Ben Stokes

[murray26]

Watched some of those images and I’m amazed he got a not guilty.. I’ve got a feeling it’s because of who he is.. if that had been you or I that done that I have a funny feeling we may have been supping porridge this morning.. thoughts anyone..

[lord bunberry]

Watched some of those images and I’m amazed he got a not guilty.. I’ve got a feeling it’s because of who he is.. if that had been you or I that done that I have a funny feeling we may have been supping porridge this morning.. thoughts anyone..
There was a video on YouTube a while back of the incident and like you im also surprised he was found not guilty.

[Scouse Hibee]

Watched some of those images and I’m amazed he got a not guilty.. I’ve got a feeling it’s because of who he is.. if that had been you or I that done that I have a funny feeling we may have been supping porridge this morning.. thoughts anyone..

The judges direction massively influenced the verdict.

[stantonhibby]

Watched some of those images and I’m amazed he got a not guilty.. I’ve got a feeling it’s because of who he is.. if that had been you or I that done that I have a funny feeling we may have been supping porridge this morning.. thoughts anyone..

I think it's because he was charged with 'affray' as opposed to assault. Affray is more serious apparently.

[patch1875]

I’m stumped with the decision.

[Colr]

I’m stumped with the decision.

If you have a look at the The Secret Barrister on twitter, there’s a good flow chart which explains the decision.

Basically he was defending somebody else without using excessive force.

The someone else were a gay couple who were being subjected to homophobic abuse.

[murray26]

The judges direction massively influenced the verdict.

Missed that what did he say..?

My opinion is that he is very lucky to escape jail never mind making a appearance for your country a couple of days later.. when you consider the way the Aussies quite rightly banned there players for the ball tampering scandal your not telling me what Stokes got up to was any better.

[murray26]

If you have a look at the The Secret Barrister on twitter, there’s a good flow chart which explains the decision.

Basically he was defending somebody else without using excessive force.

The someone else were a gay couple who were being subjected to homophobic abuse.

It looked quite clearly like Stokes was mimicking the gay couple then flicked a lit cigarette at them.. the whole things a cover up imo..

[Colr]

It looked quite clearly like Stokes was mimicking the gay couple then flicked a lit cigarette at them.. the whole things a cover up imo..

The couple involved say otherwise but were not called as witnesses by either side.

[CropleyWasGod]

Missed that what did he say..?

My opinion is that he is very lucky to escape jail never mind making a appearance for your country a couple of days later.. when you consider the way the Aussies quite rightly banned there players for the ball tampering scandal your not telling me what Stokes got up to was any better.He still has to face a disrepute charge from the ECB.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[murray26]

The couple involved say otherwise but were not called as witnesses by either side.

You’ve got to admit that is extremely strange.. the couple are at the centre of the defence but are not called.. anyway thanks for the reply’s I just wanted to hear what other people thought of the decision..

[CropleyWasGod]

You’ve got to admit that is extremely strange.. the couple are at the centre of the defence but are not called.. anyway thanks for the reply’s I just wanted to hear what other people thought of the decision..It's not that strange. It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt. If the defence thought that the case for guilt hadn't been made that well, there's probably no point in calling any witnesses who might, under cross-examination, weaken the defence.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Mango Man]

I’m stumped with the decision.

Hahaha

[Hibrandenburg]

I’m stumped with the decision.

How's that?

[Ryan69]

Watched some of those images and I’m amazed he got a not guilty.. I’ve got a feeling it’s because of who he is.. if that had been you or I that done that I have a funny feeling we may have been supping porridge this morning.. thoughts anyone..

Definately got preferencial treatment.
Still guilty of violent conduct surely.

I did wonder how someone actually managed to get a visa to play in Australia...with a pending violent charge over his head.

The normal man....Would of been sent back on a plane immediately.

[CropleyWasGod]

Definately got preferencial treatment.
Still guilty of violent conduct surely.

I did wonder how someone actually managed to get a visa to play in Australia...with a pending violent charge over his head.

The normal man....Would of been sent back on a plane immediately.

He wasn't charged with violent conduct. He was charged with affray, and that's what he was found not guilty of. "Violent conduct" is not an offence under English Law; you're thinking of fitba [emoji6]

As for the visa, why would someone who hasn't been convicted be refused one? A "normal man" would have been treated the same way.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Ryan69]

He wasn't charged with violent conduct. He was charged with affray, and that's what he was found not guilty of. "Violent conduct" is not an offence under English Law; you're thinking of fitba [emoji6]

As for the visa, why would someone who hasn't been convicted be refused one? A "normal man" would have been treated the same way.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

If you have a pending charge inregard to violence...There is noway you will get into the country

[CropleyWasGod]

If you have a pending charge inregard to violence...There is noway you will get into the countryNot according to this.Says a lot about convictions, nothing about charges.

http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/travelling-australia/


In years gone by, being a criminal was a pre-requisite for getting into the country [emoji16]

[Sylar]

If you have a pending charge inregard to violence...There is noway you will get into the country

:hilarious

What utter, utter tripe.

