Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the moment at current prices I’m laying Johnson

135

Comments

  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    President Trump authorised but then stopped an attack on Iran.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48714414

    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.
    If Hilary had campaigned there she might have lost by even more.

    Its doubtful she was positively viewed outside her comfort zone.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    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.

    And if this protester had attacked the Chancellor would you have so sanguine? She was within 10 feet of Hammond. We can all be very measured miles away from the event but in the split second I'd want Mark Field in a tight corner and not a snowflake weighing up the social justice optics of situation.

    This morning we might have been discussing a very serious assault or worse on a senior cabinet minister. That should be more sobering to us all.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,728

    Foxy said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649

    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... :smiley:

    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 ?
    That is not what is being discussed. British Coal based plants were substantially replaced by renewables such as off shore wind, mostly locally manufactured in the UK.

    Of course, the hypothetical unilateral free trade advocated by some Brexiteers would do exactly as you say.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952
    If Boris pulls out of the leadership contest now, what happens? Hunt wins automatically as last man standing, or Gove comes back?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,855
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    President Trump authorised but then stopped an attack on Iran.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48714414

    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

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-criticized-for-highlighting-ties-to-segregationist-senator/
    It certainly won't upset the voters he needs in swing States.

    It's a good example of faux outrage. Biden wasn't saying he agreed with segregationists, simply that he was able to cut deals with people he profoundly disagreed with.

    IMO, the Democrats would be fools to choose someone to the left of Biden.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,193
    edited June 2019
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649

    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... :smiley:

    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 ?
    That is not what is being discussed. British Coal based plants were substantially replaced by renewables such as off shore wind, mostly locally manufactured in the UK.

    Of course, the hypothetical unilateral free trade advocated by some Brexiteers would do exactly as you say.
    And biomass.

    https://tinyurl.com/y3skyqgb

    The UK biomass energy industry is facing criticism over its dependency on stripping US forests to seek out a supply of wood pellets.

    Biomass energy is classified as a renewable energy source, despite it producing 8 per cent more carbon dioxide than burning coal. The UK is becoming so dependent on it that millions of tonnes of wood pellets are being imported from forests in the south of the United States, research by environmental organisations the National Research Defense Council and Dogwood Alliance has claimed.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101
    PClipp said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649

    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.
    At increasing costs for British industry.

    Still who cares if British steelworks shut down when Chinese steel output is increasing so rapidly.

    I wonder what carbon emissions those Chinese steelworks have.
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,711
    Field was utterly wrong and overhanded, and very close, if not guilty of assult.

    However, in this day and age, we can't help but feel for politicans when members of the public are so aggressive towards them. She could have easily had a bottle of acid, or similar.

    So there are two sides to this, and a wider debate about how we all conduct ourselves, and the boundaries of reasonable protest.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    President Trump authorised but then stopped an attack on Iran.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48714414

    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

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-criticized-for-highlighting-ties-to-segregationist-senator/
    It certainly won't upset the voters he needs in swing States.

    It's a good example of faux outrage. Biden wasn't saying he agreed with segregationists, simply that he was able to cut deals with people he profoundly disagreed with.

    IMO, the Democrats would be fools to choose someone to the left of Biden.
    Hillary lost because African-Americans stayed at home. If they had turned out at 2012 levels Hillary would have swept the rust belt states she lost. If their vote is depressed again then Trump wins again.

    Currently Biden has a massive advantage over his primary opponents amongst African-Americans based on being Obama's VP. Biden risks pissing that away.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    President Trump authorised but then stopped an attack on Iran.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48714414

    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

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-criticized-for-highlighting-ties-to-segregationist-senator/
    It certainly won't upset the voters he needs in swing States.

    It's a good example of faux outrage. Biden wasn't saying he agreed with segregationists, simply that he was able to cut deals with people he profoundly disagreed with.

    IMO, the Democrats would be fools to choose someone to the left of Biden.
    Though I doubt Biden cut any deals with James Eastland given the difference in their seniority and the short time they served together.

    Biden though might be on unsafe ground about how much support he showed Robert Byrd.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,130
    isam said:

    If Boris pulls out of the leadership contest now, what happens? Hunt wins automatically as last man standing, or Gove comes back?
    Why the fuck would Boris pull out over this?
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,293
    Johnson (sadly) looks nailed on. I will just have to get my mind around him as our PM. Perhaps he will surprise on the upside. Given my expectations are at ankle level there must be a fair chance that he will. Then again, I tried the same mindset with Trump and look what happened there.

    No, if people are looking for a good lay then I would recommend "No Deal Brexit in 2019" at 3.3. This is not happening. It ought to be much longer. I made hay laying that other 'not happening' unicorn (Ref2 in 2019) and I plan to give a similar thrashing to this one over the summer.

    However on a cautionary note (to myself) I note that there is a seal in Scotland that can sing "Old MacDonald Had A Farm". One would not think that this would happen either, but apparently it has.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,655

    PClipp said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649

    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.
    At increasing costs for British industry.

