Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Ben Stokes


Kid in the Riot

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Olé said:

There's more to it than that - the prosecution has highlighted the behaviour from Stokes when he returned to the bar, which preceded EVERYTHING.

That's critical to all the events. I'm biased due to my connection to one of the other defendants, but does anything happen without Stokes returning?

Bear in mind the other defendants were in the bar for an hour prior to that, as were the gay couple, with zero issues. In fact I'm told they'd all chatted.

We're also told as a matter of record they all left the bar at closing time at the same time, again no issues. Everything started when they met Stokes.

Despite the bottle/bar, I cannot believe a scuffle was initiated out of the blue by the other two, when it's Stokes who was already outside in a temper.

Seems to me from the chronology of the prosecution story, that's what they're emphasising too.

From what I have heard @Olé that is pretty much it. I know of one (through a third party) of the other defendants.

I made a comment earlier in the thread about PR being involved with this case, you can guess which defendant that was for? A few other things I have been told, that I probably cannot put on here, but if accurate will hopefully come out during the trial.

Another point that I have noticed, I think @phantom mentioned the ITV news earlier, they must employ the same reporters as The Bristol Post as they got the jobs/history of the other 2 defendants mixed up on their report last night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting about Hales

Bit embarrassment in court for the officer who doesn’t seem to have investigated matters fully

Mr Hales was not arrested but interviewed under caution in connection with the fight. He was never charged.

The Nottinghamshire batsman, 29, had been credited by the prosecution with trying to calm the fight. 

But when the jury were shown footage of the incident by Detective Constable Daniel Adams, Hale's barrister Stephen Mooney asked him: 'What I am going to suggest you see here is Alex Hales stamping down upon Ryan Ali at least twice. Does that accord with what you see?'

DC Adams replied: 'Yes, a stamp or a kick.' Mr Mooney said: 'We have someone lying on the floor, Ryan Ali, and just above him, moving towards him is Mr Alex Hales. Would it be fair to describe that as Alex Hales kicking the man in the head?'

DC Adams replied: 'That's what it looks like, yes.' Mr Mooney said: 'Well, it isn't what it looks like – it's what it is.' DC Adams replied: 'Yes.'

Mr Mooney said: 'Ryan Hale has just been in a situation with Mr Stokes and Mr Ali. 

'At the same time, Mr Hales has come in and used deliberate force with a shod foot, stamping down upon Ryan Ali to his body, then kicking him deliberately and in a considered fashion to his head? DC Adams replied: 'He has definitely used his feet on three occasions.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That's my mates son, who was down City on Saturday. Well deserved. Didn't even have to stick around for Stokes defence lawyer to cross-examine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Tomarse said:

Its amazing Hales isn’t in the dock really. Potentially stamping/kicking on someone lying on floor is just as bad. 

as he has not been "tried" yet, can he not yet be charged and put on trial?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, phantom said:

as he has not been "tried" yet, can he not yet be charged and put on trial?

Theoretically , yes Phants

A very strange aspect of the investigation that Hales was rightly arrested but never interviewed or asked to explain his actions

Bizarre to say the least

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Theoretically , yes Phants

A very strange aspect of the investigation that Hales was rightly arrested but never interviewed or asked to explain his actions

Bizarre to say the least

Did they want to concentrate on the big fish they`d hooked perhaps?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spoons said:

Just read today's court proceedings.  Wow.

Apparently when asked why he was looking up at the sky his reply was ' I was talking to god'.

 

He’s clearly a sandwich short of a picnic.He wasn’t drunk and was looking up to the sky and talking to god,he needs a white jacket or he’s a liar 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been reading with interest all the write ups from journos in the court on twitter, I’d like to think I’m fairly well informed on this case and like a few others know people involved in the case and one thing that I really hope is investigated (although I’m sure it won’t be) is the fake news that was in The Sun last October, as also reported in The Telegraph below:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/10/27/ben-stokes-real-hero-saving-us-say-gay-menfollowing-homophobic/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Mr Barry and Mr O’Connell stated that they had met Ben Stokes in Mbargo, chatted to him, and that he’d bought them drinks. Also that they left with Ben Stokes and then heard someone shouting abuse at them from behind which then led to the fighting.

All of which had now been proved via cctv and in a court of law under oath to be a complete fabrication.

As Ben Stokes confirmed he’d first met Mr Barry and Mr O’Connell outside the club it was in fact Ryan Ali and Ryan Hale that had spoke to them in the club and bought them drinks.

Which begs the question why did they go to The Sun with a completly fabricated story? 

If it was purely to make money by selling their story they could have told the truth and still made money?

Were they put up to it by “other” parties?

I feel it speaks volumes that as such a vital part of this incident Mr Barry And Mr O’Conell weren’t called to give evidence. Is this because the prosecution and defence knew they’d both lied? Is it because they knew under oath they would have to admit they fabricated The Suns October story?

Can The Sun/Ryan Ali or Ryan Hale take Mr Barry and Mr O’Connell to court now it has been proved they provided them with a fabricated story, seemingly (in my humble opinion only) to paint Ben Stokes in a good light possibly to persuade the selectors he should play in The Ashes, and possibly to have an impact on any future court case?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎08‎/‎08‎/‎2018 at 13:12, BobBobSuperBob said:

  Havnt seen this bit before

 

That's extremely interesting I've watched this footage closely several times .

