Plays only in limited overs only *

Mark Wood Durham
Sam Cook Essex
Oliver Price Gloucs
Luke Wood Lancs
Ethan Bamber (Mddx)
Somerset Craig Overton
Sonny Baker Somerset
Reece Topley * Surrey
Gus Atkinson Surrey
Jammie Overton Surrey
Liam Norwell Warks
Josh Tonge Worcs
Dillon Pennington Worcs
Matt Fisher Yorks
Matt Milnes Yorks

Please add any bowlers I have not seen which you think belong in this list.

RH

Here's another racist, white-only list by me, RH

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 1:54:04 AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> Here's another racist, white-only list by me, RH

Here's another libellous forgery by you... RH

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 3:39:18 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 1:54:04 AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> > Here's another racist, white-only list by me, RH
> Here's another libellous forgery by you... RH

Truth is a defense against libel

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:11:53 AM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 3:39:18 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 1:54:04 AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> > > Here's another racist, white-only list by me, RH
> > Here's another libellous forgery by you... RH
> Truth is a defense against libel

Actually under Common Law it is not .... RH

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 00:11:50 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 3:39:18?PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 1:54:04?AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
>> > Here's another racist, white-only list by me, RH
>> Here's another libellous forgery by you... RH
>
>Truth is a defense against libel

"Nurse, the patient seems incapable of telling truth from falsehood.
Bring me the mallet so I can put him out again for a few hours." ...RH

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:39:43 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 00:11:50 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
> <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 3:39:18?PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 1:54:04?AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> >> > Here's another racist, white-only list by me, RH
> >> Here's another libellous forgery by you... RH
> >
> >Truth is a defense against libel
> "Nurse, the patient seems incapable of telling truth from falsehood.
> Bring me the mallet so I can put him out again for a few hours." ...RH

Oh dear, the creature shows its ignorance of English law yet again .... RH

Defamation Act 2013 Explanatory Notes
PreviousExplanatory Notes Table of contentsNext
Defamation Act 2013
2013 CHAPTER 26
Commentary on Sections
Section 2: Truth
13.This section replaces the common law defence of justification with a new statutory defence of truth. The section is intended broadly to reflect the current law while simplifying and clarifying certain elements.

14.Subsection (1) provides for the new defence to apply where the defendant can show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true. This subsection reflects the current law as established in the case of Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd(4), where the Court of Appeal indicated that in order for the defence of justification to be available “the defendant does not have to prove that every word he or she published was true. He or she has to establish the “essential” or “substantial” truth of the sting of the libel”.

15.There is a long-standing common law rule that it is no defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that he or she was only repeating what someone else had said (known as the “repetition rule”). Subsection (1) focuses on the imputation conveyed by the statement in order to incorporate this rule.

16.In any case where the defence of truth is raised, there will be two issues: i) what imputation (or imputations) are actually conveyed by the statement; and ii) whether the imputation (or imputations) conveyed are substantially true. The defence will apply where the imputation is one of fact.

17.Subsections (2) and (3) replace section 5 of the 1952 Act (the only significant element of the defence of justification which is currently in statute). Their effect is that where the statement complained of contains two or more distinct imputations, the defence does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, those which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant’s reputation. These provisions are intended to have the same effect as those in section 5 of the 1952 Act, but are expressed in more modern terminology. The phrase “materially injure” used in the 1952 Act is replaced by “seriously harm” to ensure consistency with the test in section 1 of the Act.

18.Subsection (4) abolishes the common law defence of justification and repeals section 5 of the 1952 Act. This means that where a defendant wishes to rely on the new statutory defence the court would be required to apply the words used in the statute, not the current case law. In cases where uncertainty arises the current case law would constitute a helpful but not binding guide to interpreting how the new statutory defence should be applied.

