Hales and Stokes

Status
Not open for further replies.


Spoke to a mate who knows about the law..... reckons the police are likely trying for 'violent disorder'.

Set of wankers, wouldn't even be a charge if it wasn't a celebrity. So much for judging evyerything on merit.

Either way, the bastards want to make an announcement :evil:.
 
brandon said:
Spoke to a mate who knows about the law..... reckons the police are likely trying for 'violent disorder'.

Set of wankers, wouldn't even be a charge if it wasn't a celebrity. So much for judging evyerything on merit.

Either way, the bastards want to make an announcement :evil:.
Click to expand...

Fuck me, all sorts of accusations there, which is just pure guess work and your part how do you know there would not be a charge if not celebrity.

How are they a set of wankers for simply doing their job?

Bastards what for?
 
Voice of fair play said:
Fuck me, all sorts of accusations there, which is just pure guess work and your part how do you know there would not be a charge if not celebrity.

How are they a set of wankers for simply doing their job?

Bastards what for?
Click to expand...

It happens all the time. You know it, I know it and everyone else on this board knows it - if this is Terry, a Bristolian joiner, all he'll get is a caution or at worst a fine for a public order offence.

Cause it's high profile, they have to 'make an example' which once again, as we all know, is f***ing bobbins because when John, the welder from Leeds does the same the next week, the punishment is in no way representative.

Wankers and bastards? Because most of them are. I've worked alongside enough of them to know that.
 
brandon said:
It happens all the time. You know it, I know it and everyone else on this board knows it - if this is Terry, a Bristolian joiner, all he'll get is a caution or at worst a fine for a public order offence.

Cause it's high profile, they have to 'make an example' which once again, as we all know, is f***ing bobbins because when John, the welder from Leeds does the same the next week, the punishment is in no way representative.

Wankers and bastards? Because most of them are. I've worked alongside enough of them to know that.
Click to expand...

I don't agree and even if I did making a example of somebody is a good thing.

As it shows two things one nobody is above the law, and two if it means it discourages people from reacting that way that is good,

Because the bigger picture is actions like that can't be seen to be condoned.

If a sportsman gets a harsh punishment like Johnson did, if that makes people think twice doing that crime, that is miles more important than the harsh punishment.

That is miles more important than game of cricket!
 
Last edited:
Voice of fair play said:
I don't agree and even if I did making a example of somebody is a good thing.

As it shows two things one nobody is above the law, and two if it means it discourages people from reacting that way that is good,

Because the bigger picture is actions like that can't be seen to be condoned.

If a sportsman gets a harsh punishment like Johnson did, if that makes people think twice doing that crime, that is miles more important than the harsh punishment.

That is miles more important than game of cricket!
Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't make people think twice. It's actually very wrong morally and it's not even what the law is intended for. Of course it isn't against the law, but the law and sentencing guidelines will tell you that the only thing that should be taken into account is previous offences.

The only time fame and/or wealth should be considered is when determining fines.

Making an example is a very dangerous thing. No way should one individual be punished for the misdemeanours of others, either past or future. It's f***ing barmy to think that's the right thing to do. Perhaps you need to change your username :eek:.
 
brandon said:
No, it really doesn't make people think twice. It's actually very wrong morally and it's not even what the law is intended for. Of course it isn't against the law, but the law and sentencing guidelines will tell you that the only thing that should be taken into account is previous offences.

The only time fame and/or wealth should be considered is when determining fines.

Making an example is a very dangerous thing. No way should one individual be punished for the misdemeanours of others, either past or future. It's f***ing barmy to think that's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...


The most important thing above all is to try and prevent a crime (any crime) from happening again.

And if that means somebody is harshly sentenced or punished, to try and achieve that objective, I could not care less.


Changing the subject totally ,what gets me about this whole thread, is from reading previous posts from certain people on this thread, I am convinced that if it was a Kohli or a Warner, the same people ,the exact same people who are defending Stokes would want the book thrown at Kohli or Warner.
 
Voice of fair play said:
The most important thing above all is to try and prevent a crime (any crime) from happening again.