[JeMeSouviens]

If you have a look at the The Secret Barrister on twitter, there’s a good flow chart which explains the decision.

Basically he was defending somebody else without using excessive force.

The someone else were a gay couple who were being subjected to homophobic abuse.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DklLW-aW4AIulzI.jpg

Came out a bit small, it's here:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DklLW-aW4AIulzI.jpg


The last bit is significant in that I think it means that even if the jury thought Stokes wasn't defending anyone and/or wasn't using reasonable force, if the jury thinks that a hypothetical bystander, the "person of reasonable firmness", wouldn't have feared for their safety then he's not guilty of affray.

[One Day Soon]

How's that?

Can people please top making these silly points?

[Chic Murray]

Definately got preferencial treatment.
Still guilty of violent conduct surely.

I did wonder how someone actually managed to get a visa to play in Australia...with a pending violent charge over his head.

The normal man....Would of been sent back on a plane immediately.

What is a normal man these days?

[CropleyWasGod]

Can people please top making these silly points?Agreed.

It's gone beyond the boundary now.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[patch1875]

Agreed.

It's gone beyond the boundary now.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Seams so.

[CropleyWasGod]

What is a normal man these days?Hopefully, one who renounces the concept of the patriarchy. One who wouldn't dream of bowling a maiden over.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Hopefully, one who renounces the concept of the patriarchy. One who wouldn't dream of bowling a maiden over.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I had to googly that one.

[Chic Murray]

Hopefully, one who renounces the concept of the patriarchy. One who wouldn't dream of bowling a maiden over.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

There's a lot of Wisden in what you say. Who brought the chocolate cake?

[heretoday]

Prosecution service made a big mistake.
He should have been dealt with in the Magistrates Court with other scrapping drunks.

[CropleyWasGod]

Prosecution service made a big mistake.
He should have been dealt with in the Magistrates Court with other scrapping drunks.

I think this is a fair comment.

It sounds like they may have gone for the "big win", and failed to make the case.

In that respect, it's similar to the Lennon "assault" at Tynecastle; they went for "religiously aggravated....", which they couldn't prove. As a result, the guy was acquitted, when a simple attempted assault or breach of the peace would have stuck.

[heretoday]

I think this is a fair comment.

It sounds like they may have gone for the "big win", and failed to make the case.

In that respect, it's similar to the Lennon "assault" at Tynecastle; they went for "religiously aggravated....", which they couldn't prove. As a result, the guy was acquitted, when a simple attempted assault or breach of the peace would have stuck.

He'd have been summarily dealt with and then the ECB would have had a simpler task now. As it is they can't do right for doing wrong.

[Moulin Yarns]

Definately got preferencial treatment.
Still guilty of violent conduct surely.

I did wonder how someone actually managed to get a visa to play in Australia...with a pending violent charge over his head.

The normal man....Would of been sent back on a plane immediately.

It used to be a prerequisite for getting into Australia that you needed a criminal conviction. :wink:

[Colr]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DklLW-aW4AIulzI.jpg

Came out a bit small, it's here:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DklLW-aW4AIulzI.jpg


The last bit is significant in that I think it means that even if the jury thought Stokes wasn't defending anyone and/or wasn't using reasonable force, if the jury thinks that a hypothetical bystander, the "person of reasonable firmness", wouldn't have feared for their safety then he's not guilty of affray.

Thanks. I didn’t have a clue how to copy thast across from twitter.

[CropleyWasGod]

It used to be a prerequisite for getting into Australia that you needed a criminal conviction. :wink:

Whereas stealing someone else's line, particularly at Fringe time, should be a hanging offence on here.

See post #18 :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Can people please top making these silly points?

Is it getting on your wicket?

[Jack]

Whereas stealing someone else's line, particularly at Fringe time, should be a hanging offence on here.

See post #18 :greengrin

He'll get a beamer now.

[Moulin Yarns]

Whereas stealing someone else's line, particularly at Fringe time, should be a hanging offence on here.

See post #18 :greengrin

Apologies I didn't get that far down before posting. If it helps, I'm already a botanist.

[CropleyWasGod]

Apologies I didn't get that far down before posting. If it helps, I'm already a botanist.

You're excused, flower. :na na: