see where Mike is coming from. Although Boris has looked more like he is driving a bulldozer rather than lying in front of one to date it would be surprising if his risk free campaigning was incident free over the next few weeks.
An issue for Hunt is the extent to which he really goes for it. Does he burn all his bridges a la Stewart or does he pull his punches so that he at the very least retains his current post in the new administration? I think he is a naturally cautious individual and will tend to the latter but its amazing how people can persuade themselves that they really are in with a chance.
My recollection of Merton (albeit at parliamentary level) is its one of those marginals that the Tories never quite capture when Kingston and Richmond switch.
It’s obviously not good for the Tories that they lost a slug of Remainer voters (I assume) but I think it’s worse for Labour strategically in that the LDs are continuing to consolidate their position
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
He stopped a protester getting to the top table and potentially assaulting a Cabinet Minister
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
What did he do wrong?
Because his response was disproportionate.
If he actually thought she was going to cause harm, say with a knife, then his failure to even attmept to secure her arms was a life ending mistake.
I don't think he had the mindset of a man throwing his body in the way of a lethal attack.
His actions were the actions a person taking out his frustrations on a defenceless, if a source of annoyance, target.
I see that Johnny Mercer, Boris’ stooge of the day, said on R4 that you just have to believe in GATT 24 enough and we can use it as a “standstill” agreement.
Mark Carney (I know, noted Remainer and subversive) thinks otherwise.
GATT 24 only applies if an FTA has been agreed by both sides, it does not apply in the event of a No Deal Brexit.
Why is it that so many of our MPs do not understand the basics, 3 years after the referendum?
Because (1) they know the Tory selectorate are stupid, (2) they know that the wider Brexit vote pool is stupid, and (3) at the point where facts become unavoidable they'll just blame Johnny Foreigner for changing the rules
Quite. A bit like John Redwood stating that 'business was ready in March'. The Brexiteers can see the finish line, and propaganda + Brexit fatigue will get them there. "Let's go, WTO" was another genius bit of propaganda until Remainers fought to explain the reality of that statement. "GATT 24 - believe in more" might just be the next mindless chant to replace it.
Mark Field is not really my cup of tea, but my sympathies are with him, rather than the tosser he ejected.
I don't see why we have to choose. Surely it's possible to be unimpressed with the behaviour of both.
Agreed.
Indeed, this rush to "oh, you have to choose a side" is frankly sick.
Should the protestor have been there? No. And she should have been escorted from the premises by security. (And possibly charged, if she broke a crime.)
And should Mr Field have grabbed her by the neck, bashed her against the wall, and pushed her out the room? Nope, that neither. If a police officer did that with a peaceful protestor (especially one who hadn't even been ask to "move along" yet), I hope we'd say that excess force was used.
There's no need to take sides here. They both behaved poorly, and requiring that there is some "ranking" is wank.
One of my worries at some of the reaction is that some of the people defending Mark Field are doing so because this was a protestor for a cause they oppose, but if they'd been a protestor for an impeccably right-wing cause then they would have a different view.
That's a deeply worrying sign of the polarisation of our politics.
Thought about that. Nope. If she was campaigning about Hammond's frankly bizarre refusal to allow preparations for a no deal Brexit or failure to address the inconsistencies between IT and NI she would still have deserved to be chucked out.
I think I live a pretty sheltered life but even I have seen vastly more violent confrontations and much greater force used by bouncers, security staff and of course police officers on many occasions.
But they weren't MPs.
Nor were they lawbreakers (in the main). I am with Charles, I am just not seeing this. Do we want our politicians to be human beings or not?
Incidentally the Field/protester incident has distracted a bit from what the diners were there to hear. It was quite a bold speech for a fairly reticent Chancellor.
Mark Field is not really my cup of tea, but my sympathies are with him, rather than the tosser he ejected.
I don't see why we have to choose. Surely it's possible to be unimpressed with the behaviour of both.
Agreed.
Indeed, this rush to "oh, you have to choose a side" is frankly sick.
Should the protestor have been there? No. And she should have been escorted from the premises by security. (And possibly charged, if she broke a crime.)
And should Mr Field have grabbed her by the neck, bashed her against the wall, and pushed her out the room? Nope, that neither. If a police officer did that with a peaceful protestor (especially one who hadn't even been ask to "move along" yet), I hope we'd say that excess force was used.
There's no need to take sides here. They both behaved poorly, and requiring that there is some "ranking" is wank.
One of my worries at some of the reaction is that some of the people defending Mark Field are doing so because this was a protestor for a cause they oppose, but if they'd been a protestor for an impeccably right-wing cause then they would have a different view.
That's a deeply worrying sign of the polarisation of our politics.
Yes, consider if that was an anti-semitism protest at a Labour party function. Would they interpret events the same?
Fact no longer matters. Nor objectivity. The milkshake thing - the same people deeply traumatised by Jo Cox are defending the milkshaking of "fascists". The people very angry about assault by milkshake are upset by suggestions that assaulting a woman in a sash isn't ok.
It is fundamentally wrong to assault or abuse any politician whatever they are saying. We either protect free speech or we have none. We either allow peaceful protest or we have none. The memory that this incident has stirred up for me is Walter Wolfgang being dragged out of the Labour conference for heckling Jack Straw.Exactly the same optic - how DARE you be here peacefully protesting, the punishment is over the top removal.
Mark Field should be applauded for his safety first approach.
The vile ill mannered slatterns spoiling a nice dinner to make selfish virtue signalling demonstrations.
Jail the lot of them.
That's 'ironic', right?
A plague on both their houses.
Who would want a dinner ruined by listening to Hammond ?
But those Greenpeace harpies can get in Rory’s bin too - attention seeking puritan bores.
Correct, they are attention seeking. It's because they want something more done about Climate Change. One could say that is an important subject, sorry if you're bored.
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
He stopped a protester getting to the top table and potentially assaulting a Cabinet Minister
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
What did he do wrong?
Because his response was disproportionate.
If he actually thought she was going to cause harm, say with a knife, then his failure to even attmept to secure her arms was a life ending mistake.
I don't think he had the mindset of a man throwing his body in the way of a lethal attack.
His actions were the actions a person taking out his frustrations on a defenceless, if a source of annoyance, target.
Yes, as a leading politician he would have been better to have kept out of it, or blocked her and wait for help. As City of London MP he probably felt on home turf and overly offended. And had probably drunk a reasonable amount - I’ve been to one of those dinners and it isn’t difficult.
On topic, I’ve seen flashes of engagement and competence by Hunt in debate but no real charisma. So I’m really hoping for a Boris embarrassment or blow up to trade.
That said, now Tory members have a real choice, I do expect a slight narrowing in Hunt’s favour of what were hitherto hypothetical numbers.
On topic I can see where Mike is coming from. Although Boris has looked more like he is driving a bulldozer rather than lying in front of one to date it would be surprising if his risk free campaigning was incident free over the next few weeks.
An issue for Hunt is the extent to which he really goes for it. Does he burn all his bridges a la Stewart or does he pull his punches so that he at the very least retains his current post in the new administration? I think he is a naturally cautious individual and will tend to the latter but its amazing how people can persuade themselves that they really are in with a chance.
A big gaffe from Boris and he may be in with a chance.
Incidentally the Field/protester incident has distracted a bit from what the diners were there to hear. It was quite a bold speech for a fairly reticent Chancellor.
Given our lax standards and tolerance of incompetence he will probably not face charges of malfeasance in a public office but he certainly has more of a case to answer than Mr Field.
That video has been viewed over a million times already. You’d have thought the spokesman on the radio would have accounted for at least one of them.
Probably
But if he’d admitted it he’d have had to talk about it. “I haven’t seen it, can’t comment” is a get out of jail card
It sounds weaselly. Because it is weaselly. If Johnny Mercer is happy to sound weaselly, he's welcome to stick to that line. But at some point he's going to have to Netflix and chill, then form an opinion.
I'd have carried out a citizens arrest and accordingly used reasonable force to remove the threat and in short order transfer the potential attacker from my lawful custody to the first available constable.
I think however that 'using reasonable force' does not include grabbing someone by the neck, which is a very stupid and risky (in all senses of that word) thing to do. It's doubly so given he was not security and had no actual standing in the case. I don't think he'll be charged, because it seems unlikely he would be convicted on this evidence, but I reckon he'll be given a very strong telling off.
At the same time, Greenpeace are a bunch of fat, pompous, hypocritical and often violent toadies who are absolutely unfit to lecture anyone else on violence or over-reaction, so they are unlikely to get much sympathy. Meanwhile Aaron Bastani, who under his real name Aaron Peters has a criminal record for violence and public disorder, is worse.
It wasn’t “grabbing someone by the neck
He held the back of her neck with one hand in the standard method to control movement without injuring someone
I'd have carried out a citizens arrest and accordingly used reasonable force to remove the threat and in short order transfer the potential attacker from my lawful custody to the first available constable.
I think however that 'using reasonable force' does not include grabbing someone by the neck, which is a very stupid and risky (in all senses of that word) thing to do. It's doubly so given he was not security and had no actual standing in the case. I don't think he'll be charged, because it seems unlikely he would be convicted on this evidence, but I reckon he'll be given a very strong telling off.
At the same time, Greenpeace are a bunch of fat, pompous, hypocritical and often violent toadies who are absolutely unfit to lecture anyone else on violence or over-reaction, so they are unlikely to get much sympathy. Meanwhile Aaron Bastani, who under his real name Aaron Peters has a criminal record for violence and public disorder, is worse.
It wasn’t “grabbing someone by the neck
He held the back of her neck with one hand in the standard method to control movement without injuring someone
If he had simply stood up between his chair and the pillar she could not have got past.
Yes, but escorting someone from the premise is reasonable
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
He stopped a protester getting to the top table and potentially assaulting a Cabinet Minister
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
What did he do wrong?
If he didn't do anything wrong, why has he apologised unreservedly?
If you think that was politely....!
Because he’s trying to make a political issue go away
On topic I can see where Mike is coming from. Although Boris has looked more like he is driving a bulldozer rather than lying in front of one to date it would be surprising if his risk free campaigning was incident free over the next few weeks.
An issue for Hunt is the extent to which he really goes for it. Does he burn all his bridges a la Stewart or does he pull his punches so that he at the very least retains his current post in the new administration? I think he is a naturally cautious individual and will tend to the latter but its amazing how people can persuade themselves that they really are in with a chance.
A big gaffe from Boris and he may be in with a chance.
To be honest I doubt it. There is so much already baked in for Boris. But the market may well react giving Mike a chance to trade.
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
He stopped a protester getting to the top table and potentially assaulting a Cabinet Minister
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
What did he do wrong?
Because his response was disproportionate.
If he actually thought she was going to cause harm, say with a knife, then his failure to even attmept to secure her arms was a life ending mistake.
I don't think he had the mindset of a man throwing his body in the way of a lethal attack.
His actions were the actions a person taking out his frustrations on a defenceless, if a source of annoyance, target.
Yes, as a leading politician he would have been better to have kept out of it, or blocked her and wait for help. As City of London MP he probably felt on home turf and overly offended. And had probably drunk a reasonable amount - I’ve been to one of those dinners and it isn’t difficult.
I'm just amazed that people purport not to see anything wrong with what he did.
People can argue that there's an over-reaction if they like, but to portray him as a sort of "Have-a-go Hero" is crazy.
She was in the wrong. I'm utterly pi**ed off with the way some people think they can use this sort of stunt to achieve their political objectives - especially when they're already mostly achieving those aims through normal means. Politics is becoming increasingly polarised, and I fear it will not be long before we see another tragic cox-style event.
He was in the wrong. He utterly over-reacted, and it's horrible optics. He should not have reacted that way - although I do have some sympathy for him.
As for the commenters:. I'm amused by the ones who focus on the fact that he assaulted a woman. In these days of equality, it shouldn't really matter. She felt she was strong enough to do this stunt; she should have understood that there was a chance she might be forcibly ejected by security (if not by an MP). If you truly believe in equality, then her being a woman makes f-all difference, and it should be just as shocking if Field had assaulted a male protester in that manner.
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
He stopped a protester getting to the top table and potentially assaulting a Cabinet Minister
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
What did he do wrong?
Because his response was disproportionate.
If he actually thought she was going to cause harm, say with a knife, then his failure to even attmept to secure her arms was a life ending mistake.
I don't think he had the mindset of a man throwing his body in the way of a lethal attack.
His actions were the actions a person taking out his frustrations on a defenceless, if a source of annoyance, target.
He intervened and escorted someone from the site without striking her.
Everything else you have stated is pure supposition
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
He stopped a protester getting to the top table and potentially assaulting a Cabinet Minister
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
What did he do wrong?
Because his response was disproportionate.
If he actually thought she was going to cause harm, say with a knife, then his failure to even attmept to secure her arms was a life ending mistake.
I don't think he had the mindset of a man throwing his body in the way of a lethal attack.
His actions were the actions a person taking out his frustrations on a defenceless, if a source of annoyance, target.
Yes, as a leading politician he would have been better to have kept out of it, or blocked her and wait for help. As City of London MP he probably felt on home turf and overly offended. And had probably drunk a reasonable amount - I’ve been to one of those dinners and it isn’t difficult.
I'm just amazed that people purport not to see anything wrong with what he did.
People can argue that there's an over-reaction if they like, but to portray him as a sort of "Have-a-go Hero" is crazy.
And to portray her as a defenceless victim is also a little off.
I'd have carried out a citizens arrest and accordingly used reasonable force to remove the threat and in short order transfer the potential attacker from my lawful custody to the first available constable.
I think however that 'using reasonable force' does not include grabbing someone by the neck, which is a very stupid and risky (in all senses of that word) thing to do. It's doubly so given he was not security and had no actual standing in the case. I don't think he'll be charged, because it seems unlikely he would be convicted on this evidence, but I reckon he'll be given a very strong telling off.
It wasn’t “grabbing someone by the neck
He held the back of her neck with one hand in the standard method to control movement without injuring someone
I'd have carried out a citizens arrest and accordingly used reasonable force to remove the threat and in short order transfer the potential attacker from my lawful custody to the first available constable.
I think however that 'using reasonable force' does not include grabbing someone by the neck, which is a very stupid and risky (in all senses of that word) thing to do. It's doubly so given he was not security and had no actual standing in the case. I don't think he'll be charged, because it seems unlikely he would be convicted on this evidence, but I reckon he'll be given a very strong telling off.
At the same time, Greenpeace are a bunch of fat, pompous, hypocritical and often violent toadies who are absolutely unfit to lecture anyone else on violence or over-reaction, so they are unlikely to get much sympathy. Meanwhile Aaron Bastani, who under his real name Aaron Peters has a criminal record for violence and public disorder, is worse.
It wasn’t “grabbing someone by the neck
He held the back of her neck with one hand in the standard method to control movement without injuring someone
If he had simply stood up between his chair and the pillar she could not have got past.
Yes, but escorting someone from the premise is reasonable
If you watch the BBC video you will see plenty of other protesters being escorted from the premises in a much more reasonable manner, he could have done the same but chose not to. This is not the crime of the century, probably not any crime, but what he did was at the least rude, risky and completely unnecessary.
On topic, I’ve seen flashes of engagement and competence by Hunt in debate but no real charisma. So I’m really hoping for a Boris embarrassment or blow up to trade.
That said, now Tory members have a real choice, I do expect a slight narrowing in Hunt’s favour of what were hitherto hypothetical numbers.
Why lay 1.09 when you can back Hunt at 14?
Is it better to effectively back ‘Anyone but Boris’ at 12 rather than the only other candidate left standing at 14?
