Admin phantom Posted August 14, 2018 Admin Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 16 hours ago, The Bard said: If ever a man were guilty, it's Ben Stokes. If anyone advised him to plead not guilty, they need sacking. The video of him being arrested and asking the police whether it was on video says everything me. He understood what he'd done and was thinking how he could wriggle out of it. Horrible little man. Couldn't give a **** how good he is at cricket. Interesting opinion, my thoughts on that video were that for someone who was supposed to have been rat arsed he spoke remarkably clear and coherent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhistleHappy Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 Not Guilty.... HALES BAILS ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy27 Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 35 minutes ago, Fordy62 said: Not guilty. Just like Steven Gerrard wasn’t guilty. Gotta love the celeb defence. A certain Sunderland footballer didn't get a 'celeb' defence. People at the time were saying the exact opposite in fact. Before anyone says anything - this isn't an opinion on either case - I'm just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 Quite surprised by that but I guess if you didn't see the evidence it's not a valuable opinion. I do wonder why the people apparently being defended weren't witnesses, that coupled with the press story not long after the incident looks a bit odd to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undy English Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 24 minutes ago, Nibor said: Quite surprised by that but I guess if you didn't see the evidence it's not a valuable opinion. I do wonder why the people apparently being defended weren't witnesses, that coupled with the press story not long after the incident looks a bit odd to say the least. Well said. A very strange case and surprising outcome. Ultimately the general public will never know the full story or why the jury found Stokes not guilty when all press reports suggested he'd be going down. Looks like, despite the media attention, he may have been telling the truth the whole time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Fordy62 said: Not guilty. Just like Steven Gerrard wasn’t guilty. Gotta love the celeb defence. Unbelievanle verdict IMHO I would suggest , under the same circumstances , with the same evidence seen and heard any member of this forum if in Stokes position would be convicted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 Truth is, with the best will in the world...jurors you cannot tell if they are even if not admitting to it swayed by celeb factor etc etc. Simplistic to say he might have got off because he was a celeb, but unless you can mind read all the jurors, it's literally impossible to do more than a base guess as to their thinking IMO in a case like this. However a jury have found that he's not guilty and that's the bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 30 minutes ago, Nibor said: Quite surprised by that but I guess if you didn't see the evidence it's not a valuable opinion. I do wonder why the people apparently being defended weren't witnesses, that coupled with the press story not long after the incident looks a bit odd to say the least. I’d surmise that the two are possibly connected Can’t comment on this particular trial but You can’t call a witness who has provided different accounts and whom you can’t rely on or whose testimony would be proved worthless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILINFRANCE Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 WOW! Astonished would be an understatement. I said in an earlier post that I had been following this case from afar, which, by extension, means from the various UK media reports only. Nevertheless, I am familiar with the legal definition of 'affray' and, accordingly, having also seen various CCTV excerpts was convinced BS would have been found guilty, as I posted yesterday: 'Should BS indeed be found guilty of affray, as I think we all now suspect, I think the ramifications of what will be seen as a drunken violent attack and its consequent prison sentence, suspended or otherwise, will be be more than frowned upon - and rightly so if, I repeat, he is indeed found guilty.' But then, I wasn't present in Court to hear all the evidence and, of course, whenever a jury is involved with a 'celebrity' case one can never be sure of the outcome - O.J. Simpson, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted August 14, 2018 Admin Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 13 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said: I’d surmise that the two are possibly connected Can’t comment on this particular trial but You can’t call a witness who has provided different accounts and whom you can’t rely on or whose testimony would be proved worthless Maybe theirs was the statements the jury asked to read during the deliberation?