Hore gets 5 weeks

First topic message reminder :

This will probably start a fire as some will see 5 weeks as lenient others may disagree. In my opinion banning someone in weeks is ridiculous. It should be in matches as he will only miss this England game, unless I am mistaken?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Jeez again, the attacks for when they do something credit worthy and disprove the myth.

The statements form both players tell the true story about this whole thing, and do their nations much more credit than the fans do.

That's right. But, the Daily Mail put a ridiculous spin on what Bradley had said.

Glas a du wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Jeez again, the attacks for when they do something credit worthy and disprove the myth.

The statements form both players tell the true story about this whole thing, and do their nations much more credit than the fans do.

That's right. But, the Daily Mail put a ridiculous spin on what Bradley had said.

Look Bradley IS the number one cause of cancer in peadophile imigrants

PJHolybloke wrote:Punch a Frenchman and you get vouchers for Marks & Spencer.

feck me I think I just wet 'em!!

According to Steve Hanson it was you guessed it just one big accident. "His intention was to do something else but he got it drastically wrong"

http://www.rugbydump.com/2012/11/2905/steve-hansen-discusses-andrew-hore-incident-and-englands-players

Just when we thought the ABs may have man'd up and introduced some integrity into AB rugby he goes and spouts this spam. Who does he think he is kidding. Embarrassing!

The force is strong with this one.......rest.....I must.

Yadda, yadda, Yoda.

I know this subject is dead by now, but:

"In a court of law the victim (Davies) would have to give evidence, thus exposing him to cross examination by the defence, and any half competent lawyer would then be able to show the court that Davies provoked the whole incident."

Just to be clear, in the law of England and Wales, provocation is NOT a defence to a charge of assault. The only relevance is that it can be a mitigating factor in sentencing. If he had killed BD, then 'provocation' is a potential defence to a murder chage, reducing the conviction to one of manslaughter, but 'provocation' in that context has a specific legal meaning and running an obstructive line in a rugby game would he highly unlikely to amount to legal 'provocation' for that purpose.

Yes but if we're consistent in applying the law the incident wouldnt have happened because Davies would still be serving time in block C for his own indiscretion.

Taylorman wrote:Yes but if we're consistent in applying the law the incident wouldnt have happened because Davies would still be serving time in block C for his own indiscretion.

.......and we would never have a rugby match because every player would be in there with him!

Nelson Mandela would have had a number one hit with "Free Bakies Botha"

Richie McCaw would probably have to serve a longer sentence than Mandela did!

Given that Davies has no memory of the incident how could he possibly give evidence in the first place?
Have to say that interview with him doesnt show him in the best light. Its not the best advert for Rugby either (Oh yes I'd love to have my children play rugby and get knocked out on a regular basis.....)

What about The Beiderbecke Affair?