"Explain, please, why such a blatant assault escapes criminal charges when it's during a football match."

Why should people be able to get away with saying things on the internet that they'd be locked up for in real life?

For one reason or another the soccer pitch and the internet have become sacred ground, a place where the authorities fear to tread.

Rock stars are for the most part similarly protected against any kind of public sanction for their behaviour. Thus, Mick Jagger shtups 20-year-old girl and the reaction is: "Wow, those rockers, ain't that the life?" Any other man in his mid-sixties shtups 20-year-old girl and the reaction on the front page of every tabloid is: "Dirty old man! There should be laws against this!" And why wasn't the odious Ozzy Osbourne locked up for possession of illegal substances years ago? (Sharon should be behind bars simply for existing.)

One reason for believing that there can be no God

Report it to the police. You never know, they might send out a diversity counsellor to make enquiries. Presumably there are some witnesses.

When I saw Thatcher's assault my reaction was the same, it was a criminal act not a bit of footballing excess. Whilst I do think a bit of leeway can be given for evens that occur on a football pitch not to the extent that charging at someone with your elbow at full speed is accepted.. The headbutt which got Duncan Ferguson locked up was pretty tame in comparison.

The assault may not escape charges; according to Radio 5, Greater Manchester Police are investigating the incident.

And, as a Manchester City supporter, I can only say that I'm glad. I always disliked Thatcher for being useless and dangerous to the team, and now I loathe him as a psychopath. With any luck he'll never play for City again.

From a legal viewpoint you may well want to review Paolo's comment (top). The facts are that Lee Bowyer did not take part in a 'murderous assault' - the student concerned was beaten up but certainly not murdered (and murder was not the intent of those involved). The court found that Lee Bowyer was not directly involved in the assault and so he was set free. Any talk in this regard about a 'licence to kill' is complete nonsense.

Interesting that Stephen spells footy 'footie'.

From a human viewpoint, Mike Deluis is talking nonsense, and I am annoyed that you followed him and deleted my comment. Lee "the thug" Bowyer, who has spent his career being passed from team to team because nobody could put up with him for long, took part in a vicious, unprovoked, drunken, heedless assault on a defenceless victim: in ordinary language, you would certainly call it murderous, since it was carried out with complete heedlessness as to whether the victim lived or died. And what the jury did is a scandal itself. There were three accused. The one who was not a professional footballer got a heavy sentence. The one who was a little-known pro footballer got off lightly. The well-known one got off, period. There was no difference in the evidence against them, but there was plenty in the final result. If you are so scared of the law that you do not allow this kind of very obvious reflection, then, Stephen, not only am I ashamed of you, but I fail to see what you keep this blog for.

And I am glad that Thatcher is possibly going to get some payback for his crime. But is it not the case that at least since the obscene gang of thugs that was Leeds United in the early seventies - and they built a statue to the chief bully! - English football has allowed a vile kind of on-pitch thug to flourish, while hilariously commenting on those gutless Continentals who fall over when they are hit by our robust, physical boys? Tell me, Mike Deluis, how many players like Rob Keane - now a manager, and ready to pass on his "skills" to another generation - will we have to tolerate, before people accept that rules exist for a reason?