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 Just now, phantom said: Maybe theirs was the statements the jury asked to read during the deliberation?? They wouldn’t be allowed to read witness statements of witnesses not called Unless prosecution and defence had agreed and allowed the statements as evidence during the trial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy27 Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 54 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said: Unbelievanle verdict IMHO I would suggest , under the same circumstances , with the same evidence seen and heard any member of this forum if in Stokes position would be convicted Sorry, but I think that is rubbish. You see what is in the media only. It's impossible to say that without being involved in the case and having all the facts. A conclusion made without considering all the evidence. I'm glad our justice system doesn't work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchred Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 1 hour ago, BobBobSuperBob said: Unbelievanle verdict IMHO I would suggest , under the same circumstances , with the same evidence seen and heard any member of this forum if in Stokes position would be convicted Would not even have made it to court. Farcicle this ever did and yet our mob (police) claim they have no finance. If they stopped wasting it on cases like this it would be a start 1 hour ago, Undy English said: Well said. A very strange case and surprising outcome. Ultimately the general public will never know the full story or why the jury found Stokes not guilty when all press reports suggested he'd be going down. Looks like, despite the media attention, he may have been telling the truth the whole time. And doesn't that say more about our press than anything else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 The UK injustice system strikes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 16 minutes ago, Coxy27 said: Sorry, but I think that is rubbish. You see what is in the media only. It's impossible to say that without being involved in the case and having all the facts. A conclusion made without considering all the evidence. I'm glad our justice system doesn't work that way. What ‘hidden’ evidence are you suggesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy27 Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 17 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said: What ‘hidden’ evidence are you suggesting There were numerous days in court over this case. I'm not saying any evidence was deliberately hidden, but you can't get as full a picture of the incident from a few short media reports and video footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 So many experts on here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 7 minutes ago, Coxy27 said: There were numerous days in court over this case. I'm not saying any evidence was deliberately hidden, but you can't get as full a picture of the incident from a few short media reports and video footage. You are entitled to your opinion but the video clip where Stokes punches Ali and Hale as they back away and zero threat , speaks for itself Self defence Not in a million years ( Based on a in depth knowledge of criminal law including case law) Stokes couldn’t even explain any self defence case as his recollection of the incident dissapeared for large parts Having done things I’d struggle to justify in a court, I’m not ‘judging’ what Stokes did I maintain you or I in his situation are highly likely to have found ourselves convicted I do think the matter could have been dealt with by way of a fixed penalty public order offence rather than cost the taxpayer thousands in this trial but that’s a different argument At the end of the day the Jury acquitted him - end of Bur i maintain a ‘highly surprising’ decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 31 minutes ago, RedDave said: So many experts on here! You , Or I have no idea about anyone’s areas expertise , or not , with due respect Personally I Judge their credibility by reading their posts and what they say carefully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted August 14, 2018 Author Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undy English Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said: You are entitled to your opinion but the video clip where Stokes punches Ali and Hale as they back away and zero threat , speaks for itself Self defence Not in a million years ( Based on a in depth knowledge of criminal law including case law) Stokes couldn’t even explain any self defence case as his recollection of the incident dissapeared for large parts Having done things I’d struggle to justify in a court, I’m not ‘judging’ what Stokes did I maintain you or I in his situation are highly likely to have found ourselves convicted I do think the matter could have been dealt with by way of a fixed penalty public order offence rather than cost the taxpayer thousands in this trial but that’s a different argument At the end of the day the Jury acquitted him - end of Bur i maintain a ‘highly surprising’ decision Hear what you're saying Bob, especially in the CCTV footage, but let me give you a different perspective. On more than 1 occasion on a night out, I've witnessed scuffles where one individual has ultimately gone for a 'weapon' i.e. bottle, chair etc. Even when 'disarmed' or knocked down and the object removed from their grasp, that person has then tried to grab something else to continue the assault. During one of my Uni nights at Cardiff a very similar instance happened. An over zealous yank got lairy as we were leaving Tiger Tiger club. A fight ensued and he decided to use, of all things, an umbrella lying around near the club entrance as a weapon. He was subsequently floored and the umbrella chucked away in the street. Upon regaining conciousness he went straight for the umbrella, trying to grab it again to continue the assault - luckily for us the police were on site, saw this and intervened. The American gentleman was then arrested. My point being, if someone is stupid enough to invoke a weapon in a drunken fight, you never know what might happen. Chances are their ego can't take being punched or knocked down, and as soon as they're ready, they're going to try again. Speaking personally, as long as they started it, I would ensure they were put properly off trying anything again, which is exactly what Stokes did - react with such anger and violence that they're scared to have another crack. As Carlton Leach famously said: "kindness is mistaken for weakness.........if they hit you, you have to hit them back, 100 times harder". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 8 minutes ago, Undy English said: Hear what you're saying Bob, especially in the CCTV footage, but let me give you a different perspective. On more than 1 occasion on a night out, I've witnessed scuffles where one individual has ultimately gone for a 'weapon' i.e. bottle, chair etc. Even when 'disarmed' or knocked down and the object removed from their grasp, that person has then tried to grab something else to continue the assault. During one of my Uni nights at Cardiff a very similar instance happened. An over zealous yank got lairy as we were leaving Tiger Tiger club. A fight ensued and he decided to use, of all things, an umbrella lying around near the club entrance as a weapon. He was subsequently floored and the umbrella chucked away in the street. Upon regaining conciousness he went straight for the umbrella, trying to grab it again to continue the assault - luckily for us the police were on site, saw this and intervened. The American gentleman was then arrested. My point being, if someone is stupid enough to invoke a weapon in a drunken fight, you never know what might happen. Chances are their ego can't take being punched or knocked down, and as soon as they're ready, they're going to try again. Speaking personally, as long as they started it, I would ensure they were put properly off trying anything again, which is exactly what Stokes did - react with such anger and violence that they're scared to have another crack. As Carlton Leach famously said: "kindness is mistaken for weakness.........if they hit you, you have to hit them back, 100 times harder". Tbf that’s not a bad defence plea / case !!! The talk of weapons a complete but obvious (For defence) smokescreen in this trial Anyway , simple q Having viewed the footage and most of us men of the world to a large degree Stokes always had the option of walking away after the initial scuffle , if they’d come for him he would have had every right. Instead he went on the front foot , and some At that point , do you think Stokes was defending himself , or having the final say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe jordans teeth Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 So none of them were guilty,does this mine we can all start having punch ups down town Wild West style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILINFRANCE Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 And I now see that, rightly or wrongly, BS has been recalled to the England squad for Saturday's Third Test: I say 'rightly or wrongly', but, clearly, if he is innocent of the charges laid against him, why should he not be in the squad - apart from the fact a certain Mr Woakes might be more deserving of the place based on the previous Test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 9 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said: So none of them were guilty,does this mine we can all start having punch ups down town Wild West style Exactly and to be able to carry on the assault whilst the bloke is incapacitated on the floor and for good measure go back and attack another guy, it beggars belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 Looks like the odds were pretty stacked in favour of Ben Stokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handsofclay Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 37 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: Surely this exonerates Stokes. He put the safety of others before himself. OK, once he did so he possibly went a bit OTT. However, on occasions when burglars are killed in the home of someone who has the temerity to fight back (usually with a weapon to hand) the general consensus of opinion is that he deserved it. Furthermore, as was put forward in the case, there's a real possibility that the injuries Stokes was accused of inflicting upon Mr Ali were caused by Hales! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 Once again, this thread proves that we shouldn't judge an ongoing case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILINFRANCE Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 58 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: Very interesting, and this story from the 'Gay Couple' may indeed be true - but my understanding was that they didn't give evidence, so how is this relevant? If, and I repeat, If, BS was indeed defending these two young men, then fair play to him, even if he may have taken things 'a bit' too far. But I still fail to understand the failure to convict BS of affray and/or his defence of 'Self Defence'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILINFRANCE Posted August 14, 2018 Report Share Posted August 14, 2018 Australia obviously supports the verdict: The Australian point of view? JΛKE BUCKLEY ✔@TheMasterBucks As an Australian cricket fan I'd just like to thank @ECB_cricket for allowing Ben Stokes to immediately rejoin the England Test Squad. It's nice to know the Aussies are no longer the biggest disgrace to the sport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.