And if that means somebody is harshly sentenced or punished, to try and achieve that objective, I could not care less.


Changing the subject totally ,what gets me about this whole thread, is from reading previous posts from certain people on this thread, I am convinced that if it was a Kohli or a Warner, the same people ,the exact same people who are defending Stokes would want the book thrown at Kohli or Warner.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what the law is about. Not even remotely.

And hold on a minute. You've just said you think that Ben Stokes should be held to a higher standard than a regular member of the public, and now you're making up a (completely hypothetical and baseless) straw man about other people treating famous people differently.

Hypocritical much?
 
Steak Pie said:
No, that's not what the law is about. Not even remotely.

And hold on a minute. You've just said you think that Ben Stokes should be held to a higher standard than a regular member of the public, and now you're making up a (completely hypothetical and baseless) straw man about other people treating famous people differently.

Hypocritical much?
Click to expand...

I never said was what the law was about at all, I also never said Stokes should be held to a higher standard at all

It was another poster who actually said he would be made a example of

What I said was if he happens to be made a example of, and that prevents further actions simliar to his, I believe looking at the bigger picture that would be a good thing.

As for my other point admittedly it is just based on my opinion based off reading extensive posts from the people who I am referring too, who in the past change their views and principles purely dependant on the individual or team they happen to be talking about at the time.
 
Voice of fair play said:
The most important thing above all is to try and prevent a crime (any crime) from happening again.

And if that means somebody is harshly sentenced or punished, to try and achieve that objective, I could not care less.


Changing the subject totally ,what gets me about this whole thread, is from reading previous posts from certain people on this thread, I am convinced that if it was a Kohli or a Warner, the same people ,the exact same people who are defending Stokes would want the book thrown at Kohli or Warner.
Click to expand...

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't. When it comes to the law and incidents within the law, I want an equal playing field for everyone, no matter who they are, based purely on the merits of the case.

Now schadenfreude, yes, I would definitely take a sort of pleasure from seeing Warner or Kohli in bother - but it wouldn't last long, because ultimately, it isn't really funny or pleasureable seeing anyone in bother.

As for the rest, steaky covered it, I tried to do it, but he worded it better - the law does not work in such a way where punishment for one is used as a tool to punish all.
 
Voice of fair play said:
The most important thing above all is to try and prevent a crime (any crime) from happening again.

And if that means somebody is harshly sentenced or punished, to try and achieve that objective, I could not care less.


Changing the subject totally ,what gets me about this whole thread, is from reading previous posts from certain people on this thread, I am convinced that if it was a Kohli or a Warner, the same people ,the exact same people who are defending Stokes would want the book thrown at Kohli or Warner.
Click to expand...

I don't care if you are convinced, you are wrong.

I've seen someone get glassed before, and its absolutely f***ing horrendous, so he absolutely did the right thing. As would Warner.
 
The law should be equal for all.

The reality is that sentences are inconsistent.

The fact that sentences are inconsistent should not be a reason why Ben Stokes escapes for lamping someone who was backing away

The Harvey Price thing was crass and a bit embarrassing, but that’s it. But the video of him smacking someone was very poor. If it was James Vince, this board would not defend him. End of

DaveAngel said:
I don't care if you are convinced, you are wrong.

I've seen someone get glassed before, and its absolutely f***ing horrendous, so he absolutely did the right thing. As would Warner.
Click to expand...
It’s horrendous yes. Did you smash the bloke around? No. You didn’t.
 
chunkylover53 said:
The law should be equal for all.

The reality is that sentences are inconsistent.

The fact that sentences are inconsistent should not be a reason why Ben Stokes escapes for lamping someone who was backing away

The Harvey Price thing was crass and a bit embarrassing, but that’s it. But the video of him smacking someone was very poor. If it was James Vince, this board would not defend him. End of


It’s horrendous yes. Did you smash the bloke around? No. You didn’t.
Click to expand...

Wish I had before he did it like stokes did

The lad needed plastic surgery and it ruined his life

chunkylover53 said:
The law should be equal for all.