That video has been viewed over a million times already. You’d have thought the spokesman on the radio would have accounted for at least one of them.
Probably
But if he’d admitted it he’d have had to talk about it. “I haven’t seen it, can’t comment” is a get out of jail card
It sounds weaselly. Because it is weaselly. If Johnny Mercer is happy to sound weaselly, he's welcome to stick to that line. But at some point he's going to have to Netflix and chill, then form an opinion.
Yes but he got away with it and it won’t change peoples’ opinion of him
She was in the wrong. I'm utterly pi**ed off with the way some people think they can use this sort of stunt to achieve their political objectives - especially when they're already mostly achieving those aims through normal means. Politics is becoming increasingly polarised, and I fear it will not be long before we see another tragic cox-style event.
He was in the wrong. He utterly over-reacted, and it's horrible optics. He should not have reacted that way - although I do have some sympathy for him.
As for the commenters:. I'm amused by the ones who focus on the fact that he assaulted a woman. In these days of equality, it shouldn't really matter. She felt she was strong enough to do this stunt; she should have understood that there was a chance she might be forcibly ejected by security (if not by an MP). If you truly believe in equality, then her being a woman makes f-all difference, and it should be just as shocking if Field had assaulted a male protester in that manner.
Oh, come off it. The reason it was more shocking than if it had been a man is the same reason we don't have mixed boxing matches!
If there is a by-election then expect Hunt & Johnson to make sure they are seen to be campaigning there.
They can split their time with the Field by election. (Actually I suspect he'll have the whip withdrawn to see if any legal consequences play out, so no by election just yet).
On topic, I’ve seen flashes of engagement and competence by Hunt in debate but no real charisma. So I’m really hoping for a Boris embarrassment or blow up to trade.
That said, now Tory members have a real choice, I do expect a slight narrowing in Hunt’s favour of what were hitherto hypothetical numbers.
Why lay 1.09 when you can back Hunt at 14?
Is it better to effectively back ‘Anyone but Boris’ at 12 rather than the only other candidate left standing at 14?
I’m interested in neither bet. I still think it’s nigh-on inevitable Boris wins.
What I want is for Boris’s odds to lengthen after a poll showing a much closer race, for instance, so I can reback at better odds.
One of my worries at some of the reaction is that some of the people defending Mark Field are doing so because this was a protestor for a cause they oppose, but if they'd been a protestor for an impeccably right-wing cause then they would have a different view.
That's a deeply worrying sign of the polarisation of our politics.
Yes, quite a lot the comments on both sides are coloured by underlying views of the people involved, and they really shouldn't be - credit to Byronic, who is impeccably right-wing but condemned Field, and IanB2, a LibDem but nuanced about it.
The point that he looks motivated by anger rather than fear is relevant, I think - there's a difference between looking round for security and stepping up to restrain someone threatening in its absence and indignantly thinking "I'm not having this, dammit" about a clearly unthreatening protestor trying to read out a statement. Compare with Rees-Mogg, widely-praised for his calm response to hostile heckling. At a political level, the optics are just terrible.
I go to a fair number of events with high-profile people - the default is a check on identity when you go in, but no noticeable security in the room itself - Michael Gove regularly meets people from across the environmental spectrum without feeling the need to have us searched for weapons or otherwise guarded. There's a reasonable question about how the protestors got access in this case. But Field is not a bouncer or a security guard and he shouldn't attempt to become one without training in appropriate use of force. I don't think he needs to resign his seat, but a pause for reflection on the back-benches seems reasonable.
Mark Field is not really my cup of tea, but my sympathies are with him, rather than the tosser he ejected.
I don't see why we have to choose. Surely it's possible to be unimpressed with the behaviour of both.
Agreed.
Indeed, this rush to "oh, you have to choose a side" is frankly sick.
Should the protestor have been there? No. And she should have been escorted from the premises by security. (And possibly charged, if she broke a crime.)
And should Mr Field have grabbed her by the neck, bashed her against the wall, and pushed her out the room? Nope, that neither. If a police officer did that with a peaceful protestor (especially one who hadn't even been ask to "move along" yet), I hope we'd say that excess force was used.
There's no need to take sides here. They both behaved poorly, and requiring that there is some "ranking" is wank.
One of my worries at some of the reaction is that some of the people defending Mark Field are doing so because this was a protestor for a cause they oppose, but if they'd been a protestor for an impeccably right-wing cause then they would have a different view.
That's a deeply worrying sign of the polarisation of our politics.
Thought about that. Nope. If she was campaigning about Hammond's frankly bizarre refusal to allow preparations for a no deal Brexit or failure to address the inconsistencies between IT and NI she would still have deserved to be chucked out.
I think I live a pretty sheltered life but even I have seen vastly more violent confrontations and much greater force used by bouncers, security staff and of course police officers on many occasions.
He still didn't need to do it and while you're right many a protestor would have been handled rougher by security staff it was an unnecessary reaction. There are defences, but the optics and the the timing make it even harder than it already would have been, and the reaction of most defenders last night to deflect the discussion to how annoying protestors are, as if that's relevant, show the lame arguments he will try.
Protestors are often annoying and being turfed out is a reasonable reaction. Him doing it in that manner was unnecessary. Though some are going too far, one last night saying it showed him beating a protestor.
Field isn't going to lose his ministerial job, let alone his seat over this. It probably won't do much political harm either - most people's views will be informed by their pre-existing preferences, a few will be appalled, a few will be impressed.
But the reaction from some on here is utterly ludicrous. Field himself has apologised, and it was plainly an over-reaction (probably lubricated by a couple of glasses of wine) to what was perfectly obviously a peaceful protest.
Wannabee Jason Bournes are talking like it's a new ISIS tactic to deploy women in red evening gowns, wearing climate change sashes, and that people in that room feared for their lives. Nobody reasonably feared anything more than a slight delay to the cheese course.
I hope Greenpeace will be crediting the Conservative-led administration since 2010 in reducing coal fired power generation from over 25% of electricity output to zero.
Incidentally the Field/protester incident has distracted a bit from what the diners were there to hear. It was quite a bold speech for a fairly reticent Chancellor.
Given our lax standards and tolerance of incompetence he will probably not face charges of malfeasance in a public office but he certainly has more of a case to answer than Mr Field.
No, Boris will almost certainly get away with his time at the FO.
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
He stopped a protester getting to the top table and potentially assaulting a Cabinet Minister
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
What did he do wrong?
Because his response was disproportionate.
If he actually thought she was going to cause harm, say with a knife, then his failure to even attmept to secure her arms was a life ending mistake.
I don't think he had the mindset of a man throwing his body in the way of a lethal attack.
His actions were the actions a person taking out his frustrations on a defenceless, if a source of annoyance, target.
He intervened and escorted someone from the site without striking her.
Everything else you have stated is pure supposition
He grabbed her by the neck with securing her arms. The only way that technique could possibly work, despite breing painful, is against a non violent person.
On topic I can see where Mike is coming from. Although Boris has looked more like he is driving a bulldozer rather than lying in front of one to date it would be surprising if his risk free campaigning was incident free over the next few weeks.
An issue for Hunt is the extent to which he really goes for it. Does he burn all his bridges a la Stewart or does he pull his punches so that he at the very least retains his current post in the new administration? I think he is a naturally cautious individual and will tend to the latter but its amazing how people can persuade themselves that they really are in with a chance.
A big gaffe from Boris and he may be in with a chance.
To be honest I doubt it. There is so much already baked in for Boris. But the market may well react giving Mike a chance to trade.
I am on the same trade and hope so. Hunt's already shaded in 0.5. At the very least there will be other punters thinking the same, willing to back an outsider on the offchance.
Field isn't going to lose his ministerial job, let alone his seat over this. It probably won't do much political harm either - most people's views will be informed by their pre-existing preferences, a few will be appalled, a few will be impressed.
But the reaction from some on here is utterly ludicrous. Field himself has apologised, and it was plainly an over-reaction (probably lubricated by a couple of glasses of wine) to what was perfectly obviously a peaceful protest.
Wannabee Jason Bournes are talking like it's a new ISIS tactic to deploy women in red evening gowns, wearing climate change sashes, and that people in that room feared for their lives. Nobody reasonably feared anything more than a slight delay to the cheese course.
I would agree with that. It was the proposition that he might face criminal charges I was finding ludicrous. What he did was unwise, intemperate and inappropriate. Nothing more, nothing less.
Boris will be triumphant. Hunt just comes across as Theresa’s eldest son, and his former support for EU membership will hang like a putrid albatross around his neck.
She was in the wrong. I'm utterly pi**ed off with the way some people think they can use this sort of stunt to achieve their political objectives - especially when they're already mostly achieving those aims through normal means. Politics is becoming increasingly polarised, and I fear it will not be long before we see another tragic cox-style event.
He was in the wrong. He utterly over-reacted, and it's horrible optics. He should not have reacted that way - although I do have some sympathy for him.
As for the commenters:. I'm amused by the ones who focus on the fact that he assaulted a woman. In these days of equality, it shouldn't really matter. She felt she was strong enough to do this stunt; she should have understood that there was a chance she might be forcibly ejected by security (if not by an MP). If you truly believe in equality, then her being a woman makes f-all difference, and it should be just as shocking if Field had assaulted a male protester in that manner.
"in these days of equality" and yet most of the guests appear to be men.
to really do a role-reversal thought experiment you have to imagine an event where the main speaker is a woman, most of the guests are women, the protester is a man and he is assaulted by a female MP, in a fantasy world where 80% of conservative MPs are women.
On topic, I’ve seen flashes of engagement and competence by Hunt in debate but no real charisma. So I’m really hoping for a Boris embarrassment or blow up to trade.
That said, now Tory members have a real choice, I do expect a slight narrowing in Hunt’s favour of what were hitherto hypothetical numbers.
Why lay 1.09 when you can back Hunt at 14?
Is it better to effectively back ‘Anyone but Boris’ at 12 rather than the only other candidate left standing at 14?
I’m interested in neither bet. I still think it’s nigh-on inevitable Boris wins.
What I want is for Boris’s odds to lengthen after a poll showing a much closer race, for instance, so I can reback at better odds.
I don’t think you understand the point I am trying to make. Why lay 1.09 (which is backing Hunt at 12, unless you think someone else might win) when Hunt is 14?
On topic, I’ve seen flashes of engagement and competence by Hunt in debate but no real charisma. So I’m really hoping for a Boris embarrassment or blow up to trade.
That said, now Tory members have a real choice, I do expect a slight narrowing in Hunt’s favour of what were hitherto hypothetical numbers.
Why lay 1.09 when you can back Hunt at 14?
Is it better to effectively back ‘Anyone but Boris’ at 12 rather than the only other candidate left standing at 14?
I’m interested in neither bet. I still think it’s nigh-on inevitable Boris wins.
What I want is for Boris’s odds to lengthen after a poll showing a much closer race, for instance, so I can reback at better odds.
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
He stopped a protester getting to the top table and potentially assaulting a Cabinet Minister
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
What did he do wrong?
Because his response was disproportionate.
If he actually thought she was going to cause harm, say with a knife, then his failure to even attmept to secure her arms was a life ending mistake.
I don't think he had the mindset of a man throwing his body in the way of a lethal attack.
His actions were the actions a person taking out his frustrations on a defenceless, if a source of annoyance, target.
He intervened and escorted someone from the site without striking her.
Everything else you have stated is pure supposition
He grabbed her by the neck with securing her arms. The only way that technique could possibly work, despite breing painful, is against a non violent person.
Exactly, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that his initial reaction was from thinking the woman was some kind of immediate danger, it must have been obvious within 2 seconds that she wasn't, at which point he should have taken his hands off.
I hope Greenpeace will be crediting the Conservative-led administration since 2010 in reducing coal fired power generation from over 25% of electricity output to zero.
I’ll wait..
The work of Ed Davey as Secretary of State for Environment and Climate Change in the Coalition...
One thing that impressed me with Davey was his track record at getting these things agreed and signed off.
On topic, I’ve seen flashes of engagement and competence by Hunt in debate but no real charisma. So I’m really hoping for a Boris embarrassment or blow up to trade.
That said, now Tory members have a real choice, I do expect a slight narrowing in Hunt’s favour of what were hitherto hypothetical numbers.
Why lay 1.09 when you can back Hunt at 14?
Is it better to effectively back ‘Anyone but Boris’ at 12 rather than the only other candidate left standing at 14?
I’m interested in neither bet. I still think it’s nigh-on inevitable Boris wins.
What I want is for Boris’s odds to lengthen after a poll showing a much closer race, for instance, so I can reback at better odds.
I don’t think you understand the point I am trying to make. Why lay 1.09 (which is backing Hunt at 12, unless you think someone else might win) when Hunt is 14?
Its a small anomaly (now 1.09 plays 1.135). Since it's a trading bet, not one to hold to the end, your argument works but only if the anomaly unwinds.
Mark Field is not really my cup of tea, but my sympathies are with him, rather than the tosser he ejected.
I don't see why we have to choose. Surely it's possible to be unimpressed with the behaviour of both.
Agreed.
Indeed, this rush to "oh, you have to choose a side" is frankly sick.
Should the protestor have been there? No. And she should have been escorted from the premises by security. (And possibly charged, if she broke a crime.)
And should Mr Field have grabbed her by the neck, bashed her against the wall, and pushed her out the room? Nope, that neither. If a police officer did that with a peaceful protestor (especially one who hadn't even been ask to "move along" yet), I hope we'd say that excess force was used.
There's no need to take sides here. They both behaved poorly, and requiring that there is some "ranking" is wank.
One of my worries at some of the reaction is that some of the people defending Mark Field are doing so because this was a protestor for a cause they oppose, but if they'd been a protestor for an impeccably right-wing cause then they would have a different view.
That's a deeply worrying sign of the polarisation of our politics.
And of course the opposite applies.
How many PBers defended attacks on Farage for example.
I hope Greenpeace will be crediting the Conservative-led administration since 2010 in reducing coal fired power generation from over 25% of electricity output to zero.
I’ll wait..
The work of Ed Davey as Secretary of State for Environment and Climate Change in the Coalition...
One thing that impressed me with Davey was his track record at getting these things agreed and signed off.
The extent to which the Tories now claim credit for the LibDem achievements during coalition - reorienting tax policy toward the lower paid, pupil premium, equal marriage, significant progress on the environment - is remarkable.
She was in the wrong. I'm utterly pi**ed off with the way some people think they can use this sort of stunt to achieve their political objectives - especially when they're already mostly achieving those aims through normal means. Politics is becoming increasingly polarised, and I fear it will not be long before we see another tragic cox-style event.
He was in the wrong. He utterly over-reacted, and it's horrible optics. He should not have reacted that way - although I do have some sympathy for him.
As for the commenters:. I'm amused by the ones who focus on the fact that he assaulted a woman. In these days of equality, it shouldn't really matter. She felt she was strong enough to do this stunt; she should have understood that there was a chance she might be forcibly ejected by security (if not by an MP). If you truly believe in equality, then her being a woman makes f-all difference, and it should be just as shocking if Field had assaulted a male protester in that manner.
"in these days of equality" and yet most of the guests appear to be men.
to really do a role-reversal thought experiment you have to imagine an event where the main speaker is a woman, most of the guests are women, the protester is a man and he is assaulted by a female MP, in a fantasy world where 80% of conservative MPs are women.
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. Field's actions should be seen as equally bad if performed against a man or a woman in that particular situation.
Mark Field is not really my cup of tea, but my sympathies are with him, rather than the tosser he ejected.
I don't see why we have to choose. Surely it's possible to be unimpressed with the behaviour of both.