    Still who cares if British steelworks shut down when Chinese steel output is increasing so rapidly.

    I wonder what carbon emissions those Chinese steelworks have.
    I read the other day that China is aiming to reach peak CO2 emissions in 2030 then reduce thereafter. They are already reducing their carbon intensity, it is the rapid growth rate that is meaning their emissions are still increasing.

    And of course, part of the UK's emissions reduction comes from pretending that the CO2 coming from biomass fired power stations doesn't exist, or is emitted from the forest in the US where the wood comes from.
  • Options
    PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    PClipp said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649

    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.
    At increasing costs for British industry.
    Still who cares if British steelworks shut down when Chinese steel output is increasing so rapidly.
    I wonder what carbon emissions those Chinese steelworks have.
    Indeed. Conservatives are not in the least concerned about British industry. See Mr Johnson`s remarks on the subject.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952

    isam said:

    If Boris pulls out of the leadership contest now, what happens? Hunt wins automatically as last man standing, or Gove comes back?
    Why the fuck would Boris pull out over this?
    I’m not saying he would pull out over this, I’m asking what would happen if he did for any reason, because it affects whether you should have backed Hunt at 14 or laid Boris at 1.09 as per the thread header.

    Small margins but you’d be in profit now by backing Hunt, and not if you’d laid Boris


  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,655
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649

    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... :smiley:

    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 ?
    That is not what is being discussed. British Coal based plants were substantially replaced by renewables such as off shore wind, mostly locally manufactured in the UK.

    Of course, the hypothetical unilateral free trade advocated by some Brexiteers would do exactly as you say.
    And biomass.

    https://tinyurl.com/y3skyqgb

    The UK biomass energy industry is facing criticism over its dependency on stripping US forests to seek out a supply of wood pellets.

    Biomass energy is classified as a renewable energy source, despite it producing 8 per cent more carbon dioxide than burning coal. The UK is becoming so dependent on it that millions of tonnes of wood pellets are being imported from forests in the south of the United States, research by environmental organisations the National Research Defense Council and Dogwood Alliance has claimed.
    Well yes. It takes 40 or 50 years for the forest to regrow and suck the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. If the climate is going to be fecked in 20 years, then that is of little benefit.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,450
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649

    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... :smiley:

    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!
    Wrong. And a slur. I have never once denied climate change and am regularly on here advocating feasible and realistic decarbonisation solutions.

    Please withdraw that remark.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Field was utterly wrong and overhanded, and very close, if not guilty of assult.

    However, in this day and age, we can't help but feel for politicans when members of the public are so aggressive towards them. She could have easily had a bottle of acid, or similar.

    So there are two sides to this, and a wider debate about how we all conduct ourselves, and the boundaries of reasonable protest.

    That's the thing, if Field had tackled her to the ground and pinned her down I would have thought his actions entirely acceptable - reacting to a imminent threat.

    If he had blocked her path and shoved her back if she tried to go past him, also a perfectably acceptable action .

    His third way was not. It was just a pissed off person lashing out.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649

    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... :smiley:

    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 ?
    That is not what is being discussed. British Coal based plants were substantially replaced by renewables such as off shore wind, mostly locally manufactured in the UK.

    Of course, the hypothetical unilateral free trade advocated by some Brexiteers would do exactly as you say.
    Well I'm no advocate of the latter.

    And I'm not the only one who has pointed out that the carbon emissions related to imports need to be taken into account:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48025650
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,723

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    President Trump authorised but then stopped an attack on Iran.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48714414

    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.
    If Hilary had campaigned there she might have lost by even more.

    Its doubtful she was positively viewed outside her comfort zone.
    3 million votes more than Trump - just in the wrong places.
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649

    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... :smiley:

    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.
    Was there a Lib Dem in the Home Office and how did they manage to drop the ball?
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    kinabalu said:

    Johnson (sadly) looks nailed on. I will just have to get my mind around him as our PM. Perhaps he will surprise on the upside. Given my expectations are at ankle level there must be a fair chance that he will. Then again, I tried the same mindset with Trump and look what happened there.

    No, if people are looking for a good lay then I would recommend "No Deal Brexit in 2019" at 3.3. This is not happening. It ought to be much longer. I made hay laying that other 'not happening' unicorn (Ref2 in 2019) and I plan to give a similar thrashing to this one over the summer.

    However on a cautionary note (to myself) I note that there is a seal in Scotland that can sing "Old MacDonald Had A Farm". One would not think that this would happen either, but apparently it has.

    The seal can't sing, it's just the listeners interpreting its grunt as Old MacDonald

    Hmm... I have an idea :wink:
  • Options
    When commenters say, re Mark Field, that “of course, the optics are terrible” is this just a poncy way of saying that “I myself am a deeply informed political person well aware of nuance, but the average moron out there is just a Daily Mail-reading drone and alas we have to take their opinions into account?”
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,655

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    President Trump authorised but then stopped an attack on Iran.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48714414

    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.
    If Hilary had campaigned there she might have lost by even more.

