Sarcasm.
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.OK, if this thread is literally just about "should this guy have manhandled the woman out of the room", then no he shouldn't. He should have let security do it and carried on his business.
Then put /s tags. In a thread like this it's too hard to tell.
Makes no difference to me whether it was a tory or any other politician. I said earlier he shouldnt have got involved. By also stating that if you trespass you can be expected to be ejected from premises, I'm not defending him. I think they're both in the wrong.
Yep. It is getting kinda hard to tell. Like this one:Then put /s tags. In a thread like this it's too hard to tell.
You understand why a politician would violently manhandle a woman?
You understand why a politician would violently manhandle a woman?
I doubt he would have tried it if it was a 6'3 guy.
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.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
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 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.
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?
No. It's excessive and unnecessary force.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.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?
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?
Don't play coy. Everyone can see what you're attempting to do here.I never said it was justified. Understanding something is not the same as condoning it.
Fwiw, I'm speaking with experience dealing with Greenpeace protesters who at least in America are expressly told Tobe 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
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.
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.
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"?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
This is very disingenuous.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.
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.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.
Mr Baskind says he would have been surprised if charges had been brought against the MP.
"If this was you or me, it was clearly within the realms of what a person may do. No question."
Don't waste your time.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.
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.
No.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.
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.
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.
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.You are free to not engage with me, or block me. A little self restraint might help
KAnd I'm free to continue to call out your alarming justifications and weak spin.