Agreed.
Indeed, this rush to "oh, you have to choose a side" is frankly sick.
Should the protestor have been there? No. And she should have been escorted from the premises by security. (And possibly charged, if she broke a crime.)
And should Mr Field have grabbed her by the neck, bashed her against the wall, and pushed her out the room? Nope, that neither. If a police officer did that with a peaceful protestor (especially one who hadn't even been ask to "move along" yet), I hope we'd say that excess force was used.
There's no need to take sides here. They both behaved poorly, and requiring that there is some "ranking" is wank.
One of my worries at some of the reaction is that some of the people defending Mark Field are doing so because this was a protestor for a cause they oppose, but if they'd been a protestor for an impeccably right-wing cause then they would have a different view.
That's a deeply worrying sign of the polarisation of our politics.
And of course the opposite applies.
How many PBers defended attacks on Farage for example.
Field isn't going to lose his ministerial job, let alone his seat over this. It probably won't do much political harm either - most people's views will be informed by their pre-existing preferences, a few will be appalled, a few will be impressed.
But the reaction from some on here is utterly ludicrous. Field himself has apologised, and it was plainly an over-reaction (probably lubricated by a couple of glasses of wine) to what was perfectly obviously a peaceful protest.
Wannabee Jason Bournes are talking like it's a new ISIS tactic to deploy women in red evening gowns, wearing climate change sashes, and that people in that room feared for their lives. Nobody reasonably feared anything more than a slight delay to the cheese course.
I would agree with that. It was the proposition that he might face criminal charges I was finding ludicrous. What he did was unwise, intemperate and inappropriate. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, I very much doubt he'd be charged over it. He'll claim it was a somewhat inept response (which it was) to a situation he'd wrongly but genuinely read as more serious than it actually was (which I'm sceptical about but is hard to prove one way or the other). Given the standard of proof in a criminal case, there's little real prospect of a conviction, and there are therefore unlikely to be charges.
On topic, I’ve seen flashes of engagement and competence by Hunt in debate but no real charisma. So I’m really hoping for a Boris embarrassment or blow up to trade.
That said, now Tory members have a real choice, I do expect a slight narrowing in Hunt’s favour of what were hitherto hypothetical numbers.
Why lay 1.09 when you can back Hunt at 14?
Is it better to effectively back ‘Anyone but Boris’ at 12 rather than the only other candidate left standing at 14?
I’m interested in neither bet. I still think it’s nigh-on inevitable Boris wins.
What I want is for Boris’s odds to lengthen after a poll showing a much closer race, for instance, so I can reback at better odds.
I don’t think you understand the point I am trying to make. Why lay 1.09 (which is backing Hunt at 12, unless you think someone else might win) when Hunt is 14?
On topic, I’ve seen flashes of engagement and competence by Hunt in debate but no real charisma. So I’m really hoping for a Boris embarrassment or blow up to trade.
That said, now Tory members have a real choice, I do expect a slight narrowing in Hunt’s favour of what were hitherto hypothetical numbers.
Why lay 1.09 when you can back Hunt at 14?
Is it better to effectively back ‘Anyone but Boris’ at 12 rather than the only other candidate left standing at 14?
I’m interested in neither bet. I still think it’s nigh-on inevitable Boris wins.
What I want is for Boris’s odds to lengthen after a poll showing a much closer race, for instance, so I can reback at better odds.
I don’t think you understand the point I am trying to make. Why lay 1.09 (which is backing Hunt at 12, unless you think someone else might win) when Hunt is 14?
Its a small anomaly (now 1.09 plays 1.135). Since it's a trading bet, not one to hold to the end, your argument works but only if the anomaly unwinds.
Why take worse odds when you can take better?
Lay Boris at 1.09 for £100 and you win £100 or lose £9, back Hunt at 14 for £7.70 and you win £100 or lose £7.70.
Unless you think someone other than Hunt or Boris will win, it’s complete madness
Now now Sam knife crime isnt important any more were climate changing, Much better to have the plods tied up with self important activists than stopping deaths by stabbing
Black lives matter but not quite as much as middle class activists
Remember David Davis actually beat Cameron in the 2005 TV debate but still only got a third of the vote.
The momentum is all with Boris, all Hunt can really do is try and make it a contest and avoid a crushing Boris landslide, there is no way the Tory membership will pick another Remainer over a Leaver after May
On topic, I’ve seen flashes of engagement and competence by Hunt in debate but no real charisma. So I’m really hoping for a Boris embarrassment or blow up to trade.
That said, now Tory members have a real choice, I do expect a slight narrowing in Hunt’s favour of what were hitherto hypothetical numbers.
Why lay 1.09 when you can back Hunt at 14?
Is it better to effectively back ‘Anyone but Boris’ at 12 rather than the only other candidate left standing at 14?
I’m interested in neither bet. I still think it’s nigh-on inevitable Boris wins.
What I want is for Boris’s odds to lengthen after a poll showing a much closer race, for instance, so I can reback at better odds.
But that's the point of making the bet!
Eh? I want to improve my profit on Boris.
Current odds, given the potential impact of events, don’t attract me so I’m keeping my book as it is, watching and waiting.
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
I think the Twateratti and allies may find Field enjoys more support than they think.
If you disrupt an official function and attempt to confront a government minister, causing a breach of the peace, you may find yourself at the thick end of a robust response. I'd have carried out a citizens arrest and accordingly used reasonable force to remove the threat and in short order transfer the potential attacker from my lawful custody to the first available constable.
Let us also reflect that if this woman was a rogue protester and the Chancellor had been seriously injured or killed we would all be reflecting on the shocking security shortcomings or why someone close to Hammond hadn't intervened.
Some in government should have Field's back, it could have been the Chancellor's back with a knife in it, lord knows we've seen plenty of political stabbing this week.
What is the crown court offence offence you think she was carrying out?
Breach of the peace :
It is now widely accepted that an appropriate definition can be obtained from the 1981 case, R v. Howell. This case led to the definition of breach of the peace :
When a person reasonably believes harm will be caused, or is likely to be caused, to a person or in his presence to his property, or a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance".
Every citizen in the country, not just the police, have the authority to stop or prevent acts that would breach the peace. For an arrest for suspected breach of the peace to be considered as lawful, it must be demonstrated that the threat of a breach was imminent.
If any diners really want to take on the protestors, they should sue them for assault.
The use of air horns in a confined space is quite likely to have resulted in hearing damage to anyone in close proximity. A quick trip to the GP claiming tinnitus would provide supporting evidence.
Field isn't going to lose his ministerial job, let alone his seat over this. It probably won't do much political harm either - most people's views will be informed by their pre-existing preferences, a few will be appalled, a few will be impressed.
But the reaction from some on here is utterly ludicrous. Field himself has apologised, and it was plainly an over-reaction (probably lubricated by a couple of glasses of wine) to what was perfectly obviously a peaceful protest.
Wannabee Jason Bournes are talking like it's a new ISIS tactic to deploy women in red evening gowns, wearing climate change sashes, and that people in that room feared for their lives. Nobody reasonably feared anything more than a slight delay to the cheese course.
I would agree with that. It was the proposition that he might face criminal charges I was finding ludicrous. What he did was unwise, intemperate and inappropriate. Nothing more, nothing less.
But PB needs to have Westminster by-elections and any prospect of one should be encouraged.
I hope Greenpeace will be crediting the Conservative-led administration since 2010 in reducing coal fired power generation from over 25% of electricity output to zero.
I’ll wait..
The work of Ed Davey as Secretary of State for Environment and Climate Change in the Coalition...
One thing that impressed me with Davey was his track record at getting these things agreed and signed off.
But supported by a Conservative PM and Chancellor and continued by a Tory SoS post 2015. And advocation for zero carbon solutions like Hinckley (yet to come online) was led by George Osborne.
The Conservative record on the environment is a laudable one.
