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...
Oh shit, this intruder pushed past me and I didn't realise there was a problem until they struck a friend in the face with their fist and then pull out a knife.
The memorial service for my friend was nice though.
There is a much longer clip showing how the protesters were being handled on the other side of the room, it had been going on for a short while and most in the room knew what was happening before she approached the front. There is also full audio. I’ve never learnt to cut and paste on an iPad so can’t give you the link.
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.
Yes. I do find it odd that Bottomley, and various people on here, are offering a defence that Mark Field in all fairness isn't.
I worry rather that he reacted in the way he did but at least, having done so, he very quickly apologised.
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...
Oh shit, this intruder pushed past me and I didn't realise there was a problem until they struck a friend in the face with their fist and then pull out a knife.
The memorial service for my friend was nice though.
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.
It seems you have a trigger as well - when someone points out the inconsistency of your argument.
It was Farage and Field who were going about their business and got disrupted by trouble causers, the only difference is that Field reacted foolishly.
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?
Sir Norfolk, his reaction was over the top. Probably because he has no training whatsoever in the field of security, where a significant failing occurred.
I don't think it's wise to be complacent about security around major political figures, particularly in the current climate.
A curious incident this morning (I stress that this is nothing to do with the Field thing). A police officer (with EMERGENCY flak jacket, baton, etc.) called and politely said he was there to serve a criminal restraint order on me. I expressed surprise, and he looked a bit confused and asked if I was Martin N*** (I won't put the name here, but nobody I've heard of - however, a letter for him had arrived yesterday which I returned to sender). I said no and suggested he ask my landlord if they'd heard of him. He said "Oh, OK", and went off to ring my landlord's bell.
On reflection, several thoughts:
1. He should have asked who I was before announcing that he wanted to serve an order on me. If I had a nervous disposition I might have found it alarming.
2. On the other hand, he shouldn't have accepted my word that I wasn't Martin N***, and could reasonably have asked for ID.
3. It's a bit odd that he didn't show me identification himself. Anyone can dress up as an officer.
All minor stuff, but I do wonder whether I'd have been treated as deferentially if I'd been a black teenager.
In a criminal context, Field's over-reaction was understandable.
However, Field could have (and should have) achieved the same effect without the degree of force he evidently used. I just admit I lean to the view that that misjudgement is inconsistent with his role with the FCO.
A curious incident this morning (I stress that this is nothing to do with the Field thing). A police officer (with EMERGENCY flak jacket, baton, etc.) called and politely said he was there to serve a criminal restraint order on me. I expressed surprise, and he looked a bit confused and asked if I was Martin N*** (I won't put the name here, but nobody I've heard of - however, a letter for him had arrived yesterday which I returned to sender). I said no and suggested he ask my landlord if they'd heard of him. He said "Oh, OK", and went off to ring my landlord's bell.
On reflection, several thoughts:
1. He should have asked who I was before announcing that he wanted to serve an order on me. If I had a nervous disposition I might have found it alarming.
2. On the other hand, he shouldn't have accepted my word that I wasn't Martin N***, and could reasonably have asked for ID.
3. It's a bit odd that he didn't show me identification himself. Anyone can dress up as an officer.
All minor stuff, but I do wonder whether I'd have been treated as deferentially if I'd been a black teenager.
And god only knows how you'd have been treated if you'd been identifiable as a former Labour MP
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.
I disagree. For one thing, the poor design of the process allows this sort of thing to happen. For another, BJ was going to win the run-off whoever his opponent was. For another, there'll be more than enough important matters to occupy everyone's attention come the autumn.
A curious incident this morning (I stress that this is nothing to do with the Field thing). A police officer (with EMERGENCY flak jacket, baton, etc.) called and politely said he was there to serve a criminal restraint order on me. I expressed surprise, and he looked a bit confused and asked if I was Martin N*** (I won't put the name here, but nobody I've heard of - however, a letter for him had arrived yesterday which I returned to sender). I said no and suggested he ask my landlord if they'd heard of him. He said "Oh, OK", and went off to ring my landlord's bell.
On reflection, several thoughts:
1. He should have asked who I was before announcing that he wanted to serve an order on me. If I had a nervous disposition I might have found it alarming.
2. On the other hand, he shouldn't have accepted my word that I wasn't Martin N***, and could reasonably have asked for ID.
