I don't know what happened and neither do you.
Were you there are or are you just accepting the accounts of Galloway supporters?
Your language suggests you've decided, without trial, that someone is guilty.
Pathetic!
There is actually is an excuse for hitting another person...it's called self-defence!
You're obviously well out of your depth on these type of issues.
To be fair it seems highly doubtful this was any sort of self-defense.
In fact that in itself is a pretty wild conclusion to draw from the information we have.
I've never understood why an attacker is called a "coward". Surely cowards are people (like me) who would run away from a fight and not walk up to someone in the street to punch them.
I can't stand Galloway but even he doesn't deserve this to happen to him.
Agreed, the assailant could've been a 5 foot tall 8st weakling.
Galloway is a vile **** but still doesn't deserve this.
I've never understood why an attacker is called a "coward". Surely cowards are people (like me) who would run away from a fight and not walk up to someone in the street to punch them.
I can't stand Galloway but even he doesn't deserve this to happen to him.
So if I, in my younger days, as a 6'7, 16 stone professional athlete had walked up to someone standing in the street, punched them in the face and run off then I would not be a coward? I find that rather bizarre. Any unprovoked attack where there is little or no chance of retaliation is a cowardly act in my book.
I don't know what happened and neither do you.
Were you there are or are you just accepting the accounts of Galloway supporters?
Your language suggests you've decided, without trial, that someone is guilty.
Pathetic!
There is actually is an excuse for hitting another person...it's called self-defence!
You're obviously well out of your depth on these type of issues.
Again you resort to insulting and misrepresenting me. Laughable!
Ah yes, I forgot, George Galloway and other elected MP's go round thumping people all the time.
I'll concede it's not impossible, but really, do you actually think it's likely this was self-defence?
You don't see that as jumping to conclusions?
Give me strength
You've already jumped to conclusions without hearing both sides of the argument.
Let's just throw him in jail then.
No need for a trial as you've already convicted him.
Feel free to. When people have tried to provoke me, or even hit me, I found that the best response is to smile and walk away. I have never hit anybody and I can 100% guarantee that I never would. Punching another person solves nothing.
I've never understood why an attacker is called a "coward". Surely cowards are people (like me) who would run away from a fight and not walk up to someone in the street to punch them.
I can't stand Galloway but even he doesn't deserve this to happen to him.
Cowards are thugs who attack others by using the element of surprise. This particular thug jumped on Galloway while he was having pictures taken in the street. This was not a fight.
Running away from a fight is not cowardly, it's sensible.
So if I, in my younger days, as a 6'7, 16 stone professional athlete had walked up to someone standing in the street, punched them in the face and run off then I would not be a coward? I find that rather bizarre. Any unprovoked attack where there is little or no chance of retaliation is a cowardly act in my book.
I take your point but It's just not a use of the language that I understand. To me a coward wouldn't punch anyone in the first place. I could think of lots of other words to call you.
You've already jumped to conclusions without hearing both sides of the argument.
Let's just throw him in jail then.
No need for a trial as you've already convicted him.
I haven't jumped to any conclusions at all.
At no point have I said there would be no need for a trial.
You really do come across as the one that's lurching about wildly in this discussion.
I'm merely pointing out on the balance of probability it is very unlikely it was any sort of self-defence, because it's extremely rare for elected officials to go about attacking people. It doesn't sit well with the voters.
It has nothing to do with hearing both sides of the argument, or any partisan feeling - I'd say exactly the same thing if it was any other politician.
I'm eager to hear the facts but there's no reason we can't hypothesize until we know more. What exactly is your problem?
ETA: To be honest, even with the info we've got the BBC are reporting he was posing for pictures at the time. I'm astonished you could imagine there would be any blame in Galloway's direction.
Cowards are thugs who attack others by using the element of surprise. This particular thug jumped on Galloway while he was having pictures taken in the street. This was not a fight.
Running away from a fight is not cowardly, it's sensible.
Yep, it's a good job we ran away from Hitler in 1939 eh?
George Galloways campaigning amounts to inciting harm and security threats.
He is not just voicing an opinion. He is attacking Western civilisation and excusing the misbehaviour of vile regimes.
He completely fails to properly criticize Islamic atrocities and daily abuses of Arab citizens in his obsession with Israel.
Any condemnation of terror he makes always has an addendum implying it is all the West's fault. In that sense he is a danger to stability and a bar to genuine conflict resolution.
At no point have I said there would be no need for a trial.
You really do come across as the one that's lurching about wildly in this discussion.
I'm merely pointing out on the balance of probability it is very unlikely it was any sort of self-defence, because it's extremely rare for elected officials to go about attacking people. It doesn't sit well with the voters.