On topic, I’ve seen flashes of engagement and competence by Hunt in debate but no real charisma. So I’m really hoping for a Boris embarrassment or blow up to trade.
That said, now Tory members have a real choice, I do expect a slight narrowing in Hunt’s favour of what were hitherto hypothetical numbers.
Why lay 1.09 when you can back Hunt at 14?
Is it better to effectively back ‘Anyone but Boris’ at 12 rather than the only other candidate left standing at 14?
I don’t trade in better but I assume the “boris” market could be more liquid?
On topic, I’ve seen flashes of engagement and competence by Hunt in debate but no real charisma. So I’m really hoping for a Boris embarrassment or blow up to trade.
That said, now Tory members have a real choice, I do expect a slight narrowing in Hunt’s favour of what were hitherto hypothetical numbers.
Why lay 1.09 when you can back Hunt at 14?
Is it better to effectively back ‘Anyone but Boris’ at 12 rather than the only other candidate left standing at 14?
I’m interested in neither bet. I still think it’s nigh-on inevitable Boris wins.
What I want is for Boris’s odds to lengthen after a poll showing a much closer race, for instance, so I can reback at better odds.
I don’t think you understand the point I am trying to make. Why lay 1.09 (which is backing Hunt at 12, unless you think someone else might win) when Hunt is 14?
Its a small anomaly (now 1.09 plays 1.135). Since it's a trading bet, not one to hold to the end, your argument works but only if the anomaly unwinds.
Why take worse odds when you can take better?
Lay Boris at 1.09 for £100 and you win £100 or lose £9, back Hunt at 14 for £7.70 and you win £100 or lose £7.70.
Unless you think someone other than Hunt or Boris will win, it’s complete madness
If Boris were to pull out of the race for any reason, would Hunt win, or Gove come back? If it’s the latter then maybe laying 1.09 is better
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
He stopped a protester getting to the top table and potentially assaulting a Cabinet Minister
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
What did he do wrong?
Because his response was disproportionate.
If he actually thought she was going to cause harm, say with a knife, then his failure to even attmept to secure her arms was a life ending mistake.
I don't think he had the mindset of a man throwing his body in the way of a lethal attack.
His actions were the actions a person taking out his frustrations on a defenceless, if a source of annoyance, target.
He intervened and escorted someone from the site without striking her.
Everything else you have stated is pure supposition
He grabbed her by the neck with securing her arms. The only way that technique could possibly work, despite breing painful, is against a non violent person.
I fear we're getting into a frequent situation where we have hours and hours to debate how someone reacted in a situation that took minutes or seconds to unfold (we see similar with the two 787 Max crashes, where people have digested a situation for days before claiming they'd have reacted differently to a situation that unfolded in three or four minutes).
If I was in a situation where I felt I had to restrain someone I was concerned about (which may or may not have been how Field was feeling) I'd have no idea how to do it, and I'd probably just go for whatever I could. There just isn't time for someone who hasn't been trained to analyse or consider the best way of doing it.
This is why training for people who may be put into such situations (e.g. security staff / police) is so important - to try to ensure instinctive reactions are good.
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
I think the Twateratti and allies may find Field enjoys more support than they think.
If you disrupt an official function and attempt to confront a government minister, causing a breach of the peace, you may find yourself at the thick end of a robust response. I'd have carried out a citizens arrest and accordingly used reasonable force to remove the threat and in short order transfer the potential attacker from my lawful custody to the first available constable.
Let us also reflect that if this woman was a rogue protester and the Chancellor had been seriously injured or killed we would all be reflecting on the shocking security shortcomings or why someone close to Hammond hadn't intervened.
Some in government should have Field's back, it could have been the Chancellor's back with a knife in it, lord knows we've seen plenty of political stabbing this week.
What is the crown court offence offence you think she was carrying out?
Breach of the peace :
It is now widely accepted that an appropriate definition can be obtained from the 1981 case, R v. Howell. This case led to the definition of breach of the peace :
When a person reasonably believes harm will be caused, or is likely to be caused, to a person or in his presence to his property, or a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance".
Every citizen in the country, not just the police, have the authority to stop or prevent acts that would breach the peace. For an arrest for suspected breach of the peace to be considered as lawful, it must be demonstrated that the threat of a breach was imminent.
Not sure this meets the “reasonably believes harm will be caused” test, as she does not seem to be one of the ones using an air horn.
She was in the wrong. I'm utterly pi**ed off with the way some people think they can use this sort of stunt to achieve their political objectives - especially when they're already mostly achieving those aims through normal means. Politics is becoming increasingly polarised, and I fear it will not be long before we see another tragic cox-style event.
He was in the wrong. He utterly over-reacted, and it's horrible optics. He should not have reacted that way - although I do have some sympathy for him.
As for the commenters:. I'm amused by the ones who focus on the fact that he assaulted a woman. In these days of equality, it shouldn't really matter. She felt she was strong enough to do this stunt; she should have understood that there was a chance she might be forcibly ejected by security (if not by an MP). If you truly believe in equality, then her being a woman makes f-all difference, and it should be just as shocking if Field had assaulted a male protester in that manner.
"in these days of equality" and yet most of the guests appear to be men.
to really do a role-reversal thought experiment you have to imagine an event where the main speaker is a woman, most of the guests are women, the protester is a man and he is assaulted by a female MP, in a fantasy world where 80% of conservative MPs are women.
I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. Field's actions should be seen as equally bad if performed against a man or a woman in that particular situation.
you seem to believe in "days of equality"
you also seem to think that you have to be "strong enough" to deliver some protest leaflets. what on earth do you mean?
I hope Greenpeace will be crediting the Conservative-led administration since 2010 in reducing coal fired power generation from over 25% of electricity output to zero.
I’ll wait..
Bet you they credit Shell for the excellent decommissioning job they did on Brent Spar first!
I hope Greenpeace will be crediting the Conservative-led administration since 2010 in reducing coal fired power generation from over 25% of electricity output to zero.
I’ll wait..
The work of Ed Davey as Secretary of State for Environment and Climate Change in the Coalition...
One thing that impressed me with Davey was his track record at getting these things agreed and signed off.
But supported by a Conservative PM and Chancellor and continued by a Tory SoS post 2015. And advocation for zero carbon solutions like Hinckley (yet to come online) was led by George Osborne.
The Conservative record on the environment is a laudable one.
Be a whole lot more laudable if they had approved the Welsh tidal barrages.....
This is interesting as it is consistent with the view that Trump is far more cautious than is made out, and he fears being bounced into foreign wars by the neocons around John Bolton. Much the same is true in Venezuela.
Trump is a populist. Wars that last any length of time and cause massive casualties are unpopular, and it's hard to see a quick, clean victory in Venezuela or Iran should the US take leave of its last senses and attack them.
There is a train of thought developing in America that Trump is not even a very good populist because he is not taking care of his voters, just the rich. It is worth bearing this in mind when betting on the US election next year.
Trump had 20,000 people at his first 2020 rally in Florida this week, the US economy is still growing and he is tightening border controls.
Given the state of the Democratic field and the latest gaffe by his most dangerous rival Joe Biden I would not get against a Trump re election
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
He stopped a protester getting to the top table and potentially assaulting a Cabinet Minister
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
What did he do wrong?
Because his response was disproportionate.
If he actually thought she was going to cause harm, say with a knife, then his failure to even attmept to secure her arms was a life ending mistake.
I don't think he had the mindset of a man throwing his body in the way of a lethal attack.
His actions were the actions a person taking out his frustrations on a defenceless, if a source of annoyance, target.
He intervened and escorted someone from the site without striking her.
Everything else you have stated is pure supposition
He grabbed her by the neck with securing her arms. The only way that technique could possibly work, despite breing painful, is against a non violent person.
I fear we're getting into a frequent situation where we have hours and hours to debate how someone reacted in a situation that took minutes or seconds to unfold (we see similar with the two 787 Max crashes, where people have digested a situation for days before claiming they'd have reacted differently to a situation that unfolded in three or four minutes).