    Its doubtful she was positively viewed outside her comfort zone.
    3 million votes more than Trump - just in the wrong places.
    So she fought the election in the same way that Eric Morecambe played the piano.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Nigelb said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    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.
    Please read that para in full, notably "or some other form of disturbance". Neither did Field know at the time whether she had other weapons on her, apart from an air horn.

    Do we have to wait for another MP to be attacked or killed before some wake up to the reality of the threat posed to our legislators?
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited June 2019

    Field was utterly wrong and overhanded, and very close, if not guilty of assult.

    However, in this day and age, we can't help but feel for politicans when members of the public are so aggressive towards them. She could have easily had a bottle of acid, or similar.

    So there are two sides to this, and a wider debate about how we all conduct ourselves, and the boundaries of reasonable protest.

    That's the most sensible, wisest, post I've seen on this and ought, really, to end the discussion. It won't of course, but you've nailed it. There are two sides to this and ... heck I'm not just going to re-type what you've written.

    Spot on.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,277
    Anyone know if pulling out of building HS2 would now require some form of legislation?
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,352
    JackW said:



    And if this protester had attacked the Chancellor would you have so sanguine? She was within 10 feet of Hammond. We can all be very measured miles away from the event but in the split second I'd want Mark Field in a tight corner and not a snowflake weighing up the social justice optics of situation.

    This morning we might have been discussing a very serious assault or worse on a senior cabinet minister. That should be more sobering to us all.

    As I said, questions need to be asked about how the protestors gained access - that is unusual. But I've been threatened with murder (once) and assault (several times) myself, and I still don't want random people manhandling any protestor who comes near me.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952
    JackW said:

    Nigelb said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    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.
    Please read that para in full, notably "or some other form of disturbance". Neither did Field know at the time whether she had other weapons on her, apart from an air horn.

    Do we have to wait for another MP to be attacked or killed before some wake up to the reality of the threat posed to our legislators?
    Well said. 👏🏻
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    President Trump authorised but then stopped an attack on Iran.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48714414

    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.
    If Hilary had campaigned there she might have lost by even more.

    Its doubtful she was positively viewed outside her comfort zone.
    3 million votes more than Trump - just in the wrong places.
    Which proves my point.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,277
    Is Boris really a popularity-seeking Bozzie bear who lacks the steel and decisiveness for the top job?

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/20/no-boris-isnt-racist-scot-hating-islamophobe-hopeless-softie/
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited June 2019
    So the clock is ticking down to the Brecon & Radnor count. Are we about to see the Tory-DUP working majority slip another 1, soon to be 2 after the by-election?

    And in other news, for those who proclaimed that Boris will be safe in Uxbridge just LOOK at that Merton result posted earlier. I think the LibDems may storm London at the General Election. I'd love a flutter on Boris losing his own seat.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,052
    Foxy - again and again we find that the biggest supporters of the Lib Dems in government were those on the soft right. That's not why their voters support them.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    And by the way, Jo Swinson was very good on Pesto the other night. Feeling pretty relaxed about voting for her now.

    https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1141474773441974273
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,655

    And by the way, Jo Swinson was very good on Pesto the other night. Feeling pretty relaxed about voting for her now.

    https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1141474773441974273

    "Do anything". Bozo might have some suggestions...
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,054
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    My view on this:

    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.

    "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 believe (*) in equality. More accurately, I believe equality is important, and we need to make more progress towards it. We're not there yet, but the instinctive reaction that this incident is worse because a women is involved works against that equality - which applies to men as well as women.

    She wasn't just delivering some leaflets. She went into a place she had not been invited, in order to get disrupt that event and get publicity (which, to be fair, she did). She would have know that place had security, and hopefully wasn't so naive as to expect nothing to happen.

    That doesn't excuse what Field did, but she isn't exactly an innocent in this.

    (*) 'Believe' is not quite the right word.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    isam said:

    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

    Hunt wins. Just as May won when Leadsom withdrew.

    News that @TSE has a cunning plan to effect the former cannot be discounted but clearly no inference should be inferred simply because the fashion editor of PB is holding a 100/1 wager in his sweaty palms in favour of Jeremy Hunt .... :smile:
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,080

    So the clock is ticking down to the Brecon & Radnor count. Are we about to see the Tory-DUP working majority slip another 1, soon to be 2 after the by-election?

    And in other news, for those who proclaimed that Boris will be safe in Uxbridge just LOOK at that Merton result posted earlier. I think the LibDems may storm London at the General Election. I'd love a flutter on Boris losing his own seat.

    Merton voted Remain, Hillingdon and Uxbridge voted Leave.

    In the European elections the LDs won the former and the Brexit Party won the latter
  • Options
    nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Quite hilarious to see some of the desperate attempts to defend Field .

    Regardless of what party he represents I think most people would criticize his behaviour .

