But she wasn't armed. And there was no indication she was. I can't go up to someone in the street and punch them in the face because I think they might pose a threat to me and then claim it as self-defence. This was assault. Nothing less. I'm baffled people are actually trying to construe it as something else and I worry for anyone who thinks that's an acceptable way to act around someone - irrespective of the gender attacking or being attacked.
No, BobbyManc made the general point that violence against women transcends ideology. So I made the general point would that still be the case even IF (not because) a woman was armed?
So in an equally general sense, let’s let women completely do what they want where they they want when they want without any risk of forcible ejection ever ...because they are women?
Maybe a few female would-be terrorists will be reading this thinking “Hmm, if I shove explosives down my bra under my ‘free flowing red dress’ as long as I show I have bare arms, I’ll be in!! ...because I’m a woman!”
The real blame lies in the lack of security & she shouldn't have even got inside the building: that’s not the fault of Mark Field & you have had the benefit of a days chin scratching time about this. He didn’t.
Oh & he didn’t punch her in the face, didn’t grab her by the throat etc. He acted in a way that a lot of Stewards or Bouncers do most weekends in a manner that they certainly don’t end up on assault charges for.
There were no Stewards or Bouncers in the Mansion House though, so he improvised to the best of his ability when put on the spot. Whether you think it was ham fisted in anyway or not is very much moot.