It has nothing to do with hearing both sides of the argument, or any partisan feeling - I'd say exactly the same thing if it was any other politician.
Are you for real?
So you've read the statements, the summary of evidence and the interviews?
Try your "balance of probability" in a court of law and you'll be given short shrift.
You obviously don't understand how the CJS works.
George Galloways campaigning amounts to inciting harm and security threats.
He is not just voicing an opinion. He is attacking Western civilisation and excusing the misbehaviour of vile regimes.
He completely fails to properly criticize Islamic atrocities and daily abuses of Arab citizens in his obsession with Israel.
Any condemnation of terror he makes always has an addendum implying it is all the West's fault. In that sense he is a danger to stability and genuine conflict resolution.
He is loathsome.
While the likes of Blair simply sends our soldiers to be slaughtered for 'just' causes.
George Galloways campaigning amounts to inciting harm and security threats.
He is not just voicing an opinion. He is attacking Western civilisation and excusing the misbehaviour of vile regimes.
He completely fails to properly criticize Islamic atrocities and daily abuses of Arab citizens in his obsession with Israel.
Any condemnation of terror he makes always has an addendum implying it is all the West's fault. In that sense he is a danger to stability and genuine conflict resolution.
He is loathsome.
Probably just making up for the fact that virtually all of Western civilisation has refused to condemn the Israeli atrocities and daily abuses of Arab citizens?
Comments
To be fair it seems highly doubtful this was any sort of self-defense.
In fact that in itself is a pretty wild conclusion to draw from the information we have.
You were there as well?
Was it the DS members night out or something?
Agreed, the assailant could've been a 5 foot tall 8st weakling.
Galloway is a vile **** but still doesn't deserve this.
So if I, in my younger days, as a 6'7, 16 stone professional athlete had walked up to someone standing in the street, punched them in the face and run off then I would not be a coward? I find that rather bizarre. Any unprovoked attack where there is little or no chance of retaliation is a cowardly act in my book.
Noted, I shall quote you on that.
Ah yes, I forgot, George Galloway and other elected MP's go round thumping people all the time.
I'll concede it's not impossible, but really, do you actually think it's likely this was self-defence?
You don't see that as jumping to conclusions?
Give me strength
Again you resort to insulting and misrepresenting me. Laughable!
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/george-galloway-shrugs-off-protesters-to-speak-at-packed-meeting-in-belfasts-ulster-hall-30532028.html
Sorry, but how on earth was he insulting you?
You've already jumped to conclusions without hearing both sides of the argument.
Let's just throw him in jail then.
No need for a trial as you've already convicted him.
Feel free to. When people have tried to provoke me, or even hit me, I found that the best response is to smile and walk away. I have never hit anybody and I can 100% guarantee that I never would. Punching another person solves nothing.
Cowards are thugs who attack others by using the element of surprise. This particular thug jumped on Galloway while he was having pictures taken in the street. This was not a fight.
Running away from a fight is not cowardly, it's sensible.
Were you?
I take your point but It's just not a use of the language that I understand. To me a coward wouldn't punch anyone in the first place. I could think of lots of other words to call you.
I haven't jumped to any conclusions at all.
At no point have I said there would be no need for a trial.
You really do come across as the one that's lurching about wildly in this discussion.
I'm merely pointing out on the balance of probability it is very unlikely it was any sort of self-defence, because it's extremely rare for elected officials to go about attacking people. It doesn't sit well with the voters.
It has nothing to do with hearing both sides of the argument, or any partisan feeling - I'd say exactly the same thing if it was any other politician.
I'm eager to hear the facts but there's no reason we can't hypothesize until we know more. What exactly is your problem?
ETA: To be honest, even with the info we've got the BBC are reporting he was posing for pictures at the time. I'm astonished you could imagine there would be any blame in Galloway's direction.
Yep, it's a good job we ran away from Hitler in 1939 eh?
He is not just voicing an opinion. He is attacking Western civilisation and excusing the misbehaviour of vile regimes.
He completely fails to properly criticize Islamic atrocities and daily abuses of Arab citizens in his obsession with Israel.
Any condemnation of terror he makes always has an addendum implying it is all the West's fault. In that sense he is a danger to stability and a bar to genuine conflict resolution.
He is loathsome.
Grow up!
So you've read the statements, the summary of evidence and the interviews?
Try your "balance of probability" in a court of law and you'll be given short shrift.
You obviously don't understand how the CJS works.
Okay then, how often do politicians go about attacking people when they are posing for pictures?
While the likes of Blair simply sends our soldiers to be slaughtered for 'just' causes.
Probably just making up for the fact that virtually all of Western civilisation has refused to condemn the Israeli atrocities and daily abuses of Arab citizens?