On Monday, 5 June 2023 at 17:01:19 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:39:43 PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 00:11:50 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
> > <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 3:39:18?PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > >> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 1:54:04?AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> > >> > Here's another racist, white-only list by me, RH
> > >> Here's another libellous forgery by you... RH
> > >
> > >Truth is a defense against libel
> > "Nurse, the patient seems incapable of telling truth from falsehood.
> > Bring me the mallet so I can put him out again for a few hours." ...RH
> Oh dear, the creature shows its ignorance of English law yet again .... RH
>
> Defamation Act 2013 Explanatory Notes
> PreviousExplanatory Notes Table of contentsNext
> Defamation Act 2013
> 2013 CHAPTER 26
> Commentary on Sections
> Section 2: Truth
> 13.This section replaces the common law defence of justification with a new statutory defence of truth. The section is intended broadly to reflect the current law while simplifying and clarifying certain elements.
>
> 14.Subsection (1) provides for the new defence to apply where the defendant can show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true. This subsection reflects the current law as established in the case of Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd(4), where the Court of Appeal indicated that in order for the defence of justification to be available “the defendant does not have to prove that every word he or she published was true. He or she has to establish the “essential” or “substantial” truth of the sting of the libel”.
>
> 15.There is a long-standing common law rule that it is no defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that he or she was only repeating what someone else had said (known as the “repetition rule”). Subsection (1) focuses on the imputation conveyed by the statement in order to incorporate this rule.
>
> 16.In any case where the defence of truth is raised, there will be two issues: i) what imputation (or imputations) are actually conveyed by the statement; and ii) whether the imputation (or imputations) conveyed are substantially true. The defence will apply where the imputation is one of fact.
>
> 17.Subsections (2) and (3) replace section 5 of the 1952 Act (the only significant element of the defence of justification which is currently in statute). Their effect is that where the statement complained of contains two or more distinct imputations, the defence does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, those which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant’s reputation. These provisions are intended to have the same effect as those in section 5 of the 1952 Act, but are expressed in more modern terminology. The phrase “materially injure” used in the 1952 Act is replaced by “seriously harm” to ensure consistency with the test in section 1 of the Act.
>
> 18.Subsection (4) abolishes the common law defence of justification and repeals section 5 of the 1952 Act. This means that where a defendant wishes to rely on the new statutory defence the court would be required to apply the words used in the statute, not the current case law. In cases where uncertainty arises the current case law would constitute a helpful but not binding guide to interpreting how the new statutory defence should be applied.
>
>
>
The explanatory notes support Hamish and refute your claim.
Did you even read the notes? Please say no, because if you did you are even more stupid than we thought, and it isn't every day we get to observe someone as dumb as you are.

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 09:27:01 -0700 (PDT), Najeeb ybo
<najeebybo@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 5 June 2023 at 17:01:19 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 4:39:43?PM UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 00:11:50 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
>> > <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 3:39:18?PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> > >> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 1:54:04?AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
>> > >> > Here's another racist, white-only list by me, RH
>> > >> Here's another libellous forgery by you... RH
>> > >
>> > >Truth is a defense against libel
>> > "Nurse, the patient seems incapable of telling truth from falsehood.
>> > Bring me the mallet so I can put him out again for a few hours." ...RH
>> Oh dear, the creature shows its ignorance of English law yet again .... RH

>The explanatory notes support Hamish and refute your claim.
>Did you even read the notes? Please say no, because if you did you are even more stupid than we thought, and it isn't every day we get to observe someone as dumb as you are.

The plaintiff is likely to fail on the grounds of there being no
damage. Previous litigation (see Malcolm v Henderson, xxx, yyy) has
established that the plaintiff is an out-and-out racist who writes and
posts his opinions on social media. It is therefore rather rich to
claim that the plaintiff has suffered reputational damage by it being
stated what has previously been established in a court of law. The
defendant therefore has no grounds for this action, which is
accordingly DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 2:52:20 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> The plaintiff is likely to fail on the grounds of

being a racist turd.

The ng has 15 years of "England" lists from RH and not a single one has had a non-white player in it.

He'd stumble in court to answer the first question - "RH, in your opinion, who is the best, non-white, Muslim, English cricket player ever?".

On Sunday, 4 June 2023 at 11:10:02 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:

> Sam Cook Essex

Am intrigued where you've got 90 mph from here. Have you watched him bowl?

"Lions recognition ensued, although his relative lack of pace (he bowls around the 80mph mark) meant he occupied a similar position with regards to England as the uncapped Porter." - cricinfo

In Cook's own words: "'I know I will never be a 90-mile-per-hour bowler but I will always try to add a bit of pace if I can, or try to keep more upright in my action for bounce, or perfect bowling with a Kookaburra ball or add reverse swing."

