-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
British MP caught on camera mandhandling Greenpeace protester
- Thread starter Blue Lou
- Start date
Well, yeah, you're starting a whole different topic here. Not many people will agree with you either, protesting and civil disobedience is a huge part of democracy itself. Some of the biggest advances that are made in countries are accomplished through activism of many forms. Also, you're acting as if her doing a peaceful protest, just walking in a place where she wasn't invited, is somehow on the same level as an outright attack -- that's not ok.
Then put /s tags. In a thread like this it's too hard to tell.
By making this into a 'both sides' thing you're actively defending him. The conversation as to whether people have the right to peaceful protest is best for when politicians aren't violently squashing peaceful protest; it's not that time.
You understand why a politician would violently manhandle a woman?
Yep. It is getting kinda hard to tell. Like this one:
Fwiw, I'm speaking with experience dealing with Greenpeace protesters who at least in America are expressly told to be rude, invasive and confrontational. I don't know his story, but if he had to deal with them a lot in that way I can see where he snapped. I don't condone violence against anyone, and he should be repremanded for the assault
I'm good fam
It doesn't matter why he snapped, anyone can snapped, everyone has their triggers. That does not excuse an unprovoked attack. He should not just be reprimanded, he should be prosecuted according to the law. A physical attack like this is not ok.
You're not because you said you understand.
It doesn't matter how many hyperthetical "rude, invasive, confrontational Greenpeace protesters" he had dealt with before, this woman was tiny in comparison to him. She gave 0 indication she was a threat that needed force.
He could have just stood, blocked her, and slowly walked her out.
His laying hands is not justified, in any way, so you saying "I understand" is rightly being called.
I dont thnk its as clear cut as this.
Would it have been acceptable if a security guard, police person or bouncer had removed the person from the room in this way?
He isn't a security guard or bouncer so this has nothing to do with this issue.
Stop trying to downplay his actions.
lol at the macho bullshit in this thread.
"Oh yeah I would've definitely beat up that woman as well". Big man.
"Oh yeah I would've definitely beat up that woman as well". Big man.
I never said it was justified. Understanding something is not the same as condoning it.
Security and police are trained to deal with these situations and how to safely restrain someone without injuring them what Mark Field do was jump up and push her into a column and physically escort her out with excessive force. She was compliant and posed no further risk to him or anyone.
Don't play coy. Everyone can see what you're attempting to do here.
You are suggesting the force was justified because of hyperthetical "rude, invasive, confrontational protestors" that may have been in the past.
You have clearly clarified this. That IS a justification.
And now you're treating us like idiots and trying to spin.
Gross mate.
Wow, so you think it's OK to violently manhandle a woman just because other people in her group are "rude, invasive and confrontational"?
Also he's a man many times bigger than the woman he assaulted, when there's a power dynamic like that the concept of "snapping" should not be on one's mind. Saying that you "understand" why he did it directly implies that you feel it's an excusable and justifiable act and, in turn, shows that you support it.
In this case, power dynamics. If the protester wasn't a smaller woman the likelihood that he'd have had the guts to assault them would be much lower.
User banned (3 days): concern trolling over a series of posts
As is often the case, there is no conversation here. There may as well be a sticky post saying that the guy was wrong because there's nothing beyond that. So why not raise the topic of what constitutes peaceful protest or even whether they are choosing the right targets? Britain has just committed to being carbon neutral and is actually doing comparatively well in terms of climate change policies in what is a global issue. Why aren't these people barging into the US and Chinese embassies if they want to make a statement? Striding into Mansion House isn't going to make a dick of difference if for every tonne of CO2 we're saving, the US is barfing out another 100.
Which has nothing to do with the fact this man twice the size, felt the need to lay hand the way he did and use excessive force.
I'm not spinning shit. Just because I know the process that he went through to justify his action, doesn't mean I think it's the right thing to do. People have anger problems that can be exacerbated by repeated behavior. It's their job to find a healthy way to deal with it that doesn't involve hurting people. Stop being reductive.
Well I didn't bring up gender in this, As with how he acted if it was a dude he would have done the same (Greenpeace does hire more women than men iirc). I don't think it's ok to do that, but y'all have to understand that because I can trace why he exploded, doesn't mean he was right in doing so. He let lower level mental functions take over and did something wrong.
If you can't see how your understanding is indeed a justification in this context, and rightly called out, I'm not going to spend a half dozen posts bickering with you about how you're wrong.
Enjoy whatever it is you think you're doing.