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,080
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    President Trump authorised but then stopped an attack on Iran.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48714414

    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

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-criticized-for-highlighting-ties-to-segregationist-senator/
    It certainly won't upset the voters he needs in swing States.

    It's a good example of faux outrage. Biden wasn't saying he agreed with segregationists, simply that he was able to cut deals with people he profoundly disagreed with.

    IMO, the Democrats would be fools to choose someone to the left of Biden.
    Agreed but they likely pick Sanders or Warren boosting Trump
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,054

    JackW said:



    And if this protester had attacked the Chancellor would you have so sanguine? She was within 10 feet of Hammond. We can all be very measured miles away from the event but in the split second I'd want Mark Field in a tight corner and not a snowflake weighing up the social justice optics of situation.

    This morning we might have been discussing a very serious assault or worse on a senior cabinet minister. That should be more sobering to us all.

    As I said, questions need to be asked about how the protestors gained access - that is unusual. But I've been threatened with murder (once) and assault (several times) myself, and I still don't want random people manhandling any protestor who comes near me.
    'any' protester? Hopefully you would want random people manhandling a protester who was about to attack you?

    The difficulty is telling whether that protester is genuinely a non-threatening self-publicist, or someone with more evil intent.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,052
    I don't want to be mean to our genial host but 'lay Johnson at 1.09' is quite funny.

    Laying Boris seems quite the thing.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,007
    JackW said:

    isam said:

    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

    Hunt wins. Just as May won when Leadsom withdrew.

    News that @TSE has a cunning plan to effect the former cannot be discounted but clearly no inference should be inferred simply because the fashion editor of PB is holding a 100/1 wager in his sweaty palms in favour of Jeremy Hunt .... :smile:
    Depends on how much the wager is for. £2 not worth worrying about £200,000 and Boris may have some news stories to avoid answering...
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,723
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    President Trump authorised but then stopped an attack on Iran.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48714414

    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

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-criticized-for-highlighting-ties-to-segregationist-senator/
    It certainly won't upset the voters he needs in swing States.

    It's a good example of faux outrage. Biden wasn't saying he agreed with segregationists, simply that he was able to cut deals with people he profoundly disagreed with.

    IMO, the Democrats would be fools to choose someone to the left of Biden.
    Agreed but they likely pick Sanders or Warren boosting Trump
    Sanders is unlikely.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,450
    isam said:

    If Boris pulls out of the leadership contest now, what happens? Hunt wins automatically as last man standing, or Gove comes back?
    Based on what happened in 2016 Hunt wins.
  • Options
    mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    nico67 said:

    Quite hilarious to see some of the desperate attempts to defend Field .

    Regardless of what party he represents I think most people would criticize his behaviour .

    Equally, I think that you’re transposing your own views to “most people”.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952
    edited June 2019
    JackW said:

    isam said:

    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

    Hunt wins. Just as May won when Leadsom withdrew.

    News that @TSE has a cunning plan to effect the former cannot be discounted but clearly no inference should be inferred simply because the fashion editor of PB is holding a 100/1 wager in his sweaty palms in favour of Jeremy Hunt .... :smile:
    Cheers. Well in that case backing 14 was better. Sorry to bore everyone with betting nuance by the way, let independent minded, unbiased and logical partisan views recommence
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,317

    So the clock is ticking down to the Brecon & Radnor count. Are we about to see the Tory-DUP working majority slip another 1, soon to be 2 after the by-election?

    And in other news, for those who proclaimed that Boris will be safe in Uxbridge just LOOK at that Merton result posted earlier. I think the LibDems may storm London at the General Election. I'd love a flutter on Boris losing his own seat.

    Boris should be safe. In any seat there will always be a sizeable chunk of non-tribalists who will swing behind anyone if it means their town gets to be represented by the PM. IDS on the other hand - 5th greatest Tory leader since the war or not - will probably be obliterated.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,054
    nico67 said:

    Quite hilarious to see some of the desperate attempts to defend Field .

    Regardless of what party he represents I think most people would criticize his behaviour .

    Indeed. And also the desperate attempts to defend her by pretending she is an innocent in the event.

    They were both in the wrong.

    If this sort of sh*t continues, one day it will lead to a much more tragic conclusion, one way or the other.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,277
    This a dire poll for an Opposition. Truly horrendous. Jezza will lose them a lot of seats. At some point panic will set in.
  • Options
    Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,300

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    My view on this:

    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.

    "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 believe (*) in equality. More accurately, I believe equality is important, and we need to make more progress towards it. We're not there yet, but the instinctive reaction that this incident is worse because a women is involved works against that equality - which applies to men as well as women.

    She wasn't just delivering some leaflets. She went into a place she had not been invited, in order to get disrupt that event and get publicity (which, to be fair, she did). She would have know that place had security, and hopefully wasn't so naive as to expect nothing to happen.

    That doesn't excuse what Field did, but she isn't exactly an innocent in this.