Richard

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:19:44 AM UTC-4, Richard Dixon wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 June 2023 at 11:10:02 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
> > Sam Cook Essex
>
> Am intrigued where you've got 90 mph from here. Have you watched him bowl?
>
> "Lions recognition ensued, although his relative lack of pace (he bowls around the 80mph mark) meant he occupied a similar position with regards to England as the uncapped Porter." - cricinfo
>
> In Cook's own words: "'I know I will never be a 90-mile-per-hour bowler but I will always try to add a bit of pace if I can, or try to keep more upright in my action for bounce, or perfect bowling with a Kookaburra ball or add reverse swing."
>
> Richard

90 furlongs per fortnight?

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 1:19:44 PM UTC+1, Richard Dixon wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 June 2023 at 11:10:02 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
> > Sam Cook Essex
>
> Am intrigued where you've got 90 mph from here. Have you watched him bowl?
>
> "Lions recognition ensued, although his relative lack of pace (he bowls around the 80mph mark) meant he occupied a similar position with regards to England as the uncapped Porter." - cricinfo
>
> In Cook's own words: "'I know I will never be a 90-mile-per-hour bowler but I will always try to add a bit of pace if I can, or try to keep more upright in my action for bounce, or perfect bowling with a Kookaburra ball or add reverse swing."
>
> Richard

The idea he is 80 mph is nonsense. You need to go and watch him. When he first appeared Cricin or Playfair classified him as RF.

Let me clarify what I mean by 90MPH . 1 do not mean the bowlers mentioned routinely bowled at 90mph or better . What I was getting at were bowlers who could reach that speed. RH

On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 13:59:45 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:

> Let me clarify what I mean by 90MPH . 1 do not mean the bowlers mentioned routinely bowled at 90mph or better . What I was getting at were bowlers who could reach that speed. RH

Are you blind? Cook: "I know I will never be a 90-mile-per-hour bowler". He's actually saying it, Robert. It's like Dan Lawrence all over again where Toby even got a video of him saying he was an off-break bowler and RH wouldn't believe it, bless him.

And I have watched him, Robert, home and away. He didn't stand out as quick. Bloody accurate, but 90 mph-capable? Nope.

Richard

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 06:38:14 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
<richsdixon1975@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 13:59:45 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
>> Let me clarify what I mean by 90MPH . 1 do not mean the bowlers mentioned routinely bowled at 90mph or better . What I was getting at were bowlers who could reach that speed. RH
>
>Are you blind? Cook: "I know I will never be a 90-mile-per-hour bowler". He's actually saying it, Robert. It's like Dan Lawrence all over again where Toby even got a video of him saying he was an off-break bowler and RH wouldn't believe it, bless him.
>
>And I have watched him, Robert, home and away. He didn't stand out as quick. Bloody accurate, but 90 mph-capable? Nope.
>
>Richard

He has seen Cook.

"Please add any bowlers I have not seen which you think belong in this
list. ...RH"

max.it

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 1:59:45 PM UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 1:19:44 PM UTC+1, Richard Dixon wrote:
> > On Sunday, 4 June 2023 at 11:10:02 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > Sam Cook Essex
> >
> > Am intrigued where you've got 90 mph from here. Have you watched him bowl?
> >
> > "Lions recognition ensued, although his relative lack of pace (he bowls around the 80mph mark) meant he occupied a similar position with regards to England as the uncapped Porter." - cricinfo
> >
> > In Cook's own words: "'I know I will never be a 90-mile-per-hour bowler but I will always try to add a bit of pace if I can, or try to keep more upright in my action for bounce, or perfect bowling with a Kookaburra ball or add reverse swing."
> >
> > Richard
> The idea he is 80 mph is nonsense. You need to go and watch him. When he first appeared Cricin or Playfair classified him as RF.
>
> Let me clarify what I mean by 90MPH . 1 do not mean the bowlers mentioned routinely bowled at 90mph or better . What I was getting at were bowlers who could reach that speed. R

Try this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTHX328jTEQ

RH

On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 15:43:36 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTHX328jTEQ

Robert, he just looks like a fast-medium.

Also: do you ALWAYS ignore inconvenient evidence? Are you going to entirely ignore the man himself saying "I know I will never be a 90-mile-per-hour bowler"?

