creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[Bruce Rioja]

PS fifteen blows. He decks one. He stops at that point. Hardly egregious.

No he doesn't stop at all, he goes after the other one when the film stops.

Of course, once again you'll have something you can share with us.?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

PS fifteen blows. He decks one. He stops at that point. Hardly egregious.

No he doesn't stop at all, he goes after the other one when the film stops.

Of course, once again you'll have something you can share with us.?

I can share that the bottle is clearly visible in the video. I can share that the released video stops at the point it does because nothing of note continues after 'the end'. I can share that The Times, The Guardian and other newspapers are reporting that he intervened to defend people against an homophobic (armed) aggression.
Apart from that, no, I have nothing to 'share'

[Bruce Rioja]

PS fifteen blows. He decks one. He stops at that point. Hardly egregious.

No he doesn't stop at all, he goes after the other one when the film stops.

Of course, once again you'll have something you can share with us.?

I can share that the bottle is clearly visible in the video. I can share that the released video stops at the point it does because nothing of note continues after 'the end'. I can share that The Times, The Guardian and other newspapers are reporting that he intervened to defend people against an homophobic (armed) aggression.
Apart from that, no, I have nothing to 'share'

As I thought. Nothing. Something you did share though is that he threw 15 punches. However, for reasons known only to yourself you seemed to sanctify that by claiming that only one landed. There'll have been intent in all 15, but on you go.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

PS fifteen blows. He decks one. He stops at that point. Hardly egregious.

No he doesn't stop at all, he goes after the other one when the film stops.

Of course, once again you'll have something you can share with us.?

I can share that the bottle is clearly visible in the video. I can share that the released video stops at the point it does because nothing of note continues after 'the end'. I can share that The Times, The Guardian and other newspapers are reporting that he intervened to defend people against an homophobic (armed) aggression.
Apart from that, no, I have nothing to 'share'

As I thought. Nothing. Something you did share though is that he threw 15 punches. However, for reasons known only to yourself you seemed to sanctify that by claiming that only one landed. There'll have been intent in all 15, but on you go.

Actually when I said he decked one I meant one person. I know he landed 15 blows. It was a street fight. It wasn't Wounded Knee. As I said 'hardly egegious', and I sanctified nothing.

[Prufrock]

Just a street fight then. Fair enough.

I'm sure there's a context, it's not in that video but there could have a bottle, there could have been aggression by the others. That might be an argument for the first flurry. But at the end his head is gone, he's chasing someone who clearly isn't a threat anymore and he's absolutely battered him.

Can't be defending that.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Just a street fight then. Fair enough.

I'm sure there's a context, it's not in that video but there could have a bottle, there could have been aggression by the others. That might be an argument for the first flurry. But at the end his head is gone, he's chasing someone who clearly isn't a threat anymore and he's absolutely battered him.

Can't be defending that.

Stoke's wouldn't be using you as his lawyer then. I'm not even sure he's been charged, mind, so probably doesn't need you defending him.
Strangely enough I'm not defending him. I merely took a devil's advocate stance regarding the initial starting point of the fight and querying just who it was that the adjective feckin animal should apply to.
Having said I'm not defending him, I will argue mitigation insofaras he did at least stop once he'd decked the guy. And he only used his fists. He didn't kick him on the ground.. I surmise you haven't participated in much fisticuffs, as towards the end of course his 'head had gone'. It's what happens: my statement about it not being egregious revolves around the fact that after decking the bloke he manages to disengage and does not do what happens far too often and continues to batter a defenceless man.
If it turns out that he, Stokes, started it, then he's undefendable, but if he intervened then I say he's entirely excusable given the outcome.
And PS, the bottle IS clearly visible in the fully released video.

I rest my case m'lud.

[Bruce Rioja]

he did at least stop once he'd decked the guy.

No he didn't.

[Harry Genshaw]

Only just seen the video today. I was skeptical about the whole defending friends from homophobic comments as it was. After seeing it, totally indefensible. Whether he should play in the Ashes I dunno but the Police should be chucking the book at him

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Only just seen the video today. I was skeptical about the whole defending friends from homophobic comments as it was. After seeing it, totally indefensible. Whether he should play in the Ashes I dunno but the Police should be chucking the book at him

The police don't have a book to chuck... they might, at best, have a bit of a pamphlet. It truly staggers me how action, intent, outcome, motive, self-preservation are just instantly dismissed by 'the internet generation' that witness reality through youtube.
Very recently there was a video posted that went viral (throughout the world) because 18 Chinese people walked around and ignored a man who had been run over on a street. It only emerged much later in the west, that the reason for such 'inaction' wasn't callousness but because earlier a man who had helped a hit and run victim was jailed for life because according to the Chinese authorities (i.e. a judge, and subsequent appeals) only a 'guilty man' would help a stranger. In basic terms, what you see isn't always the whole picture...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Has he even been charged yet?
If he's so clearly guilty why is it taking so long?

[Bruce Rioja]

Yet you choose to believe a version of events that matches your opinion. You choose to 'witness reality' through printed publications? Well, that's your business.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Yet you choose to believe a version of events that matches your opinion. You choose to 'witness reality' through printed publications? Well, that's your business.

What I read isn't the whole picture either. I've looked at the video, read the newspapers, absorbed t'internet upsurge, taken into account a lifetime of experience and come to a different conclusion to you. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

[Bruce Rioja]

Upset me? Not at all. You couldn't if you tried.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Upset me? Not at all. You couldn't if you tried.

That's alright then...
Coz I wasn't even thinking of trying.

[TANGODANCER]

Ashes in Oz land. 196-4 at stumps on day 1, with Cook getting just 2 and Root 13. Not a bad start if we can maintain it.

[BWFC_Insane]

Ashes in Oz land. 196-4 at stumps on day 1, with Cook getting just 2 and Root 13. Not a bad start if we can maintain it.

Pitch was slow and turning. Very, very odd for Brisbane. In the circumstances a very good day 1. Issue is that if the sun comes out and dries it up batting will get easier. So I think we've still a lot to do. Another 150 at least needed if not another 200. And without Stokes in there our lineup in the middle order isn't quite as strong.

[Bruce Rioja]

The tone on the radio as I drove in this morning seemed to be one of - phew, disaster avoided. Thought it was a decent knock, missen.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Not following cricket, as I don't, I'm genuinely interested to know: was Stokes ever charged over 'the incident', is he facing court, is he in the current team, and if not is that because of any of the above????

[TANGODANCER]

Oz 165-4 at stumps. We set off at a rattling pace and had them 76-4 but they've dug in. 137 behind with 6 wickets left. Very much a guessing game right now.

[BWFC_Insane]

Oz 165-4 at stumps. We set off at a rattling pace and had them 76-4 but they've dug in. 137 behind with 6 wickets left. Very much a guessing game right now.

Worries over our middle and lower order...looks weak minus Stokes.

Also as Vaughan said Smith once in, usually scores big. Do we have enough quality in our attack to get rid of set batsmen in general on these pitches?

Not convinced. Plus point...we're in the game still when many thought by end of day 2 we'd not be.