comment by Robbing_Hoody - as a rule I don't trust a man who doesn't drink but I do trust James Milner (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
Doormen are licensed and trained security guards operating in licensed premises.

This is just some bloke grabbing a woman around the neck and man handling her.

Another terrible analogy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So a licensed and trained security guard is permitted to act in a way that would be deemed assault if someone unlicensed and untrained did it?

Genuine question, before you start getting upset. I don't know the answer to that.

comment by Robbing_Hoody - as a rule I don't trust a man who doesn't drink but I do trust James Milner (U6374)
posted 1 hour ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Robbing_Hoody - as a rule I don't trust a man who doesn't drink but I do trust James Milner (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
I'm not passing it off as first hand knowledge or 'knowledge'.

This just shows that you'll say anything. Youre weird. Another thread hijacked where you come on and approach me and then just start talking nonsense and telling people abput their mental state.

Admin do the right thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Admin
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a parody. Can we just revisit the phrase "assaulted a bus" given your response here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not native English, you twaaat

Secondly

assault
verb
1.
make a physical attack on.

Still you're a no mark hypocrite cuuuuuunt

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Robbing_Hoody - as a rule I don't trust a man who doesn't drink but I do trust James Milner (U6374)
posted 1 hour ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Robbing_Hoody - as a rule I don't trust a man who doesn't drink but I do trust James Milner (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
I'm not passing it off as first hand knowledge or 'knowledge'.

This just shows that you'll say anything. Youre weird. Another thread hijacked where you come on and approach me and then just start talking nonsense and telling people abput their mental state.

Admin do the right thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Admin
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a parody. Can we just revisit the phrase "assaulted a bus" given your response here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not native English, you twaaat

Secondly

assault
verb
1.
make a physical attack on.

Still you're a no mark hypocrite cuuuuuunt
----------------------------------------------------------------------

How much do you drink on average a day do you think?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Robbing_Hoody - as a rule I don't trust a man who doesn't drink but I do trust James Milner (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
Doormen are licensed and trained security guards operating in licensed premises.

This is just some bloke grabbing a woman around the neck and man handling her.

Another terrible analogy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So a licensed and trained security guard is permitted to act in a way that would be deemed assault if someone unlicensed and untrained did it?

Genuine question, before you start getting upset. I don't know the answer to that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, within context. They brought in the SIA license to curtail bouncers knocking fvck out of people unreasonably though. My mate got 2 years for banging someone who was incredibly verbally abusive whilst he was working the door.

Typical tactics, avoiding the comment, and come up with some dumbass reply. From a poster who says he doesnt trust people who dont drink.

really not a clever person are you. No mark cuuunt.

comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 37 seconds ago
Typical tactics, avoiding the comment, and come up with some dumbass reply. From a poster who says he doesnt trust people who dont drink.

really not a clever person are you. No mark cuuunt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ats because your comment us not worth mentioning. I am also not a hypocrite and youve provided no evidence what so ever to suggest I am, going so far as to actually make rhings up. An example of which would you be saying I condoned all forms of violence from Liverpool fans and also condoned that bloke bring pushed into a fountain.

Shhhhhh.

Robbing_Hoody - condoning assaults on inanimate objects since 2017 (U6374)

Interesting, but I don't think you've given enough detail to call my analogy terrible.

If it is a fact then fine, but where's the evidence? Again, genuine question.

From what I know of that, it's more about being licensed to protect others - not a licence to 'assault' someone who needs to be ejected.

Typical tactics, avoiding the comment, and come up with some dumbass reply. From a poster who says he doesnt trust people who dont drink.

really not a clever person are you. No mark cuuunt.
-------------
for someone who is not "trained" in the native language you sure seem to know a lot of the very English insults

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 seconds ago
Robbing_Hoody - condoning assaults on inanimate objects since 2017 (U6374)

Interesting, but I don't think you've given enough detail to call my analogy terrible.

If it is a fact then fine, but where's the evidence? Again, genuine question.

From what I know of that, it's more about being licensed to protect others - not a licence to 'assault' someone who needs to be ejected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Point being it's not assault if it's reasonable force.

Comparing Fields grabbing a woman by the neck and man handling her with the actions of a trained security guard on licensed premises is indeed an awful analogy and I dont care if there is enough detail.

Robbing_Hoody - condoning assaults on inanimate objects since 2017 (U6374)

You obviously didn't read what I said.

I asked that if a bouncer does exactly what Fields did, is it deemed assault?

You're trying to change the debate by claiming the security guard would handle her differently.

The analogy is perfectly fair and I suspect the answer doesn't fit with the narrative you're seeking to put out.

Okay, let me change the question.

If the room today had security and it was a security guard doing what Fields had done, would anyone claim it was assault?

Would anyone expect the police to act?

Sigh.

Look, each case is individual but here is it put simply.

Members of the general public are not allowed to grab other members of the public around the neck and man handle them in a public setting for saying words and walking around a room.

It's got fvck all to do with bouncers, night clubs, home invasions or any other bollox.

comment by Robbing_Hoody - condoning assaults on inanimate objects since 2017 (U6374)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Robbing_Hoody - as a rule I don't trust a man who doesn't drink but I do trust James Milner (U6374)
posted 1 hour ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Robbing_Hoody - as a rule I don't trust a man who doesn't drink but I do trust James Milner (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
I'm not passing it off as first hand knowledge or 'knowledge'.