Richard

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 08:20:41 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
<richsdixon1975@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 15:43:36 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTHX328jTEQ
>
>Robert, he just looks like a fast-medium.
>
>Also: do you ALWAYS ignore inconvenient evidence? Are you going to entirely ignore the man himself saying "I know I will never be a 90-mile-per-hour bowler"?
>
>Richard

ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
You've deflated his over inflated windbag again.
Wait till you hear the puffs and blows of him attempting to
re-inflate.

max.it

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 1:20:42 AM UTC+10, Richard Dixon wrote:
> Also: do you ALWAYS ignore inconvenient evidence? Are you going to entirely ignore the man himself saying "I know I will never be a 90-mile-per-hour bowler"?

In an alternate reality:

"oops, my bad, thanks for pointing that out. I'll remove him from my list - RH".

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 06:38:14 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
<richsdixon1975@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 13:59:45 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
>> Let me clarify what I mean by 90MPH . 1 do not mean the bowlers mentioned routinely bowled at 90mph or better . What I was getting at were bowlers who could reach that speed. RH
>
>Are you blind? Cook: "I know I will never be a 90-mile-per-hour bowler". He's actually saying it, Robert. It's like Dan Lawrence all over again where Toby even got a video of him saying he was an off-break bowler and RH wouldn't believe it, bless him.
>
>And I have watched him, Robert, home and away. He didn't stand out as quick. Bloody accurate, but 90 mph-capable? Nope.

Ah, you've been watching him play cricket. Cook was clocked at 92mph
when he was running away from the village idiot (all f-c players have
been given lists and pictures of the biggest idiots to be seen around
the circuit so that they can avoid him).

Cheers,

Mike

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:43:36 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 1:59:45 PM UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 1:19:44 PM UTC+1, Richard Dixon wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 4 June 2023 at 11:10:02 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sam Cook Essex
> > >
> > > Am intrigued where you've got 90 mph from here. Have you watched him bowl?
> > >
> > > "Lions recognition ensued, although his relative lack of pace (he bowls around the 80mph mark) meant he occupied a similar position with regards to England as the uncapped Porter." - cricinfo
> > >
> > > In Cook's own words: "'I know I will never be a 90-mile-per-hour bowler but I will always try to add a bit of pace if I can, or try to keep more upright in my action for bounce, or perfect bowling with a Kookaburra ball or add reverse swing."
> > >
> > > Richard
> > The idea he is 80 mph is nonsense. You need to go and watch him. When he first appeared Cricin or Playfair classified him as RF.
> >
> > Let me clarify what I mean by 90MPH . 1 do not mean the bowlers mentioned routinely bowled at 90mph or better . What I was getting at were bowlers who could reach that speed. R
> Try this
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTHX328jTEQ
>
He doesn't look that quick, but if he fixed that stutter at the start of his run he might get faster

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 4:20:42 PM UTC+1, Richard Dixon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 15:43:36 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTHX328jTEQ
>
> Robert, he just looks like a fast-medium.
>
> Also: do you ALWAYS ignore inconvenient evidence? Are you going to entirely ignore the man himself saying "I know I will never be a 90-mile-per-hour bowler"?
>
> Richard

I shall be going to the Mddx v Essex T20 on 8 June at Lords. If Cook is playing I will report back on his pace. rH

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 11:16:21 AM UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 4:20:42 PM UTC+1, Richard Dixon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 15:43:36 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTHX328jTEQ
> >
> > Robert, he just looks like a fast-medium.
> >
> > Also: do you ALWAYS ignore inconvenient evidence? Are you going to entirely ignore the man himself saying "I know I will never be a 90-mile-per-hour bowler"?
> >
> > Richard

I shall be going to the Mddx v Essex T20 on 8 June at Lords. If Cook is playing I will report back on his pace.

Here is Cook's exceptional FC stat:s.

FORMAT Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10 wm
FC 66 116 10893 4729 238 7/23 12/65 19.86 2.60 45. 7 12 3

RH

On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 11:23:34 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:

> Here is Cook's exceptional FC stat:s.
>
> FORMAT Mat Inns Balls Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 4w 5w 10 wm
> FC 66 116 10893 4729 238 7/23 12/65 19.86 2.60 45. 7 12 3

Irrelevant to the discussion! RH

On Tuesday, 6 June 2023 at 23:51:05 UTC+1, Mike Holmans wrote:

> Ah, you've been watching him play cricket. Cook was clocked at 92mph
> when he was running away from the village idiot (all f-c players have
> been given lists and pictures of the biggest idiots to be seen around
> the circuit so that they can avoid him).

It's that Dulux speed-gun he uses that adds an extra 5 mph to all the whites.

Richard