Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Nope.
The woman had no need to be there. It was her choice. I do not condone what happened, but she made a conscious choice to be there.
Nope.
Yeah.Yep. Protecting the nation in time of need.
which nation ? Iraq ?
What exactly does "she was the architect of her own mishandling" mean then other than she deserved it? Stop digging.
Take your tired old argument and stuff it up your arse.
you're wrong, and demonstrably so. you're starting from the point that *she* provoked *him*. she at no point posed a threat to him, from the footage we have all seen, and any action by him to a threat he considered she posed has, by law, to be proportionate. he said to the media, and it's quoted in the thread above, that "for a split second" he thought that she was armed, that is that she posed a clear threat. yet he continued acting after that split second, and so - even if you assume he was within his rights to push her against the pillar - he was very clearly wrong to act at any point after that. yes, if she wasn't there it wouldn't have happened. if he wasn't there it would not have happened. but even with the two in the same room it shouldn't have happened. that it did is down to him and not her.She was somewhere she shouldn't have been. Had she not been there, it wouldn't have happened.
Wouldn't it be nice if you did.
Her choice.
So she was asking for it?
lots of combat-analysis twats on the twitter machine. Andrew Lillico was pretty much tying a red bandanna to his head and practising a thousand yard stare.Sir Peter Bottomley said the guy should be praised. Support from the execrable Iain Martin. Johnny Mercer fucking loved it
Yes you did. Architects are to blame if the building they designed collapses.That is not what I said.
she was the architect of her own manhandling.
Was she? I wouldn't have put it that way, but that is obviously what you feel.
you're wrong, and demonstrably so. you're starting from the point that *she* provoked *him*. she at no point posed a threat to him, from the footage we have all seen, and any action by him to a threat he considered she posed has, by law, to be proportionate. he said to the media, and it's quoted in the thread above, that "for a split second" he thought that she was armed, that is that she posed a clear threat. yet he continued acting after that split second, and so - even if you assume he was within his rights to push her against the pillar - he was very clearly wrong to act at any point after that. yes, if she wasn't there it wouldn't have happened. if he wasn't there it would not have happened. but even with the two in the same room it shouldn't have happened. that it did is down to him and not her.
Nah, only thing I feel when interacting with you is a dull sense of disdain.
Nation's/government's don't always go to war when they are at risk of invasion/significant harm. Sometimes they do it for entirely political reasons, to use your phrase, because it 'meets their agenda'. The invasion of Iraq fits that definition 100%, violence to meet an agenda. the thing you seem to be against.Take your tired old argument and stuff it up your arse.
Even by your standards, that is exceptionally moronic. If Field hadn't chosen to be there, he couldn't have assaulted her. So it couldn't have happened. Now stop being so deliberately thick.No. Had she not chosen to be there, it could not have happened. Now stop being so deliberately contentious.
lots of combat-analysis twats on the twitter machine. Andrew Lillico was pretty much tying a red bandanna to his head and practising a thousand yard stare.
i'm not being contentious in the slightest. mark field assaulted a woman without provocation. i wish i were surprised to find you saying it's the woman's fault when a man attacks her but - and it's sad to say - i'm not surprised you've chosen your horse in this race.No. Had she not chosen to be there, it could not have happened. Now stop being so deliberately contentious.
Nation's/government's don't always go to war when they are at risk of invasion/significant harm. Sometimes they do it for entirely political reasons, to use your phrase, because it 'meets their agenda'. The invasion of Iraq fits that definition 100%, violence to meet an agenda. the thing you seem to be against.
i'm not being contentious in the slightest. mark field assaulted a woman without provocation. i wish i were surprised to find you saying it's the woman's fault when a man attacks her but - and it's sad to say - i'm not surprised you've chosen your horse in this race.
Take your tired old argument and stuff it up your arse.
I've had my finger up Rupolph Hess's backside.
In fairness I think their fear is understandable.
It was a deliberately provocative protest it has to be said. This is the point of this sort of direct action and those undertaking it must accept that with this sort of protest there will likely be a response which could include being forcibly removed from the building.
This being said it shouldn't be him doing it and the force was clearly disproportionate. The stuff about him feeling threatened is an obvious lie, he just lost his temper and attacked a woman.
It was a deliberately provocative protest it has to be said. This is the point of this sort of direct action and those undertaking it must accept that with this sort of protest there will likely be a response which could include being forcibly removed from the building.
This being said it shouldn't be him doing it and the force was clearly disproportionate. The stuff about him feeling threatened is an obvious lie, he just lost his temper and attacked a woman.
A fair assessment of the situation.
I saw the woman on the lunchtime news, she stated that she didn't wish to press charges. She didn't say why.
A common assault charge would stick.
Let them tremble. They are lucky that this really was a peaceful protest. The over reaction is telling in all sorts of ways.
Absolute scum. I want to see every mansion house banquet disrupted from now on. Id Iike to see him and the rest of them marched out of there to face the justice they are so very afraid of.