This just shows that you'll say anything. Youre weird. Another thread hijacked where you come on and approach me and then just start talking nonsense and telling people abput their mental state.

Admin do the right thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Admin
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a parody. Can we just revisit the phrase "assaulted a bus" given your response here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not native English, you twaaat

Secondly

assault
verb
1.
make a physical attack on.

Still you're a no mark hypocrite cuuuuuunt
----------------------------------------------------------------------

How much do you drink on average a day do you think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

imho grabbing someon by the neck to lead them away in this situation is not disproportionate force or one that a man should be persecuted for.

I could easily do the same and I am sure most of us will too unless we are letting our bias cloud our reasoning which I suspect is the case

Excessive force doesn’t come into it with civilians.

comment by Robbing_Hoody - condoning assaults on inanimate objects since 2017 (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
Sigh.

Look, each case is individual but here is it put simply.

Members of the general public are not allowed to grab other members of the public around the neck and man handle them in a public setting for saying words and walking around a room.

It's got fvck all to do with bouncers, night clubs, home invasions or any other bollox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't just debate the point, can you?

If you read back, it was implied that Fields won't be charged because he's an MP.

I said I don't agree and wouldn't expect a bouncer to be charged for those actions either.

So it is relevant to my point.

If I'm wrong and they operate to a different law because of their job then fine, but I don't think they do and currently you've not provided any evidence to the contrary.

If you're unable to, try just shutting up rather than trying to close down the debate with your personal crap.

comment by Robbing_Hoody - condoning assaults on inanimate objects since 2017 (U6374)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sigh.

Look, each case is individual but here is it put simply.

Members of the general public are not allowed to grab other members of the public around the neck and man handle them in a public setting for saying words and walking around a room.

It's got fvck all to do with bouncers, night clubs, home invasions or any other bollox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Given who Im conversing with here I should add a caveat as nauseatingly I suspect this will be challenged for no other reason than.... well fvck knows.

There will be a precedent in the myriad of incidents throughout human history somewhere where the public were allowed to do this.

However, this isnt one of them which is why he's apologised and been suspended.

comment by Ed The King Woodward (U10026)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Robbing_Hoody - condoning assaults on inanimate objects since 2017 (U6374)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Robbing_Hoody - as a rule I don't trust a man who doesn't drink but I do trust James Milner (U6374)
posted 1 hour ago
comment by Yoda's big brother Hulk (U1250)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Robbing_Hoody - as a rule I don't trust a man who doesn't drink but I do trust James Milner (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
I'm not passing it off as first hand knowledge or 'knowledge'.

This just shows that you'll say anything. Youre weird. Another thread hijacked where you come on and approach me and then just start talking nonsense and telling people abput their mental state.

Admin do the right thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Admin
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a parody. Can we just revisit the phrase "assaulted a bus" given your response here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not native English, you twaaat

Secondly

assault
verb
1.
make a physical attack on.

Still you're a no mark hypocrite cuuuuuunt
----------------------------------------------------------------------

How much do you drink on average a day do you think?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can almost set your watch by this peenarse.

If you read back, it was implied that Fields won't be charged because he's an MP.
-------------
and if your not smart enough to understand that point was made because mp's because of who they are and who they know may get away with something the average joe blogs wouldn't then there's no help for you

comment by Robbing_Hoody - condoning assaults on inanimate objects since 2017 (U6374)
posted 58 seconds ago
comment by Robbing_Hoody - condoning assaults on inanimate objects since 2017 (U6374)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sigh.

Look, each case is individual but here is it put simply.

Members of the general public are not allowed to grab other members of the public around the neck and man handle them in a public setting for saying words and walking around a room.

It's got fvck all to do with bouncers, night clubs, home invasions or any other bollox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Given who Im conversing with here I should add a caveat as nauseatingly I suspect this will be challenged for no other reason than.... well fvck knows.

There will be a precedent in the myriad of incidents throughout human history somewhere where the public were allowed to do this.

However, this isnt one of them which is why he's apologised and been suspended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact he has apologised is utterly irrelevant.

Jeez, if that's your basis for concluding guilt then we certainly don't have the basis for a reasonable debate.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Robbing_Hoody - condoning assaults on inanimate objects since 2017 (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
Sigh.

Look, each case is individual but here is it put simply.

Members of the general public are not allowed to grab other members of the public around the neck and man handle them in a public setting for saying words and walking around a room.

It's got fvck all to do with bouncers, night clubs, home invasions or any other bollox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't just debate the point, can you?

If you read back, it was implied that Fields won't be charged because he's an MP.

I said I don't agree and wouldn't expect a bouncer to be charged for those actions either.

So it is relevant to my point.

If I'm wrong and they operate to a different law because of their job then fine, but I don't think they do and currently you've not provided any evidence to the contrary.

If you're unable to, try just shutting up rather than trying to close down the debate with your personal crap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfectly fair comments and Robbing has not credible retort, so he'll bring up mental health in 1, 2, 3...

Mark Field just looks like a wrongun.

comment by United_kaz (U9943)
posted 5 minutes ago
If you read back, it was implied that Fields won't be charged because he's an MP.
-------------
and if your not smart enough to understand that point was made because mp's because of who they are and who they know may get away with something the average joe blogs wouldn't then there's no help for you
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I did understand that.

I just didn't agree with it.

Given your earlier error, I'd concentrate on reading things fully if I were you.