If I was in a situation where I felt I had to restrain someone I was concerned about (which may or may not have been how Field was feeling) I'd have no idea how to do it, and I'd probably just go for whatever I could. There just isn't time for someone who hasn't been trained to analyse or consider the best way of doing it.
This is why training for people who may be put into such situations (e.g. security staff / police) is so important - to try to ensure instinctive reactions are good.
‘Grabbing her by the neck’, as people are describing it, could make it seem like he had her round the throat, when the fact is he marched her out of the room with his hand on the back of her neck. If it was a man he might well have just floored him, he probably was using less force because the protestor was female.
Field should be able to weather the issue if he steps down and eats humble pie.....not a good image following his attempts to promote the FCO's women, peace and security agenda...as previous said, not a byelection Hunt/Johnson would want to fight.....
He stopped a protester getting to the top table and potentially assaulting a Cabinet Minister
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
What did he do wrong?
Because his response was disproportionate.
If he actually thought she was going to cause harm, say with a knife, then his failure to even attmept to secure her arms was a life ending mistake.
I don't think he had the mindset of a man throwing his body in the way of a lethal attack.
His actions were the actions a person taking out his frustrations on a defenceless, if a source of annoyance, target.
He intervened and escorted someone from the site without striking her.
Everything else you have stated is pure supposition
He grabbed her by the neck with securing her arms. The only way that technique could possibly work, despite breing painful, is against a non violent person.
I fear we're getting into a frequent situation where we have hours and hours to debate how someone reacted in a situation that took minutes or seconds to unfold (we see similar with the two 787 Max crashes, where people have digested a situation for days before claiming they'd have reacted differently to a situation that unfolded in three or four minutes).
If I was in a situation where I felt I had to restrain someone I was concerned about (which may or may not have been how Field was feeling) I'd have no idea how to do it, and I'd probably just go for whatever I could. There just isn't time for someone who hasn't been trained to analyse or consider the best way of doing it.
This is why training for people who may be put into such situations (e.g. security staff / police) is so important - to try to ensure instinctive reactions are good.
Absolutely right. I seriously doubt they’ll be any criminal proceedings against Field, but he could well face a civil action.
Charles’ suggestion that neck holds are standard procedure is a dangerous one. (And his idea of what is ‘polite’ quite extraordinary.)
This is interesting as it is consistent with the view that Trump is far more cautious than is made out, and he fears being bounced into foreign wars by the neocons around John Bolton. Much the same is true in Venezuela.
Trump is a populist. Wars that last any length of time and cause massive casualties are unpopular, and it's hard to see a quick, clean victory in Venezuela or Iran should the US take leave of its last senses and attack them.
There is a train of thought developing in America that Trump is not even a very good populist because he is not taking care of his voters, just the rich. It is worth bearing this in mind when betting on the US election next year.
Trump had 20,000 people at his first 2020 rally in Florida this week, the US economy is still growing and he is tightening border controls.
Given the state of the Democratic field and the latest gaffe by his most dangerous rival Joe Biden I would not get against a Trump re election
Maybe, but he was very lucky in 2016 winning three key States by wafer thin majorities. States that Clinton thought wee in the bag and didn't campaign in.
I hope Greenpeace will be crediting the Conservative-led administration since 2010 in reducing coal fired power generation from over 25% of electricity output to zero.
I’ll wait..
The work of Ed Davey as Secretary of State for Environment and Climate Change in the Coalition...
One thing that impressed me with Davey was his track record at getting these things agreed and signed off.
The extent to which the Tories now claim credit for the LibDem achievements during coalition - reorienting tax policy toward the lower paid, pupil premium, equal marriage, significant progress on the environment - is remarkable.
And of course the work Lamb did on Mental Health and Social Care, the pension reforms etc, etc.
The mistakes in Coalition, such as tuition fees, tend to overshadow the successes. By and large the LDS in Coalition were effective and positive. Compared with the ongoing fiascoes since 2015 it is increasingly obvious that it was a golden period of government. Particularly so because of the financial constraints that the country was in.
Punished by the voters at the time, as one of the certanties of life is that no good deed goes unpunished.
I hope Greenpeace will be crediting the Conservative-led administration since 2010 in reducing coal fired power generation from over 25% of electricity output to zero.
I’ll wait..
The work of Ed Davey as Secretary of State for Environment and Climate Change in the Coalition...
One thing that impressed me with Davey was his track record at getting these things agreed and signed off.
But supported by a Conservative PM and Chancellor and continued by a Tory SoS post 2015. And advocation for zero carbon solutions like Hinckley (yet to come online) was led by George Osborne.
The Conservative record on the environment is a laudable one.
Transferring production from British factories to Chinese factories does not help reduce carbon emissions.
Speaking of which has the woman done any climate change disruption against the Chinese embassy ?
This is interesting as it is consistent with the view that Trump is far more cautious than is made out, and he fears being bounced into foreign wars by the neocons around John Bolton. Much the same is true in Venezuela.
Despite the rhetoric Trump is more a Bill Clinton than a George W Bush on foreign policy, lob a few missiles at most and definitely no ground troops
I hope Greenpeace will be crediting the Conservative-led administration since 2010 in reducing coal fired power generation from over 25% of electricity output to zero.
I’ll wait..
The work of Ed Davey as Secretary of State for Environment and Climate Change in the Coalition...
One thing that impressed me with Davey was his track record at getting these things agreed and signed off.
Casino's very careful use of 'Conservative-led' ;-)
I hope Greenpeace will be crediting the Conservative-led administration since 2010 in reducing coal fired power generation from over 25% of electricity output to zero.
I’ll wait..
The work of Ed Davey as Secretary of State for Environment and Climate Change in the Coalition...
One thing that impressed me with Davey was his track record at getting these things agreed and signed off.
Casino's very careful use of 'Conservative-led' ;-)
And he does rather want his cake and eat it, posting against such environmental policies here on a regular basis!
This is interesting as it is consistent with the view that Trump is far more cautious than is made out, and he fears being bounced into foreign wars by the neocons around John Bolton. Much the same is true in Venezuela.
Trump is a populist. Wars that last any length of time and cause massive casualties are unpopular, and it's hard to see a quick, clean victory in Venezuela or Iran should the US take leave of its last senses and attack them.
There is a train of thought developing in America that Trump is not even a very good populist because he is not taking care of his voters, just the rich. It is worth bearing this in mind when betting on the US election next year.
Trump had 20,000 people at his first 2020 rally in Florida this week, the US economy is still growing and he is tightening border controls.
Given the state of the Democratic field and the latest gaffe by his most dangerous rival Joe Biden I would not get against a Trump re election
Maybe, but he was very lucky in 2016 winning three key States by wafer thin majorities. States that Clinton thought wee in the bag and didn't campaign in.
She didn't think they were in the bag. They knew they were in trouble in the rust belt but chose not to campaign there to give the impression they were strong.
Clinton lost due to dumb shit campaign management.
This is interesting as it is consistent with the view that Trump is far more cautious than is made out, and he fears being bounced into foreign wars by the neocons around John Bolton. Much the same is true in Venezuela.
Trump is a populist. Wars that last any length of time and cause massive casualties are unpopular, and it's hard to see a quick, clean victory in Venezuela or Iran should the US take leave of its last senses and attack them.
There is a train of thought developing in America that Trump is not even a very good populist because he is not taking care of his voters, just the rich. It is worth bearing this in mind when betting on the US election next year.
Trump had 20,000 people at his first 2020 rally in Florida this week, the US economy is still growing and he is tightening border controls.
Given the state of the Democratic field and the latest gaffe by his most dangerous rival Joe Biden I would not get against a Trump re election
Maybe, but he was very lucky in 2016 winning three key States by wafer thin majorities. States that Clinton thought wee in the bag and didn't campaign in.