3. It's a bit odd that he didn't show me identification himself. Anyone can dress up as an officer.
All minor stuff, but I do wonder whether I'd have been treated as deferentially if I'd been a black teenager.
I'd be (only mildly) concerned that this was part of an identity theft - perhaps check bank accounts for strange goings on?
There is a much longer clip showing how the protesters were being handled on the other side of the room, it had been going on for a short while and most in the room knew what was happening before she approached the front. There is also full audio. I’ve never learnt to cut and paste on an iPad so can’t give you the link.
A curious incident this morning (I stress that this is nothing to do with the Field thing). A police officer (with EMERGENCY flak jacket, baton, etc.) called and politely said he was there to serve a criminal restraint order on me. I expressed surprise, and he looked a bit confused and asked if I was Martin N*** (I won't put the name here, but nobody I've heard of - however, a letter for him had arrived yesterday which I returned to sender). I said no and suggested he ask my landlord if they'd heard of him. He said "Oh, OK", and went off to ring my landlord's bell.
On reflection, several thoughts:
1. He should have asked who I was before announcing that he wanted to serve an order on me. If I had a nervous disposition I might have found it alarming.
2. On the other hand, he shouldn't have accepted my word that I wasn't Martin N***, and could reasonably have asked for ID.
3. It's a bit odd that he didn't show me identification himself. Anyone can dress up as an officer.
All minor stuff, but I do wonder whether I'd have been treated as deferentially if I'd been a black teenager.
I'd be (only mildly) concerned that this was part of an identity theft - perhaps check bank accounts for strange goings on?
A curious incident this morning (I stress that this is nothing to do with the Field thing). A police officer (with EMERGENCY flak jacket, baton, etc.) called and politely said he was there to serve a criminal restraint order on me. I expressed surprise, and he looked a bit confused and asked if I was Martin N*** (I won't put the name here, but nobody I've heard of - however, a letter for him had arrived yesterday which I returned to sender). I said no and suggested he ask my landlord if they'd heard of him. He said "Oh, OK", and went off to ring my landlord's bell.
On reflection, several thoughts:
1. He should have asked who I was before announcing that he wanted to serve an order on me. If I had a nervous disposition I might have found it alarming.
2. On the other hand, he shouldn't have accepted my word that I wasn't Martin N***, and could reasonably have asked for ID.
3. It's a bit odd that he didn't show me identification himself. Anyone can dress up as an officer.
All minor stuff, but I do wonder whether I'd have been treated as deferentially if I'd been a black teenager.
And god only knows how you'd have been treated if you'd been identifiable as a former Labour MP
A curious incident this morning (I stress that this is nothing to do with the Field thing). A police officer (with EMERGENCY flak jacket, baton, etc.) called and politely said he was there to serve a criminal restraint order on me. I expressed surprise, and he looked a bit confused and asked if I was Martin N*** (I won't put the name here, but nobody I've heard of - however, a letter for him had arrived yesterday which I returned to sender). I said no and suggested he ask my landlord if they'd heard of him. He said "Oh, OK", and went off to ring my landlord's bell.
On reflection, several thoughts:
1. He should have asked who I was before announcing that he wanted to serve an order on me. If I had a nervous disposition I might have found it alarming.
2. On the other hand, he shouldn't have accepted my word that I wasn't Martin N***, and could reasonably have asked for ID.
3. It's a bit odd that he didn't show me identification himself. Anyone can dress up as an officer.
All minor stuff, but I do wonder whether I'd have been treated as deferentially if I'd been a black teenager.
And god only knows how you'd have been treated if you'd been identifiable as a former Labour MP
It seems you have a trigger as well - when someone points out the inconsistency of your argument.
It was Farage and Field who were going about their business and got disrupted by trouble causers, the only difference is that Field reacted foolishly.
I know we don't have to move past soft fruit for your trigger.
Farage's business was/is to get a reaction and he got one. My main problem with the fairly dumb milkshaking was that it fed entirely into the increasing right wing snowflakey bleating about how persecuted they are.
Greenpeace wanted a reaction and got one, and this was beyond their wildest dreams. If you wanted a visualisation of much of what is wrong with the world, a puce faced Tory in a tux grabbing a young women by the neck is it.
There is a much longer clip showing how the protesters were being handled on the other side of the room, it had been going on for a short while and most in the room knew what was happening before she approached the front. There is also full audio. I’ve never learnt to cut and paste on an iPad so can’t give you the link.