    (*) 'Believe' is not quite the right word.
    Had he stood in her way, then maybe turned her firmly round by the shoulders and led her out, there'd be a greater argument of proportionality. It's the optics of an angry old gammon* who's probably had a glass or two battering her into the wall and grabbing her neck which are sub-optimal. (*I'm not saying he is.. I'm saying that's what it looks like and how it'll be portrayed.)

    Given the vehemence with which he responded, a plea of saving Philip Hammond from assumed imminent death is at best mitigation rather than an excuse.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,723

    So the clock is ticking down to the Brecon & Radnor count. Are we about to see the Tory-DUP working majority slip another 1, soon to be 2 after the by-election?

    And in other news, for those who proclaimed that Boris will be safe in Uxbridge just LOOK at that Merton result posted earlier. I think the LibDems may storm London at the General Election. I'd love a flutter on Boris losing his own seat.

    Assuming that the Tories won and Boris lost, he would still be leader of the party but couldn't be PM (unless in the Lords?). That possibility must be catered for, I guess.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited June 2019
    I too have some sympathy with Field (although he over-reacted). He should apologise, but that really should be the end of the matter.

    I don't think it is an assault, unless the protester has received bruising or cuts.

    It seems less serious to me than John Prescott's famous punch (and my sympathies lie with John in that episode).

    Edit: I see he has apologised.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,080
    Boris would get back many Brexit Party voters to the Tories, Corbyn Labour though likely still trails the LDs
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,052
    On Mark Field - you have to feel for the bankers and financiers who presumably are there to get some access to the Chancellor but find themselves having to sit through some worthy anecdote about a primary school headteacher. A bit like people turning up at church to gets their kids into a good school.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:



    And if this protester had attacked the Chancellor would you have so sanguine? She was within 10 feet of Hammond. We can all be very measured miles away from the event but in the split second I'd want Mark Field in a tight corner and not a snowflake weighing up the social justice optics of situation.

    This morning we might have been discussing a very serious assault or worse on a senior cabinet minister. That should be more sobering to us all.

    As I said, questions need to be asked about how the protestors gained access - that is unusual. But I've been threatened with murder (once) and assault (several times) myself, and I still don't want random people manhandling any protestor who comes near me.
    I'm sorry to hear you've been threatened Nick.

    However would you rather have some "random" person intervene in a genuine attempt to save your life, as happened fruitlessly with Jo Cox, or wait to be seriously injured or killed? Who you think might be just a "protester" is fine until they're not.

    Thank god random people do intervene else the London Bridge attack and similar events would have been even worse. We may micro analyse the Field situation endlessly but in the present climate I err on the side of MP's safety.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081
    HYUFD said:

    Boris would get back many Brexit Party voters to the Tories, Corbyn Labour though likely still trails the LDs
    Until he lets them down regarding Brexit. Which he will.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,052

    So the clock is ticking down to the Brecon & Radnor count. Are we about to see the Tory-DUP working majority slip another 1, soon to be 2 after the by-election?

    And in other news, for those who proclaimed that Boris will be safe in Uxbridge just LOOK at that Merton result posted earlier. I think the LibDems may storm London at the General Election. I'd love a flutter on Boris losing his own seat.

    Assuming that the Tories won and Boris lost, he would still be leader of the party but couldn't be PM (unless in the Lords?). That possibility must be catered for, I guess.
    The humiliation of losing his seat would surely do for him?

    It would make 'up for Portillo' seem redundant
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,883

    I too have some sympathy with Field (although he over-reacted). He should apologise, but that really should be the end of the matter.

    I don't think it is an assault, unless the protester has received bruising or cuts.

    It seems less serious to me than John Prescott's famous punch (and my sympathies lie with John in that episode).

    Edit: I see he has apologised.

    Did she attack Field first.

    Must have edired that bit out.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    I too have some sympathy with Field (although he over-reacted). He should apologise, but that really should be the end of the matter.

    I don't think it is an assault, unless the protester has received bruising or cuts.

    It seems less serious to me than John Prescott's famous punch (and my sympathies lie with John in that episode).

    Edit: I see he has apologised.

    You are quite simply wrong about what constitutes an assault. Bruising or cuts would make it battery or ABH. Assault requires no actual contact.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    HYUFD said:

    So the clock is ticking down to the Brecon & Radnor count. Are we about to see the Tory-DUP working majority slip another 1, soon to be 2 after the by-election?

    And in other news, for those who proclaimed that Boris will be safe in Uxbridge just LOOK at that Merton result posted earlier. I think the LibDems may storm London at the General Election. I'd love a flutter on Boris losing his own seat.

    Merton voted Remain, Hillingdon and Uxbridge voted Leave.

    In the European elections the LDs won the former and the Brexit Party won the latter
    That's true. But I've discovered something important about you and that is that you need fact-checking or, rather, to be slightly less loose.

