What is an attack, someone with a mug full of kids play stuff. Who says you have the right to defend your self. If the defense is greater than the attack you are in trouble. As you noticed they did not fight back.
Yes far right wingers have all the cheek in the world, take Abbott for example.
Bolt is one of them and fair play, radical and far right.
The world has gone past that sort of rhetoric.
And they blame muslims for extremism, the right are just as bad if not worse.
Bolt was ready to assault, joyse just took it. In other words Bolt was expecting it.

Foxy,

"I don't think that anyone on this forum advocates
violence no matter who it comes from"

Well, I do advocate violence, particularly when unlawfully attacked, anyone who physically attacks me or mine can expect a violent reaction; Andrew Bolt was perfectly justified in reacting with violence and had one of his punches resulted in serious injury or death then he would have had no case to answer.
I also advocate violence from the Armed Forces and the police when it is necessary, I'm all for police when attacked, using violence to protect themselves and others.

The attackers initiated the violence, therefore they are to blame for any outcome.

Dick-brain Dorg,

How do you know ? Somebody chucks something on you and then something else, two blokes in hoodies like most gutless wonders, what is anybody supposed to think ? Are you suggesting that Bolt is clairvoyant, he instantly understands what has been thrown on him and rubbed in his face ? He instantly realises that it's not some sort of Korean poison, not some suffocating or poisonous or acidic substance, and instantly forgives the half-wits as just playing a bit of a prank ?

Would you ? If you were accosted like this, by blokes with tatts, hob-nail boots, and skin-heads, what would you suspect ? How would you react ?

Ah, haven't thought about that yet ? Take your time, I know it's hard for mental-defectives. The world is so unfair.

Joe

no doubt Paul will have the stabbed London victims as the perpetrators of the crime. It fits with his reasoning.

Well, it looks as if anyone with the mind to do so could go and give doog a smacking and he would't defend himself. I have tried to engage him with common sense, but it is clear that he is an imbecile.

doog, "Who says you have the right to defend your self. If the defense is greater than the attack you are in trouble"

Well done, doog for the odd frankness (even if unintended and rooted in hubris) that consistently evades other leftist 'Progressives' on OLO (and their heads do bob up on threads like this).

For you have openly stated what they believe, that they choose who has rights and who doesn't. And obviously in the subject case it is Bolt who has no rights because he is not one of them.

Thanks are due to you too, for brazenly making it crystal clear that while leftist 'Progressives' (and we are talking about International Socialists aren't we? you might have added that), are all for criminals rights, they don't give a proverbial about victims' rights and citizens rights.

Next, where anyone does defend him- herself or loved ones, including against home invasions, the very first interest of the police is in charging the defender, the victim, who if charged will face the expensive, uphill battle of defending his-herself against a reversed standard of proof. -That doesn't apply to his/her attacker/s.

That is of course what the sly, unethical, leftist stirrers are doing on the forum, casting about for ways, no matter how unlikely, whereby the victim of this assault, Bolt, can be re-victimised by them and preferably, by the State. But even in that hugely unlikely scenario, it would rely on the gutless perpetrators of leftist violence being caught and charges proved.