Long press within a text field and a black menu should appear with 'copy' and 'paste' as an option.
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.
And if steak was on the menu (was it?) those knives would have been of the very sharp kind. Potentially lethal in the wrong hands.
So, angry woman, lethal weapon, a defenceless Philip Hammond ... need I go on?
What this does aptly demonstrate is the limitations of the legal ‘reasonable person’ test.
There is clearly a chasm between two different opinions of what reasonable might mean these days.
I'm not sure that's right.
The reasonable person test in relation to self-defence looks at what force is objectively reasonable given the situation as the person subjectively believes it to be. That belief can be wrong, it just needs to be honestly held.
I don't think we're actually arguing about the first part (objectively reasonable force) but the second (subjective belief).
On that, there seem to be two positions:
1. Field honestly believed there was a real and substantial physical threat in light of well-publicised past incidents of violence towards public figures, and the febrile political environment of the present.
2. Field had no such belief in light of the fact protesters had announced their cause and the individual involved was a slightly mumsy lady wearing a ball gown and sash, and carrying a phone, and Field just wanted to get onto the cheese course ASAP.
Within the first camp, some people presumably appreciate Field had misread the situation rather badly. With hindsight, he plainly had and admits it himself. But that isn't the test; hindsight is 20:20 and the issue is what he thought at the time.
And within the second camp, presumably some people realise that a conviction is unlikely. I am hugely sceptical about whether Field honestly believed there was a danger, but he says he did and it's hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't.
But I don't think the issue is one of what degree of force is reasonable. If people in the first camp were converted to the view Field perceived no threat, how many would say "he was still justified in throwing the lady against the pillar and grabbing her neck - cheese courses matter that much"? Likewise, if I thought Field genuinely believed there was a real risk of imminent violence from the woman, I'd not be taking an extreme pacifist line on it.
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.
Boris is going to treble the size of the cabinet to accommodate all his promises
What this does aptly demonstrate is the limitations of the legal ‘reasonable person’ test.
There is clearly a chasm between two different opinions of what reasonable might mean these days.
I'm not sure that's right.
The reasonable person test in relation to self-defence looks at what force is objectively reasonable given the situation as the person subjectively believes it to be. That belief can be wrong, it just needs to be honestly held.
I don't think we're actually arguing about the first part (objectively reasonable force) but the second (subjective belief).
On that, there seem to be two positions:
1. Field honestly believed there was a real and substantial physical threat in light of well-publicised past incidents of violence towards public figures, and the febrile political environment of the present.
2. Field had no such belief in light of the fact protesters had announced their cause and the individual involved was a slightly mumsy lady wearing a ball gown and sash, and carrying a phone, and Field just wanted to get onto the cheese course ASAP.
Within the first camp, some people presumably appreciate Field had misread the situation rather badly. With hindsight, he plainly had and admits it himself. But that isn't the test; hindsight is 20:20 and the issue is what he thought at the time.
And within the second camp, presumably some people realise that a conviction is unlikely. I am hugely sceptical about whether Field honestly believed there was a danger, but he says he did and it's hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't.
But I don't think the issue is one of what degree of force is reasonable. If people in the first camp were converted to the view Field perceived no threat, how many would say "he was still justified in throwing the lady against the pillar and grabbing her neck - cheese courses matter that much"? Likewise, if I thought Field genuinely believed there was a real risk of imminent violence from the woman, I'd not be taking an extreme pacifist line on it.
While your legal analysis is correct, I’m far from convinced there is now general agreement on what is ‘objectively reasonable’. For this of us in the soggy middle, you’re probably right, but for the rest, not so much.
Though of course only those of us in the soggy middle are objectively reasonable.
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.
Boris is going to treble the size of the cabinet to accommodate all his promises
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.
Boris is going to treble the size of the cabinet to accommodate all his promises
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?
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.
And if steak was on the menu (was it?) those knives would have been of the very sharp kind. Potentially lethal in the wrong hands.
So, angry woman, lethal weapon, a defenceless Philip Hammond ... need I go on?
Mark Field, pissed up and pissed off Brexiteer MP, angry at the Remoaner Chancellor, one glass of red too many, steak knives to hand. Thank goodness the ISIS evening gown patrol showed up in time to save Spreadsheet Phil.
This is all nonsense of the type we used to get when the tabloids would print pap shots of Lady Di under the headline, this could have been a rifle.