He still won them for the first time for a Republican since the 1980s.
Plus the Democrat most likely to win them back, Joe Biden, has just made a big gaffe on segregation which will cost him liberal primary voters
I hope Greenpeace will be crediting the Conservative-led administration since 2010 in reducing coal fired power generation from over 25% of electricity output to zero. I’ll wait..
They may even credit the hard work of the Liberal Democrats in the Coalition Government. Chris Huhne and Ed Davey did a very good job there.
Comments
He did so politely without causing any physical injury
What did he do wrong?
He held the back of her neck with one hand in the standard method to control movement without injuring someone
Just as in the US, it’s not the reputable media that is the issue, but the lack of cut through to the wider population.
If you think that was politely....!
An issue for Hunt is the extent to which he really goes for it. Does he burn all his bridges a la Stewart or does he pull his punches so that he at the very least retains his current post in the new administration? I think he is a naturally cautious individual and will tend to the latter but its amazing how people can persuade themselves that they really are in with a chance.
How do you know she was not injured?
It’s obviously not good for the Tories that they lost a slug of Remainer voters (I assume) but I think it’s worse for Labour strategically in that the LDs are continuing to consolidate their position
If he actually thought she was going to cause harm, say with a knife, then his failure to even attmept to secure her arms was a life ending mistake.
I don't think he had the mindset of a man throwing his body in the way of a lethal attack.
His actions were the actions a person taking out his frustrations on a defenceless, if a source of annoyance, target.
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1141465272353792002?s=19
It is fundamentally wrong to assault or abuse any politician whatever they are saying. We either protect free speech or we have none. We either allow peaceful protest or we have none. The memory that this incident has stirred up for me is Walter Wolfgang being dragged out of the Labour conference for heckling Jack Straw.Exactly the same optic - how DARE you be here peacefully protesting, the punishment is over the top removal.
But if he’d admitted it he’d have had to talk about it. “I haven’t seen it, can’t comment” is a get out of jail card
That said, now Tory members have a real choice, I do expect a slight narrowing in Hunt’s favour of what were hitherto hypothetical numbers.
A big gaffe from Boris and he may be in with a chance.
People can argue that there's an over-reaction if they like, but to portray him as a sort of "Have-a-go Hero" is crazy.
It is a mess that few people come well out of.
She was in the wrong. I'm utterly pi**ed off with the way some people think they can use this sort of stunt to achieve their political objectives - especially when they're already mostly achieving those aims through normal means. Politics is becoming increasingly polarised, and I fear it will not be long before we see another tragic cox-style event.
He was in the wrong. He utterly over-reacted, and it's horrible optics. He should not have reacted that way - although I do have some sympathy for him.
As for the commenters:. I'm amused by the ones who focus on the fact that he assaulted a woman. In these days of equality, it shouldn't really matter. She felt she was strong enough to do this stunt; she should have understood that there was a chance she might be forcibly ejected by security (if not by an MP). If you truly believe in equality, then her being a woman makes f-all difference, and it should be just as shocking if Field had assaulted a male protester in that manner.
Everything else you have stated is pure supposition
Is it better to effectively back ‘Anyone but Boris’ at 12 rather than the only other candidate left standing at 14?
What I want is for Boris’s odds to lengthen after a poll showing a much closer race, for instance, so I can reback at better odds.
The point that he looks motivated by anger rather than fear is relevant, I think - there's a difference between looking round for security and stepping up to restrain someone threatening in its absence and indignantly thinking "I'm not having this, dammit" about a clearly unthreatening protestor trying to read out a statement. Compare with Rees-Mogg, widely-praised for his calm response to hostile heckling. At a political level, the optics are just terrible.
I go to a fair number of events with high-profile people - the default is a check on identity when you go in, but no noticeable security in the room itself - Michael Gove regularly meets people from across the environmental spectrum without feeling the need to have us searched for weapons or otherwise guarded. There's a reasonable question about how the protestors got access in this case. But Field is not a bouncer or a security guard and he shouldn't attempt to become one without training in appropriate use of force. I don't think he needs to resign his seat, but a pause for reflection on the back-benches seems reasonable.
The Secret Barrister is also a very Left-wing Twatter agitator and Peston gets it wrong so often that his credibility as a source is virtually zero.
Protestors are often annoying and being turfed out is a reasonable reaction. Him doing it in that manner was unnecessary. Though some are going too far, one last night saying it showed him beating a protestor.
But the reaction from some on here is utterly ludicrous. Field himself has apologised, and it was plainly an over-reaction (probably lubricated by a couple of glasses of wine) to what was perfectly obviously a peaceful protest.
Wannabee Jason Bournes are talking like it's a new ISIS tactic to deploy women in red evening gowns, wearing climate change sashes, and that people in that room feared for their lives. Nobody reasonably feared anything more than a slight delay to the cheese course.
I hope Greenpeace will be crediting the Conservative-led administration since 2010 in reducing coal fired power generation from over 25% of electricity output to zero.
I’ll wait..
to really do a role-reversal thought experiment you have to imagine an event where the main speaker is a woman, most of the guests are women, the protester is a man and he is assaulted by a female MP, in a fantasy world where 80% of conservative MPs are women.
One thing that impressed me with Davey was his track record at getting these things agreed and signed off.
How many PBers defended attacks on Farage for example.
I deprecate both actions.
Lay Boris at 1.09 for £100 and you win £100 or lose £9, back Hunt at 14 for £7.70 and you win £100 or lose £7.70.
Unless you think someone other than Hunt or Boris will win, it’s complete madness
Black lives matter but not quite as much as middle class activists
The momentum is all with Boris, all Hunt can really do is try and make it a contest and avoid a crushing Boris landslide, there is no way the Tory membership will pick another Remainer over a Leaver after May
Current odds, given the potential impact of events, don’t attract me so I’m keeping my book as it is, watching and waiting.
It is now widely accepted that an appropriate definition can be obtained from the 1981 case, R v. Howell. This case led to the definition of breach of the peace :
When a person reasonably believes harm will be caused, or is likely to be caused, to a person or in his presence to his property, or a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance".
Every citizen in the country, not just the police, have the authority to stop or prevent acts that would breach the peace. For an arrest for suspected breach of the peace to be considered as lawful, it must be demonstrated that the threat of a breach was imminent.
The use of air horns in a confined space is quite likely to have resulted in hearing damage to anyone in close proximity. A quick trip to the GP claiming tinnitus would provide supporting evidence.
The Conservative record on the environment is a laudable one.
If I was in a situation where I felt I had to restrain someone I was concerned about (which may or may not have been how Field was feeling) I'd have no idea how to do it, and I'd probably just go for whatever I could. There just isn't time for someone who hasn't been trained to analyse or consider the best way of doing it.
This is why training for people who may be put into such situations (e.g. security staff / police) is so important - to try to ensure instinctive reactions are good.
you also seem to think that you have to be "strong enough" to deliver some protest leaflets. what on earth do you mean?
Given the state of the Democratic field and the latest gaffe by his most dangerous rival Joe Biden I would not get against a Trump re election
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-criticized-for-highlighting-ties-to-segregationist-senator/
Charles’ suggestion that neck holds are standard procedure is a dangerous one.
(And his idea of what is ‘polite’ quite extraordinary.)
The mistakes in Coalition, such as tuition fees, tend to overshadow the successes. By and large the LDS in Coalition were effective and positive. Compared with the ongoing fiascoes since 2015 it is increasingly obvious that it was a golden period of government. Particularly so because of the financial constraints that the country was in.
Punished by the voters at the time, as one of the certanties of life is that no good deed goes unpunished.
Speaking of which has the woman done any climate change disruption against the Chinese embassy ?
Clinton lost due to dumb shit campaign management.
Plus the Democrat most likely to win them back, Joe Biden, has just made a big gaffe on segregation which will cost him liberal primary voters
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-criticized-for-highlighting-ties-to-segregationist-senator/