    Uxbridge & South Ruislip constituency is in Hillingdon. The result this time at the European election on a 37% turnout was:

    BXP 27%
    Labour 24%
    LibDem 17%
    Cons 12%
    Green 8%

    At the 2017 election the result was:

    Cons 51%
    Lab 40%
    LibDem 4%

    There is no sign at the moment that the BXP will be magnanimous to the Conservatives under Boris. In fact, Nigel Farage has threatened to stand against him in that seat.

    I think there's a serious chance Boris may lose it ...



  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,655

    I too have some sympathy with Field (although he over-reacted). He should apologise, but that really should be the end of the matter.

    I don't think it is an assault, unless the protester has received bruising or cuts.

    It seems less serious to me than John Prescott's famous punch (and my sympathies lie with John in that episode).

    Edit: I see he has apologised.

    Did she attack Field first.

    Must have edired that bit out.
    How are you doing this morning John?
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101
    JackW said:

    Nigelb said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    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.
    Please read that para in full, notably "or some other form of disturbance". Neither did Field know at the time whether she had other weapons on her, apart from an air horn.

    Do we have to wait for another MP to be attacked or killed before some wake up to the reality of the threat posed to our legislators?
    Did she have an air horn and was she using it at the time ?

    If so that puts the imagery into a rather different light or rather sound.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,317
    I see Mark Carney has just comprehensively demolished the old 'GATT 24' urban legend. Hasn't Boris been spouting off about that recently?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,216

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    How many of those who were exciting themselves over Farage's milkshaker being prosecuted for assault and losing his job are stimulated enough to require the same consequences be applied to Field?
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081

    I see Mark Carney has just comprehensively demolished the old 'GATT 24' urban legend. Hasn't Boris been spouting off about that recently?

    He's clearly not believing in Britain hard enough.
  • Options
    Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,300
    HYUFD said:

    Boris would get back many Brexit Party voters to the Tories, Corbyn Labour though likely still trails the LDs
    A Jo Swinson (or Ed Davey) new LD leader bounce, combined with continued fence splinters in Corbyn's arse and a no-confidence-triggered, pre-Brexit election could be fascinating*.

    I expected the polls to spring back to Lab/Con at least a bit after the Euros... but I'm still waiting.

    (* a word I use as a detached observer of politics rather than as a member of society looking forward to a semi-coherent government any time soon)
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    How many of those who were exciting themselves over Farage's milkshaker being prosecuted for assault and losing his job are stimulated enough to require the same consequences be applied to Field?
    Not me 🤣😘
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,731
    edited June 2019

    nico67 said:

    Quite hilarious to see some of the desperate attempts to defend Field .

    Regardless of what party he represents I think most people would criticize his behaviour .

    Indeed. And also the desperate attempts to defend her by pretending she is an innocent in the event.

    They were both in the wrong.

    If this sort of sh*t continues, one day it will lead to a much more tragic conclusion, one way or the other.
    I suggested a remedy - sue the air horn wielding protestors for assault.
  • Options
    RH1992RH1992 Posts: 788
    edited June 2019

    I too have some sympathy with Field (although he over-reacted). He should apologise, but that really should be the end of the matter.

    I don't think it is an assault, unless the protester has received bruising or cuts.

    It seems less serious to me than John Prescott's famous punch (and my sympathies lie with John in that episode).

    Edit: I see he has apologised.

    Assault is the immediate fear of violence against you, whether or not there is any touching. This is either battery, which is basically any unlawful touching, or ABH if there's a cut.

    He should receive a police caution and lose his ministerial job in my view.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited June 2019
    Okay one more thing before I get to work. I know this may not be popular on here, but I'm convinced this 'tactical voting' accusation is going to haunt the whole of Boris' premiership. Some of you won't agree because, you may feel, it was a masterstroke by Shapps and Williamson.

    But it's not. To command the support of this particular Conservative parliamentary party will require absolute trust. It's not going to be sufficient to strong-arm. It needs confidence that the leader has won fair and square. More so than Gordon Brown. More so than Theresa May.

    Right now this may to some of you seem funny, or smart, or poetic justice. But this will dog him to the day he's booted out.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48714673

  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Did she have an air horn and was she using it at the time ?

    If so that puts the imagery into a rather different light or rather sound.

    Not that I'm aware. I phrased that sentence poorly. My point being the fact she didn't have an air horn didn't mean she didn't have other weapons readily available or hidden.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    How many of those who were exciting themselves over Farage's milkshaker being prosecuted for assault and losing his job are stimulated enough to require the same consequences be applied to Field?
    Rather different situation though.

    Whatever people might think of Field it wasn't him who went to the dinner to cause trouble.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,731

    JackW said:

    Nigelb said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    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.
    Please read that para in full, notably "or some other form of disturbance". Neither did Field know at the time whether she had other weapons on her, apart from an air horn.

    Do we have to wait for another MP to be attacked or killed before some wake up to the reality of the threat posed to our legislators?
    Did she have an air horn and was she using it at the time ?

