I think because of your fantasy of protecting the celebrity, you don't have the sense to see what happened, or understand what I said.

What Slater did is no different to what I probably would have done, and nor am I defending the guy who got hit.

However, what I am clear on is that Slater was the aggressor and in no way acted in self defence, which is the headline put out there. Had that been two normal individuals and the police pulled that CCTV then the guy doing what Slater did would have been in trouble.

Not a big Slater fan but in this case I thinks he's spot on. Some random bloke shoves his face - he tw@s him. Fair enough IMO.

How much do you understand about the legal definition of self defence?

It appears the police and or the Crown Prosecution Service are satisfied Slater was acting in self defence.

You need to get your medication checked if that's what you're seeing.

There's no aggressive gestures whatsoever from Slater until the guy slaps/shoves him. Slater was talking to the bouncer(?) in front of him while the other dude was hovering behind him. Slater than turns round and is talking to the dude, his palms are pretty much facing up and out in an effort to keep everything calm. The other dude then slaps him in the side of the head. Slater drops him quickly.

The aggression started when the dude slapped him. Slater quickly ended the situation.

Personally I don't think Greater Manchester Police will give two flying ****s over Slater being an Australian RL player.

I don't dissagree with much of what you have put in timescale, just dissagree with the interpretation.

The guy is obviously arguing as his Slater, before anything, and as we know from the media it is to do with pushing in.

Slater turns to the guy and puts his hands on his chest, palms facing up as you put it. Why do that? think about it, he is obviously telling the guy something and trying to have the dominance (probably telling him to calm down, or keep quite). He turns back round, and the guy then shoves him on the side of the head. He doesn't slap him or punch him, he shoves him, in retalliation to Slater putting his hands on him. Slater immediately turns round and punches him smack in the face.

To me it was retalliation from all sides with Slater quite clearly the aggressor. Self defence is to stop yourself being a victim. Had he not turned round and punched him, what do you think would have happened? looking at that video quite clear nothing would have happened, just continue arguing.

I'll ask again, what do you know about the legal definition of self defence? It's a very complex area. Their are objective and subjective tests.

I'll give you just one example from the plethora of case law on the subject that shows why your hypothesis of what "might" have happened had Slater not acted is completely flawed.

"it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ..."

Lord Morris in (Palmer v R 1971 AC 814)

I'm afraid you're just plain wrong on this one pal.

Gotcha - In the initial aspect are you concentrating only on Slater's right hand while ignoring the gesture he makes with his left hand - absolutely zero aggression from Slater at that point, IMO.

disagree. On the pitch, the first agressor making contact with the head would have been penalised more heavily.

for me, Slater is probably lucky to not get charged as I think the reaction is slightly OTT, but if someone hits you in the face, when your back is turned you can expect a punch back.

I would expect that is why nothing has been done. Manchester police has probably taken the view that Slater causing trouble in the city won't happen again. the other lad has probably been taken down a peg or two and may refrain from acts of agression in the future

You disagree that Slater (whether the aggressor or retaliator) would have been sent off for that had it happened in SL 2013?

Then he's a lucky, lucky boy indeed.

If someone makes contact with the head, they are the agressor. In reality it'd be 10 mins in the bin each I would have said. In the real world, that equates to a night in the cells

Once again a certain poster with an opinion so wide of the mark it's unbelievable. Slater the aggressor? Give over.

Very poor attempt at a wind up from Gotcha

If I had pushed / slapped / punched (or whatever term you wise to attach to it) someone in the side of the head, I wouldn't be surprised to get a dig back.

I meaning 'non-aggressive' before the shove/slap and Slater punching him. No the police would have done the same with any other bloke.

Gotcha, are you being serious?

I have been quite clear on that. I would have acted the same way had I been Slater, but I would also have punched Slater for putting in his hands on me also the way he did. I certainly wouldn't have shoved him back.

For me the lads actions were one of retaliation to Slater putting his hands on him first, and Slaters aggressive behaviour of the punch were down to the other guy shoving him.

I do not see any self defence in what Slater did, he was the cause of the problem, both in pushing in, in arguing with the guy, in putting his hands on the guy first, and then in punching the guy smack in the face.