UK Minister suspended after grabbing climate activist

Posted: June 21, 2019 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, government, News

Time to go

London’s Mansion House will no doubt have to employ its own bouncers to protect the bigwigs at its supposedly invitation-only events in future, saving unprotected government ministers from unseemly extra ‘duties’.

Mark Field has been suspended as a Foreign Office minister after grabbing a female Greenpeace activist at a black-tie City dinner, reports BBC News.

The MP has apologised for confronting Janet Barker and marching her away as protesters interrupted a speech by Chancellor Philip Hammond.

But he said he had been “genuinely worried” she may have been armed.

Ms Barker told the BBC he should “reflect on what he did” and suggested he “go to anger management classes”.

“He certainly manhandled me in a way in which was very disagreeable,” she said, but added that she did not intend to complain to the police.

BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford said there were also “very serious questions to be asked” about security, as a “large number” of protesters had apparently managed to “walk through” to the event.

Footage of the incident involving Mr Field has been widely shared on social media, with several Labour politicians calling for Mr Field to be sacked.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said Prime Minister Theresa May had “seen the footage” and “found it very concerning”.

She added: “The police have said they are looking into reports over this matter and Mark Field has also referred himself to both the Cabinet Office and the Conservative Party. He will be suspended as a minister while investigations take place.”

Climate change protesters – wearing suits, red dresses and sashes with “climate emergency” written on them – entered London’s Mansion House on Thursday night, as Mr Hammond was beginning his speech on the state of the economy.

One of them began reading an alternative speech.

As Ms Barker walked past his table, Mr Field stood up, stopped her and pushed her against a column.

The Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster then led her out of the room.

‘We were polite’

Before his suspension, Mr Field told ITV News that guests had “understandably felt threatened” and he had “instinctively reacted” when Ms Barker rushed past.

“There was no security present and I was, for a split second, genuinely worried she might have been armed,” Mr Field said.

He added: “I deeply regret this episode and unreservedly apologise to the lady concerned for grabbing her, but in the current climate I felt the need to act decisively to close down the threat to the safety of those present.”

Full report here.

  1. p.g.sharrow says:

    Mark Field was correct in his action to prevent a “Greenpeace” terrorist invader from disrupting the meeting as they had planned. I would have done it myself. Hell! I have done it myself. Someone HAS to be the Guard Dog! Someone must say NO to these uncivil people that feel justified to disrupt others lives. They are the aggressive Bullies…pg

  2. JB says:

    “Ms Barker told the BBC he should “reflect on what he did” and suggested he “go to anger management classes”.”

    That’s the #1 problem today with females. There are no consequences for ANYTHING they do. All actions on their part are excusable under any subpart of female behavior code.

  3. hunterson7 says:

    Hijacking a meeting by trespassers and uninvited interlopers is not civil or polite.
    This is yet more evidence that the climate consensus has failed civil society. The climate consensus is incapable of working under the rules that apply to society at large.

  4. oldbrew says:

    It’s not even as if they have any credible point to make.

  5. craigm350 says:

    Why no ASBO for these people. It certainly looks like they would qualify on several grounds.

  6. oldbrew says:

    They certainly need some sense knocking into them…

    Climate science’s ‘masking bias’ problem
    Posted on June 21, 2019
    – by Judith Curry

    How valid conclusions often lay hidden within research reports, masked by plausible but unjustified conclusions reached in those reports. And how the IPCC institutionalizes such masking errors in climate science.
    . . .
    JC comment: This is basically the problem that I have with the IPCC assessment reports. Deep in the chapters, there is much good information that is reliable, although the reports relatively ignore some topics. The problem is with the conclusions that are reached (particularly in the Summary for Policy Makers), and inflated levels of confidence that are ascribed to these conclusions.
    – – –
    And “inflated levels of confidence” is the polite way of putting it 😎

  7. Saighdear says:

    All this 97% et al “Consensus” rubbish causes as much division in Society as the apparent Brexit Referendum results did,

  8. dennisambler says:

    It amuses me and concerns me that they now have uniforms. The new Red Guards?