    If so that puts the imagery into a rather different light or rather sound.
    No - she was clutching a mobile phone.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,723
    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    How many of those who were exciting themselves over Farage's milkshaker being prosecuted for assault and losing his job are stimulated enough to require the same consequences be applied to Field?
    Not me 🤣😘
    ... so no change there.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,216

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649

    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... :smiley:

    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!
    Wrong. And a slur. I have never once denied climate change and am regularly on here advocating feasible and realistic decarbonisation solutions.

    Please withdraw that remark.
    I think it's time for your seconds to get in touch with Foxy's. Pistols?
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,101
    JackW said:

    Did she have an air horn and was she using it at the time ?

    If so that puts the imagery into a rather different light or rather sound.

    Not that I'm aware. I phrased that sentence poorly. My point being the fact she didn't have an air horn didn't mean she didn't have other weapons readily available or hidden.
    Jo Brand's battery acid comment looks ever less helpful in retrospect.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,012
    I bet the hand around the neck brought back a few sweaty memories for Liz Truss...
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,216

    I too have some sympathy with Field (although he over-reacted). He should apologise, but that really should be the end of the matter.

    I don't think it is an assault, unless the protester has received bruising or cuts.

    It seems less serious to me than John Prescott's famous punch (and my sympathies lie with John in that episode).

    Edit: I see he has apologised.

    Did she attack Field first.

    Must have edired that bit out.
    Sorry, missed your medical situ last night. Hope you're on the mend.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,216
    Dura_Ace said:

    I bet the hand around the neck brought back a few sweaty memories for Liz Truss...

    British cheese!
  • Options
    Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 1,300
    edited June 2019

    I see Mark Carney has just comprehensively demolished the old 'GATT 24' urban legend. Hasn't Boris been spouting off about that recently?

    He's clearly not believing in Britain hard enough.
    A Carney-Boris relationship for the next six months could be fun.

    BJ: "People of Britain, enjoy this (insert preposterous unicorn) on me"

    MC: "Erm, prime minister.. that's a preposterous unicorn"

    BJ: "You're fired"

    MC: "I already quit"
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    edited June 2019
    HYUFD said:

    Boris would get back many Brexit Party voters to the Tories, Corbyn Labour though likely still trails the LDs
    HYUFD said:

    Boris would get back many Brexit Party voters to the Tories, Corbyn Labour though likely still trails the LDs
    Any idea of the field work dates. Given that a Johnson win has been locked on since the first vote then the ‘Boris bounce’ isn’t happening yet. Although I’m sure HY will point to the direct transfer of 3% from BXP Ltd to Con
  • Options
    RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Why didn't security intercept the protester?

    That's the serious question.
  • Options
    JackW said:

    Did she have an air horn and was she using it at the time ?

    If so that puts the imagery into a rather different light or rather sound.

    Not that I'm aware. I phrased that sentence poorly. My point being the fact she didn't have an air horn didn't mean she didn't have other weapons readily available or hidden.
    Oh for goodness sake, Jack.

    You talk a lot of sense but quite honestly on this issue you're way off the money.

    MPs face protesters all the time. That goes with the territory. These were a group of climate change protesters, who'd announced that fact on arrival and who'd come dressed in ball gowns and sashes. As several people have said, I'm not in favour of that form of protest, but there was zero physical threat or danger there as the reaction of the overwhelming majority of diners demonstrated. To compare with London Bridge, or the murder of Jo Cox as you have done really is perfectly ludicrous.

    Being very kind, Field grossly overestimated the situation and botched his response - and his apology indicates that's his own line on the matter. More realistically, he'd had a couple of glasses of wine by then and was none too pleased about the risk of the cheese course being delayed. Enough of this have a go hero nonsense - even he is well aware that doesn't fly.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,216

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    How many of those who were exciting themselves over Farage's milkshaker being prosecuted for assault and losing his job are stimulated enough to require the same consequences be applied to Field?
    Rather different situation though.

    Whatever people might think of Field it wasn't him who went to the dinner to cause trouble.
    And fwiw the bloke who lobbed a milkshake at Farage says it wasn't pre-planned.

    We all have our triggers, for some it's a lassie in a sleeveless dress spouting on about the environment, for others it's a brown toothed anti immigrationist reeking of Emby Regals.
  • Options
    StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    JackW said:

    Did she have an air horn and was she using it at the time ?

    If so that puts the imagery into a rather different light or rather sound.

    Not that I'm aware. I phrased that sentence poorly. My point being the fact she didn't have an air horn didn't mean she didn't have other weapons readily available or hidden.
    Oh shit, I just realised I don't know if ANY of the people standing near me have hidden weapons! What do I do? I figure after I've put the first one or two in a chokehold I'll lose the element of surprise...
  • Options
    SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,711
    Nigelb said:

    JackW said:

    Nigelb said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    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.....


    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.
    Please read that para in full, notably "or some other form of disturbance". Neither did Field know at the time whether she had other weapons on her, apart from an air horn.

