Chinahand Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 My main point I have is that I don’t think mr Field behaved particularly differently than 1000s of doormen and bouncers removing a disruptive person from private property. I reiterate you are allowed to use reasonable force to remove trespassers. That doesn’t mean beating them up, it doesn’t mean kidnapping or detaining them. It means you are allowed to physically remove them. The precedent set by criminalising Mr Field for Doormen simply doing there job and behaving essentially identically would be disproportional. I find comparing the actions of Mr Field to those of the Chinese Party State naive in the extreme. A Chinese policeman or bouncer is allowed to remove someone being disruptive they aren’t allowed to beat someone up, torture or disappear them. I am not that bothered by the former I am extremely concerned about the latter and find the accusations of hypocrisy totally overblown. Get over yourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 9 minutes ago, Chinahand said: My main point I have is that I don’t think mr Field behaved particularly differently than 1000s of doormen and bouncers removing a disruptive person from private property. I think you'll find that a bouncer using a neck hold like that isn't going to be a licensed bouncer for long. Quote The precedent set by criminalising Mr Field for Doormen simply doing there job and behaving essentially identically would be disproportional. The difference is that Mr Field is not trained or licensed in the same way a doorman is. You only have to look at the way this was handled compared to Esther McVey's disruptive person to see the hypocrisy at work by Mr Field. He is getting what he deserves for acting in the way he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 http://www.workingthedoors.co.uk/safer-doors/reasonable-use-of-force-what-you-can-and-cant-do/ NECK RESTRAINTS The use of neck restraints or holds is strongly discouraged, because of the significant inherent dangers in using them. There is a very real danger of causing someone serious or even fatal injuries when neck holds are applied, and door supervisors must be aware of the serious risks of using them on customers when either lawfully ejecting them from premises, or arresting them for an offence. Although stabilising a violent person’s head via the neck may seem an effective way of controlling them, we must remember that the neck contains the throat, the windpipe and the voice box, all of which are easy to damage. If steady or heavy pressure is applied to these areas, the person’s ability to breath will be restricted. A strong neck hold could also crush the windpipe or rupture the voice box. A blockage in the windpipe can quickly lead to death. Furthermore, the carotid arteries run down either side of the neck from the back of the ears, and any sudden or steady pressure here could slow down the flow of blood to the brain, seriously reducing the amount of oxygen that can get through. Applying pressure to the front of someone’s neck by using a hold can also be extremely painful as well as restricting breathing, which can cause the person to struggle even more violently, which is not what we are trying to achieve. If someone starts to struggle even more, then the tendency is to tighten the hold on him, which could cause serious harm or may even have fatal consequences. A door supervisor engaged in a violent struggle may find it difficult to avoid applying some form of pressure on a person’s neck, but there are serious risks involved, and such pressure on or around the neck should be avoided if at all possible. Although serious steps can be taken in serious situations, neck holds of any sort should only be used as a very last resort. Just a quick read through this guidance document, Mr Field failed several times to correctly assess the threat (i.e. there was no threat and he escalated it), used inappropriate response and force, and opened himself up for the rightful condemnation and suspension he received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 19 minutes ago, Chinahand said: My main point I have is that I don’t think mr Field behaved particularly differently than 1000s of doormen and bouncers removing a disruptive person from private property. I reiterate you are allowed to use reasonable force to remove trespassers. That doesn’t mean beating them up, it doesn’t mean kidnapping or detaining them. It means you are allowed to physically remove them. The precedent set by criminalising Mr Field for Doormen simply doing there job and behaving essentially identically would be disproportional. I find comparing the actions of Mr Field to those of the Chinese Party State naive in the extreme. A Chinese policeman or bouncer is allowed to remove someone being disruptive they aren’t allowed to beat someone up, torture or disappear them. I am not that bothered by the former I am extremely concerned about the latter and find the accusations of hypocrisy totally overblown. Get over yourselves. It's all subjective though. Which means nobody can claim to be right. However the fact Dumbo Rambo issued an unreserved apology straight afterwards tends to indicate he thinks he overreacted as well! But then he's a tory politician and therefore never to be trusted over anything..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 He was just pissed off that in his view some scummer had the temerity to interrupt something that people had paid good money to attend. He was trying to show off to the worthies. I had a similar experience once while gently heckling David cannan only to find myself hit over the head with a tray of sandwiches by someone in thrall to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 I recieved no apology from anyone. Also there wasn't enough salad cream on the tuna and cucumber ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 53 minutes ago, Chinahand said: My main point I have is that I don’t think mr Field behaved particularly differently than 1000s of doormen and bouncers removing a disruptive person from private property. The point made by Richard is very relevant, however, I thought that I would add that I was out in a club over the weekend when someone started to get aggressive and started to push and shove someone I was out with. If I had stepped in and grabbed the guy by the neck and forced him out of the door I am pretty sure that I would have soon followed escorted by the club's security staff. Doormen, bouncer and police are very different from Joe Public (or a conservative MP in this case) when it comes to removing someone from a venue such as this. I would question how the protesters managed to enter the venue but that does not make Mark Field's actions any more acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 1 hour ago, the stinking enigma said: He was just pissed off that in his view some scummer had the temerity to interrupt something that people had paid good money to attend. He was trying to show off to the worthies. I had a similar experience once while gently heckling David cannan only to find myself hit over the head with a tray of sandwiches by someone in thrall to him. Any video evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 These Tories take a different approach ... Wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 Fake news?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 14 minutes ago, Declan said: These Tories take a different approach ... Wonder why? That is the event I have referred to. Best guess its the extra 150lbs and 6 inches in height that make all the difference. That and maybe a penis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 That's what happens when you hire will self and don brennan to do security Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 Ah if only Mr Field was about in the eighties he’d have made a good bouncer at the palace lido disco though not as rough as some employed during that era? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted June 24, 2019 Author Share Posted June 24, 2019 I'd have ejected Esther McVey before she got anywhere near the microphone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.