Whilst the England bowler clearly had his hands/hands in his pocket/pockets for quite some time during what appear to be amicable exchanges with the gay couple and others I could find absolutely no conclusive evidence of ball tampering at all.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/08/2018 at 23:08, ziderheadarmy said:

I would go very careful discussing a live case like this on a open forum such as this...

Discussing evidenc that’s been given , and reported in the National Press Zider

Not stuff the Jury havnt heard or are not aware of

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Speaking with a family member, retired circuit judge, this evening who reckons Stokes is gonna get prison time (if found guilty), particularly in light of the absence of a plea...  up to 2 years they reckon!

If the case proves to be as the prosecution puts it, then it's one of the more serious types of affray (lengthy, injuries) with several aggravating factors (targeting gay people, under influence of drink, multiple victims) so prison would be likely.  It can be suspended but unlikely for serious offences.  The max is 3 years, it's the same offence Brooker, Partridge and Orr were convicted of by the same court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nibor said:

If the case proves to be as the prosecution puts it, then it's one of the more serious types of affray (lengthy, injuries) with several aggravating factors (targeting gay people, under influence of drink, multiple victims) so prison would be likely.  It can be suspended but unlikely for serious offences.  The max is 3 years, it's the same offence Brooker, Partridge and Orr were convicted of by the same court.

Of course.....I’d forgotten those three were convicted of the same offence. 

It certainly looks grim for Stokes judging by the public evidence and if he get sent down that won’t be the end of his woes. The ECB won’t have any other option but to ban him. For how many matches is anyone’s guess. He could end up losing his central contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Robbored said:

Of course.....I’d forgotten those three were convicted of the same offence. 

It certainly looks grim for Stokes judging by the public evidence and if he get sent down that won’t be the end of his woes. The ECB won’t have any other option but to ban him. For how many matches is anyone’s guess. He could end up losing his central contract.

His replacement did pretty well. Much better option for test cricket than Stokes. I for one would find it difficult to hand over my hard earned cash to watch Stokes play in any form of the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Undy English said:

Do we get to hear Stoke's version of events this week? Could be very interesting to hear the counter case and reasons behind the extreme violence witnessed in the CCTV footage.

@Undy English He did last Friday, Click on this link, for a decent rundown of his version of events

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ben-stokes-trial-live-updates-bristol-fight-video-nightclub-england-cricket-gay-a8485941.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, marshy said:

His replacement did pretty well. Much better option for test cricket than Stokes. I for one would find it difficult to hand over my hard earned cash to watch Stokes play in any form of the game.

Woakes did very well but Stokes is certainly a better player.  They will both be in soon anyway as Anderson cannot go on for ever.  

Why wouldn't you pay to watch Stokes?  Superb player with bat and ball.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Woakes did very well but Stokes is certainly a better player.  They will both be in soon anyway as Anderson cannot go on for ever.  

Why wouldn't you pay to watch Stokes?  Superb player with bat and ball.  

Problem is he doesn't have a brain. Six sixes off the final over in a world cup final as evidence m 'lord. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Slacker said:

Sorry, I haven't kept up with this.Have the two men that Stokes was supposed to be defending given evidence yet?Could what they say swing the verdict one way or the other?

It appears they’ve either not been called , or asked not to be called as witnesses for the trial

Can think of various possible reasons but won’t speculate

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nibor said:

If the case proves to be as the prosecution puts it, then it's one of the more serious types of affray (lengthy, injuries) with several aggravating factors (targeting gay people, under influence of drink, multiple victims) so prison would be likely.  It can be suspended but unlikely for serious offences.  The max is 3 years, it's the same offence Brooker, Partridge and Orr were convicted of by the same court.

If convicted

I think he will get a short custodial 2-3 months or a suspended sentence

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, marshy said:

Problem is he doesn't have a brain. Six sixes off the final over in a world cup final as evidence m 'lord. 

That over was discussed on Sky and the verdict was that Stokes was under extreme stress worsened after Bravo whacked a six off the first ball......what the pundits said was that the captain or any other player should have spoken to Stokes at that point to try and relax him and told him to bowl outside of Bravo’s arc.

Yet again fans are happy to slate a player when they’re not aware of what’s going on both with the player and the situation they’re faced with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/08/2018 at 19:18, swanker said:

But is it the truth? The defence will state he was defending a gay couple.

Yeah he knocked them both out!

 

9 hours ago, Slacker said:

Sorry, I haven't kept up with this.Have the two men that Stokes was supposed to be defending given evidence yet?Could what they say swing the verdict one way or the other?

Follwoing this case from afar, and the jury have,of course, been advised not to read media reports, my recollection, from a Piers Morgan comment?, was that BS was defending the 'gay couple', but it seems the two co-accused, Hale and Ali, had already befriended them in the club.

Could it, in fact, be that Hale and Ali, described as 'best friends', are another gay couple, much to the homophobic chagrin of Ben Stokes?

If so, and again, IF found guilty, BS is looking at a custodial sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...