    Do we have to wait for another MP to be attacked or killed before some wake up to the reality of the threat posed to our legislators?
    Did she have an air horn and was she using it at the time ?

    If so that puts the imagery into a rather different light or rather sound.
    No - she was clutching a mobile phone.
    she could have done a Gordon Brown.... deadly weapon..
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,994
    Mr. Passmore, that's a little complacent given, presumably, there were knives all over the place as a matter of course. If she'd been intent on violence, it wouldn't be difficult to acquire one when inside.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    JackW said:

    Did she have an air horn and was she using it at the time ?

    If so that puts the imagery into a rather different light or rather sound.

    Not that I'm aware. I phrased that sentence poorly. My point being the fact she didn't have an air horn didn't mean she didn't have other weapons readily available or hidden.
    Oh shit, I just realised I don't know if ANY of the people standing near me have hidden weapons! What do I do? I figure after I've put the first one or two in a chokehold I'll lose the element of surprise...
    "WHAT is LLAP-GOCH again?
    It is an ANCIENT Welsh ART based on a BRILLIANTLY simple I-D-E-A, which is a SECRET. The best form of DEFENCE is ATTACK (Clausewitz) and the most VITAL element of ATTACK is SURPRISE (Oscar HAMMERstein). Therefore, the BEST way to protect yourself AGAINST any ASSAILANT is to ATTACK him before he attacks YOU... Or BETTER... BEFORE the THOUGHT of doing so has EVEN OCCURRED TO HIM!!! SO YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RENDER YOUR ASSAILANT UNCONSCIOUS BEFORE he is EVEN aware of your very existence!"

    Monty Python
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,731

    JackW said:



    And if this protester had attacked the Chancellor would you have so sanguine? She was within 10 feet of Hammond. We can all be very measured miles away from the event but in the split second I'd want Mark Field in a tight corner and not a snowflake weighing up the social justice optics of situation.

    This morning we might have been discussing a very serious assault or worse on a senior cabinet minister. That should be more sobering to us all.

    As I said, questions need to be asked about how the protestors gained access - that is unusual. But I've been threatened with murder (once) and assault (several times) myself, and I still don't want random people manhandling any protestor who comes near me.
    Mr Field’s unreserved apology suggests that on reflection he would tend to agree with you.
    I applaud him for apologising so quickly rather than enduring the usual week or so of trial by media.

  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    Did she have an air horn and was she using it at the time ?

    If so that puts the imagery into a rather different light or rather sound.

    Not that I'm aware. I phrased that sentence poorly. My point being the fact she didn't have an air horn didn't mean she didn't have other weapons readily available or hidden.
    Jo Brand's battery acid comment looks ever less helpful in retrospect.
    Perhaps superficially.

    I defended Jo Brand on PB as robustly as Mark Field.

    Jo Brand made a tasteless joke on the boundary pushing "Heresy" comedy show and in the full context there is no case to answer despite the utter folly of the Met Police "investigating".

  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,052

    JackW said:

    Did she have an air horn and was she using it at the time ?

    If so that puts the imagery into a rather different light or rather sound.

    Not that I'm aware. I phrased that sentence poorly. My point being the fact she didn't have an air horn didn't mean she didn't have other weapons readily available or hidden.
    Jo Brand's battery acid comment looks ever less helpful in retrospect.
    Battery acid joke.

    There's been very little discussion thus far on who PM Boris would appoint to his senior cabinet positions. This strikes me as extremely important. One thing you could say for May is that she did keep the most senior positions for sensible people whilst acknowledging she needed prominent Brexiteers like Johnson, Davis and Fox.
  • Options

    Mr. Passmore, that's a little complacent given, presumably, there were knives all over the place as a matter of course. If she'd been intent on violence, it wouldn't be difficult to acquire one when inside.

    Oh for crying out loud. Protest is part and parcel of politics. Are we to slam women in ball gowns against pillars and grab them by the neck because they could, in some ridiculous sub-pulp fiction thriller world you've invented, make a grab for a butter knife and try to poke a 6 foot tall Chancellor in the thigh with it? It's bonkers.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,952

    isam said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    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.
    How many of those who were exciting themselves over Farage's milkshaker being prosecuted for assault and losing his job are stimulated enough to require the same consequences be applied to Field?
    Not me 🤣😘
    ... so no change there.
    Protagonists are to blame not the attacked 👍🏻
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,731
    Dura_Ace said:

    I bet the hand around the neck brought back a few sweaty memories for Liz Truss...

    Was that necessary ?
    I was just enjoying a (rare) late breakfast.

  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,293
    Just watched the video. That does not look good for Mark Field. Will go further. It looks awful. And further still - it WAS awful.

    His defence, no doubt, will be that he was only doing what Liam Neeson would have done and that he had to do it because Neeson was absent from the dinner.

    But it won't wash. Liam Neeson would have 'taken out' the protester only if she was armed and dangerous (and also a man mountain with rippling muscles). Such does not appear to be the case here.
This discussion has been closed.