Your call to "stop being reductive" shows you up anyway, you have no self-awareness at all here.
PS - you do NOT know the process he went through, your assumptions are a weird justification of violence at best.
Because the conversation isn't about whether they were right to protest here, it's about the MP who assaulted a peaceful protester over nothing.
What you're doing is like going into a thread about American police violence against a PoC protester and going "Yeah well there's a lot of things that PoC could do to help their situation outside of protesting and they've already got the civil rights act already so why aren't they protesting more oppressive regimes like North Korea instead? We need to have a conversation about whether they should actually be allowed to be there!"
I didn't bring up gender either, you just thought I did because I said "woman"...
And again, saying that you're not OK with something doesn't preclude you from justifying it through saying that you "understand" why he did it. If you seriously thought it was just the "lower level mental functions" that caused the issue then why even bring up anything else in the first place?
Yeah he was completely wrong to do that. End of thread then I guess. What else is there to say here? If there's nobody disagreeing with the fact that what he did is out of order, there's no discussion to be had.
I guess I should stay out of threads were my only real contribution could be "yeah he was wrong". Unless of course there are people who actually think he was OK to do it which I don't see very many of at all.
I wouldnt want to be head of security at mansion House this morning though. If there'd been a nutter we could be talking about something way more serious.
You engaged with me dude. I made my comment. Bye
It does preclude me not justifying it because observing behaviors isn't a justification of that behavior, unless you think any observation about someone's actions is a justification of it (which is weird, but you do you).
I brought it up because when I saw the video, I felt the dude got to this point because of some kind of history with Greenpeace (it's in the thread title). I can call out his bad behavior and Greenpeace's (as a corporation) practices that endanger their own workers. Youre free to not engage with me, because if you think I condone assault or harming someone you obviously haven't been trying to understand my posts and would rather get in an argument about me deconstructing the series of events
This is very disingenuous.
There is plenty of discussion that can come from this other then simply saying what he did was wrong.
You could talk about how the Conservatives and media aren't giving this the same treatment they have milkshake throwers.
You could talk about how one shake thrower was convicted and given community service and question how this MP would be treated in comparison.
You could talk about how comfortable he was in dragging that woman around when we has tweeted about how bad it is to abuse women.
There are plenty of things to be discussed here yet you seem to be arguing that this is a echo chamber of people saying what he do was wrong and that's it.
It isn't like she was armed or attacked anyone, I'm sure she got checked on the way in. There is only so much security checks can do, if someone decides to start yelling about climate change what can you do.
You understand a man grabbing a woman by the neck, slamming her against a column and force her out of the room by said neck.
Yet, here you are trying to spin your initial comment into something that is not and blaming Greenpeace for some stuff you evidently have against them.
I'm not sure this is clear enough, but you "understand" a MP grabbing someone by the neck. Someone that was not violent, someone that wanted to talk and protest about something that affects us all. And you "understand" it.
Don't waste your time.
Not only can this person be sure of the MP's intent (they can't), they don't understand how words work in terms of giving justification. It's not worth the bother.
I think your attempt at illustrating in detail what he did misses my point. On an emotional level, if he felt he had to act in violence to this person, I can understand if his experiences with Greenpeace had involved altercations where their employees disrupted his personal space, agitated him and berated him and so on. I'm not spinning my comment about Greenpeace, I'm informing posters of my position for why I can understand his motives.
This doesn't free him of accountability. In fact, it should do the opposite, because you can more clearly discuss his personal responsibility and tangentially discuss Greenpeace's shitty policies
No.
No amount of understanding of previous dealings with hypercritical protestors that might not even exist justifies the excessive force he used here.
There is no "understanding" unless you are justifying.
I was, until you continued to spew your nonsense justifications and spin. It's alarming how you can't see what you're doing here.
You are free to not engage with me, or block me. A little self restraint might help
What, that guy is just straight up defending him. The defense doesn't make much sense? Him dragging her out of there has nothing to do with a fear of an attack, how is that not obvious? Wouldn't that only be applicable to his personal safety? Him dragging her out of there is him taking the "security" of the entire venue upon himself, that has nothing to do with him personally being attacked. Moreover, she didn't make a move to do anything, so what Rawson is defending here is paranoia. How he can say that this is within the realms of what anyone is allowed to do is beyond me. So you can just randomly attack people and ferry them out of whatever random establishment you're in, as long as you at least have some sort of paranoia. Does the article's defense really hold any water here?
And I'm free to continue to call out your alarming justifications and weak spin.