Who knows? Maybe it will fester on till Field is sacked; maybe it will be water under a bridge in a week's time.
While that is crass, the incident does show Layla Moran's wisdom in not standing for the Lib Dem leadership: she'd have been hamstrung responding to this.
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.
I disagree. For one thing, the poor design of the process allows this sort of thing to happen. For another, BJ was going to win the run-off whoever his opponent was. For another, there'll be more than enough important matters to occupy everyone's attention come the autumn.
+1. Tactical voting is what it is, and in all sorts of contexts is discussed on PB as a perfectly sensible way of using the limited power of the vote. No different with this election. People in any election can use any device (lawful of course) to achieve their ends. The system is designed so as to allow a small group of people to get a field down to two. They have.
PS If the Mark Field incident had been a male right wing agitator and, say Rebecca Long-Bailey or Diane Abbott, she would have had my full support, and I suspect the support of most of the centre right. The politicised reaction is over the top.
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.
And if steak was on the menu (was it?) those knives would have been of the very sharp kind. Potentially lethal in the wrong hands.
So, angry woman, lethal weapon, a defenceless Philip Hammond ... need I go on?
Mark Field, pissed up and pissed off Brexiteer MP, angry at the Remoaner Chancellor, one glass of red too many, steak knives to hand. Thank goodness the ISIS evening gown patrol showed up in time to save Spreadsheet Phil.
This is all nonsense of the type we used to get when the tabloids would print pap shots of Lady Di under the headline, this could have been a rifle.
Who knows? Maybe it will fester on till Field is sacked; maybe it will be water under a bridge in a week's time.
He’s a Brexiteer now? There has to be more to it than being a middle aged man to qualify surely?
While that is crass, the incident does show Layla Moran's wisdom in not standing for the Lib Dem leadership: she'd have been hamstrung responding to this.
While that is crass, the incident does show Layla Moran's wisdom in not standing for the Lib Dem leadership: she'd have been hamstrung responding to this.
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.
Boris is going to treble the size of the cabinet to accommodate all his promises
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.
Boris is going to treble the size of the cabinet to accommodate all his promises
What on earth is the Mark Field fuss about? He grabbed a disrupting trespasser and escorted her out. He wasn't hitting her or putting a stranglehold on her or pushing her to the ground. The world has gone completely mad if this is seen as an excessive reaction.
What on earth is the Mark Field fuss about? He grabbed a disrupting trespasser and escorted her out. He wasn't hitting her or putting a stranglehold on her or pushing her to the ground. The world has gone completely mad if this is seen as an excessive reaction.
People cheer any controversy that might be used against a political opponent like they’re celebrating a goal at a football match. Unthinkers are taking over.
Mark Field, pissed up and pissed off Brexiteer MP, angry at the Remoaner Chancellor, one glass of red too many, steak knives to hand. Thank goodness the ISIS evening gown patrol showed up in time to save Spreadsheet Phil.
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
Uxbridge & South Ruislip is an interesting constituency, though: the Lib Dems are nowhere and (as you've just said) it's quite susceptible to the Brexit Party.
2017 was Con 50.8%, Lab 40.0%, LD 3.9%, UKIP 3.4%, Green 1.9%.
At the next GE I think you can assume the Lib Dems won't really campaign there - they have limited resources and much more tempting targets elsewhere in London. Demographically the seat is friendlier to Labour than the Lib Dems. So the Labour vote will see a little bit of seepage to LD and Green, but it will largely hold up.
The Conservative vote, however, has two ways to go: Brexit Party or LD. Whatever has happened by the time of the next GE, a significant chunk of that vote is likely to be pissed off. If we've left, some will go LD, potentially some BXP depending on the shape of the deal. If we haven't, some will go LD, lots will go BXP. BXP only have to get 11% (half their current polling) from Boris for him to lose his seat.
So I believe it's very plausible, maybe even probable, that Boris will lose his seat at the next election. Like @Mysticrose, if I could find anywhere to put money on it, I would.
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.
Boris is going to treble the size of the cabinet to accommodate all his promises
Legally the total in the Cabinet cannot exceed 23
I believe that is incorrect, the legal maximum of members of the Cabinet who are *PAID* as members of the Cabinet is 23. You can stack them to the ceiling provided they remain on a junior ministerial salary.
Mark Field, pissed up and pissed off Brexiteer MP, angry at the Remoaner Chancellor, one glass of red too many, steak knives to hand. Thank goodness the ISIS evening gown patrol showed up in time to save Spreadsheet Phil.
What on earth is the Mark Field fuss about? He grabbed a disrupting trespasser and escorted her out. He wasn't hitting her or putting a stranglehold on her or pushing her to the ground. The world has gone completely mad if this is seen as an excessive reaction.
The voice of sanity.
Seriously if you invade someone else's space then being escorted out is reasonable. He didn't punch her or anything like that.
What on earth is the Mark Field fuss about? He grabbed a disrupting trespasser and escorted her out. He wasn't hitting her or putting a stranglehold on her or pushing her to the ground. The world has gone completely mad if this is seen as an excessive reaction.
Rich Tory posho physically attacking an illegally trespassing climate change "protester" - I say plague on both their houses!
Mark Field, pissed up and pissed off Brexiteer MP, angry at the Remoaner Chancellor, one glass of red too many, steak knives to hand. Thank goodness the ISIS evening gown patrol showed up in time to save Spreadsheet Phil.
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
Uxbridge & South Ruislip is an interesting constituency, though: the Lib Dems are nowhere and (as you've just said) it's quite susceptible to the Brexit Party.
2017 was Con 50.8%, Lab 40.0%, LD 3.9%, UKIP 3.4%, Green 1.9%.
At the next GE I think you can assume the Lib Dems won't really campaign there - they have limited resources and much more tempting targets elsewhere in London. Demographically the seat is friendlier to Labour than the Lib Dems. So the Labour vote will see a little bit of seepage to LD and Green, but it will largely hold up.
The Conservative vote, however, has two ways to go: Brexit Party or LD. Whatever has happened by the time of the next GE, a significant chunk of that vote is likely to be pissed off. If we've left, some will go LD, potentially some BXP depending on the shape of the deal. If we haven't, some will go LD, lots will go BXP. BXP only have to get 11% (half their current polling) from Boris for him to lose his seat.
So I believe it's very plausible, maybe even probable, that Boris will lose his seat at the next election. Like @Mysticrose, if I could find anywhere to put money on it, I would.
Mark Field, pissed up and pissed off Brexiteer MP, angry at the Remoaner Chancellor, one glass of red too many, steak knives to hand. Thank goodness the ISIS evening gown patrol showed up in time to save Spreadsheet Phil.
If you follow the link his speech contains so many platitudes at odds with his actual behaviour, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. For instance:
"the UK remains committed to helping women all over the world to feel safe in the work they do, so that they can speak freely and be part of the change we all want."
Or
"we want a world in which... those fighting to improve human rights can do so without fear of discrimination, violence or intimidation."
Or
"human rights defenders often operate in the most difficult environments, and by exposing issues that the powerful would prefer to keep hidden, their work puts them in constant danger."
So I believe it's very plausible, maybe even probable, that Boris will lose his seat at the next election. Like @Mysticrose, if I could find anywhere to put money on it, I would.
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
Uxbridge & South Ruislip is an interesting constituency, though: the Lib Dems are nowhere and (as you've just said) it's quite susceptible to the Brexit Party.
2017 was Con 50.8%, Lab 40.0%, LD 3.9%, UKIP 3.4%, Green 1.9%.
At the next GE I think you can assume the Lib Dems won't really campaign there - they have limited resources and much more tempting targets elsewhere in London. Demographically the seat is friendlier to Labour than the Lib Dems. So the Labour vote will see a little bit of seepage to LD and Green, but it will largely hold up.
The Conservative vote, however, has two ways to go: Brexit Party or LD. Whatever has happened by the time of the next GE, a significant chunk of that vote is likely to be pissed off. If we've left, some will go LD, potentially some BXP depending on the shape of the deal. If we haven't, some will go LD, lots will go BXP. BXP only have to get 11% (half their current polling) from Boris for him to lose his seat.
So I believe it's very plausible, maybe even probable, that Boris will lose his seat at the next election. Like @Mysticrose, if I could find anywhere to put money on it, I would.
If Boris can secure Brexit within six months, say, its salience as an issue should begin to decline. By 2022 perhaps normal party politics will have been restored, with only a small number of diehards still obsessed with the EU.
If you follow the link his speech contains so many platitudes at odds with his actual behaviour, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. For instance:
"the UK remains committed to helping women all over the world to feel safe in the work they do, so that they can speak freely and be part of the change we all want."
Or
"we want a world in which... those fighting to improve human rights can do so without fear of discrimination, violence or intimidation."
Or
"human rights defenders often operate in the most difficult environments, and by exposing issues that the powerful would prefer to keep hidden, their work puts them in constant danger."
So I believe it's very plausible, maybe even probable, that Boris will lose his seat at the next election. Like @Mysticrose, if I could find anywhere to put money on it, I would.
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
Uxbridge & South Ruislip is an interesting constituency, though: the Lib Dems are nowhere and (as you've just said) it's quite susceptible to the Brexit Party.
2017 was Con 50.8%, Lab 40.0%, LD 3.9%, UKIP 3.4%, Green 1.9%.
At the next GE I think you can assume the Lib Dems won't really campaign there - they have limited resources and much more tempting targets elsewhere in London. Demographically the seat is friendlier to Labour than the Lib Dems. So the Labour vote will see a little bit of seepage to LD and Green, but it will largely hold up.
The Conservative vote, however, has two ways to go: Brexit Party or LD. Whatever has happened by the time of the next GE, a significant chunk of that vote is likely to be pissed off. If we've left, some will go LD, potentially some BXP depending on the shape of the deal. If we haven't, some will go LD, lots will go BXP. BXP only have to get 11% (half their current polling) from Boris for him to lose his seat.
So I believe it's very plausible, maybe even probable, that Boris will lose his seat at the next election. Like @Mysticrose, if I could find anywhere to put money on it, I would.
If Boris can secure Brexit within six months, say, its salience as an issue should begin to decline. By 2022 perhaps normal party politics will have been restored, with only a small number of diehards still obsessed with the EU.
Certainly possible. But I doubt Boris (or Hunt, for that matter) can sustain an HoC majority to 2022.
What on earth is the Mark Field fuss about? He grabbed a disrupting trespasser and escorted her out. He wasn't hitting her or putting a stranglehold on her or pushing her to the ground. The world has gone completely mad if this is seen as an excessive reaction.
While that is crass, the incident does show Layla Moran's wisdom in not standing for the Lib Dem leadership: she'd have been hamstrung responding to this.
What’s crass about it? It’s true
Too much time is wasted on "what if" speculation. I think it's very unlikely that a woman would've done what MF did, so the proposition is moot.
If you follow the link his speech contains so many platitudes at odds with his actual behaviour, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. For instance:
"the UK remains committed to helping women all over the world to feel safe in the work they do, so that they can speak freely and be part of the change we all want."
Or
"we want a world in which... those fighting to improve human rights can do so without fear of discrimination, violence or intimidation."
Or
"human rights defenders often operate in the most difficult environments, and by exposing issues that the powerful would prefer to keep hidden, their work puts them in constant danger."
Oh dear.
These protestors weren't human rights defenders.
They were Greenpeace activists protesting against the climate emergency, so actually I would say they were defending our right to live in a world not being destroyed by rising temperatures and sea levels. But congratulations, you win today's award for pedantry, always a hard-fought category on PB.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Ventuckyspaz/status/1141943754368024576
The memorial service for my friend was nice though.
I worry rather that he reacted in the way he did but at least, having done so, he very quickly apologised.
It was Farage and Field who were going about their business and got disrupted by trouble causers, the only difference is that Field reacted foolishly.
There is clearly a chasm between two different opinions of what reasonable might mean these days.
I don't think it's wise to be complacent about security around major political figures, particularly in the current climate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np_ylvc8Zj8
An interesting documentary on the city/government/British Overseas Territories.
No doubt the usual suspects will try to pick on any minor detail.
On reflection, several thoughts:
1. He should have asked who I was before announcing that he wanted to serve an order on me. If I had a nervous disposition I might have found it alarming.
2. On the other hand, he shouldn't have accepted my word that I wasn't Martin N***, and could reasonably have asked for ID.
3. It's a bit odd that he didn't show me identification himself. Anyone can dress up as an officer.
All minor stuff, but I do wonder whether I'd have been treated as deferentially if I'd been a black teenager.
However, Field could have (and should have) achieved the same effect without the degree of force he evidently used. I just admit I lean to the view that that misjudgement is inconsistent with his role with the FCO.
Working title: Dine Hard
Richard E Grant lined up to play the Mark Field character.
[Cheerful topics of conversation this morning].
Title: Necks and the City
Farage's business was/is to get a reaction and he got one. My main problem with the fairly dumb milkshaking was that it fed entirely into the increasing right wing snowflakey bleating about how persecuted they are.
Greenpeace wanted a reaction and got one, and this was beyond their wildest dreams. If you wanted a visualisation of much of what is wrong with the world, a puce faced Tory in a tux grabbing a young women by the neck is it.
And if steak was on the menu (was it?) those knives would have been of the very sharp kind. Potentially lethal in the wrong hands.
So, angry woman, lethal weapon, a defenceless Philip Hammond ... need I go on?
The reasonable person test in relation to self-defence looks at what force is objectively reasonable given the situation as the person subjectively believes it to be. That belief can be wrong, it just needs to be honestly held.
I don't think we're actually arguing about the first part (objectively reasonable force) but the second (subjective belief).
On that, there seem to be two positions:
1. Field honestly believed there was a real and substantial physical threat in light of well-publicised past incidents of violence towards public figures, and the febrile political environment of the present.
2. Field had no such belief in light of the fact protesters had announced their cause and the individual involved was a slightly mumsy lady wearing a ball gown and sash, and carrying a phone, and Field just wanted to get onto the cheese course ASAP.
Within the first camp, some people presumably appreciate Field had misread the situation rather badly. With hindsight, he plainly had and admits it himself. But that isn't the test; hindsight is 20:20 and the issue is what he thought at the time.
And within the second camp, presumably some people realise that a conviction is unlikely. I am hugely sceptical about whether Field honestly believed there was a danger, but he says he did and it's hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't.
But I don't think the issue is one of what degree of force is reasonable. If people in the first camp were converted to the view Field perceived no threat, how many would say "he was still justified in throwing the lady against the pillar and grabbing her neck - cheese courses matter that much"? Likewise, if I thought Field genuinely believed there was a real risk of imminent violence from the woman, I'd not be taking an extreme pacifist line on it.
That is an excellent summary IMO.
Just thank feck he didn't have his steak knife in his hand when he jumped up to grab her.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1141997640214831104
For this of us in the soggy middle, you’re probably right, but for the rest, not so much.
Though of course only those of us in the soggy middle are objectively reasonable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair
LOL. What a twat.
This is all nonsense of the type we used to get when the tabloids would print pap shots of Lady Di under the headline, this could have been a rifle.
Who knows? Maybe it will fester on till Field is sacked; maybe it will be water under a bridge in a week's time.
PS If the Mark Field incident had been a male right wing agitator and, say Rebecca Long-Bailey or Diane Abbott, she would have had my full support, and I suspect the support of most of the centre right. The politicised reaction is over the top.
What’s crass about it? It’s true
Snap election, then.
2017 was Con 50.8%, Lab 40.0%, LD 3.9%, UKIP 3.4%, Green 1.9%.
At the next GE I think you can assume the Lib Dems won't really campaign there - they have limited resources and much more tempting targets elsewhere in London. Demographically the seat is friendlier to Labour than the Lib Dems. So the Labour vote will see a little bit of seepage to LD and Green, but it will largely hold up.
The Conservative vote, however, has two ways to go: Brexit Party or LD. Whatever has happened by the time of the next GE, a significant chunk of that vote is likely to be pissed off. If we've left, some will go LD, potentially some BXP depending on the shape of the deal. If we haven't, some will go LD, lots will go BXP. BXP only have to get 11% (half their current polling) from Boris for him to lose his seat.
So I believe it's very plausible, maybe even probable, that Boris will lose his seat at the next election. Like @Mysticrose, if I could find anywhere to put money on it, I would.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/21/boris-johnson-vs-jeremy-hunt-tory-leadership/
From 0.22 onwards...
https://youtu.be/mQKRAJTgEuo
Seriously if you invade someone else's space then being escorted out is reasonable. He didn't punch her or anything like that.
Field has escorted someone out. She wasn't endangered with a punch.
"the UK remains committed to helping women all over the world to feel safe in the work they do, so that they can speak freely and be part of the change we all want."
Or
"we want a world in which... those fighting to improve human rights can do so without fear of discrimination, violence or intimidation."
Or
"human rights defenders often operate in the most difficult environments, and by exposing issues that the powerful would prefer to keep hidden, their work puts them in constant danger."
Oh dear.
That's a job new to me. Do rabbits even have wool?
In the USA she could have been shot.