The reality is that sentences are inconsistent.

The fact that sentences are inconsistent should not be a reason why Ben Stokes escapes for lamping someone who was backing away

The Harvey Price thing was crass and a bit embarrassing, but that’s it. But the video of him smacking someone was very poor. If it was James Vince, this board would not defend him. End of


It’s horrendous yes. Did you smash the bloke around? No. You didn’t.
Click to expand...

You're 100% wrong

I would

Don't put words in my mouth
 
brandon said:
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't. When it comes to the law and incidents within the law, I want an equal playing field for everyone, no matter who they are, based purely on the merits of the case.

Now schadenfreude, yes, I would definitely take a sort of pleasure from seeing Warner or Kohli in bother - but it wouldn't last long, because ultimately, it isn't really funny or pleasureable seeing anyone in bother.

As for the rest, steaky covered it, I tried to do it, but he worded it better - the law does not work in such a way where punishment for one is used as a tool to punish all.
Click to expand...

I agree and as there is video footage of Stokes taking his attack way beyond what could be classed as self defence (even if it were ever self defence in the first place, which Stokes and his lawyers will have to prove in court), then you will agree that he most probably has a custodial sentence coming. If they can prove the other lad was threatening people with a glass then he should also get a custodial sentence.

At the end of the day, he is going to struggle to argue proportionate self defence when even his mate who was there can be heard clearly in the background urging him to stop. Hales clearly knew the threat had receded and ultimately that's where Stokes hasn't got a leg to stand on.
 
DaveAngel said:
Wish I had before he did it like stokes did

The lad needed plastic surgery and it ruined his life



You're 100% wrong

I would

Don't put words in my mouth
Click to expand...
Are you still in Hong Kong for work?

Or was that bullshit?

You didn’t dive in.

Stokes didn’t dive in. He potentially intervened. And then when someone was backing off he beat the crap out of him
 
chunkylover53 said:
Are you still in Hong Kong for work?

Or was that bullshit?

You didn’t dive in.

Stokes didn’t dive in. He potentially intervened. And then when someone was backing off he beat the crap out of him
Click to expand...

You wasting your time mate, I have tried, he simply can't see the difference between punching someone as a reaction in the heat of the moment and continuing to punch someone when somebody is backing off and even his own mates are trying and telling him to stop therefore going too far.

He simply can't see the clear difference, even though it has been pointed out to him by several posters, even though he has been suspended from the team for it, even though his sponsors have dropped him for it.
 
Voice of fair play said:
You wasting your time mate, I have tried, he simply can't see the difference between punching someone as a reaction in the heat of the moment and continuing to punch someone when somebody is backing off and even his own mates are trying and telling him to stop therefore going too far.

He simply can't see the clear difference, even though it has been pointed out to him by several posters, even though he has been suspended from the team for it, even though his sponsors have dropped him for it.
Click to expand...

Pointed out by several posters? Half the posters agree with me.

Again with your superiority complex,it doesn't make your opinion f***ing right. Sort it out man ffs, its your opinion, it doesn't make you right!!! How many times do you need bloody telling.

chunkylover53 said:
Are you still in Hong Kong for work?

Or was that bullshit?

You didn’t dive in.

Stokes didn’t dive in. He potentially intervened. And then when someone was backing off he beat the crap out of him
Click to expand...

This post makes absolutely no sense, are you on your medication again? Hong Kong for work, what the fuck has that got to do with Ben Stokes? What a strange man, you can't help get personal can you just because I don't agree with you.

I just don't get why you guys can't accept that other people have a different opinion to yourself, I am not asking you to change your mind, or criticising your view, you can't help keeping this thread going. Get over it ffs.

Half the people on this message board don't agree with your view. That is probably the same in the wider public judging by what I have seen on twitter. Accept it and move on!! Leave the personal shit out of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Voice of fair play said:
I never said was what the law was about at all, I also never said Stokes should be held to a higher standard at all

It was another poster who actually said he would be made a example of

What I said was if he happens to be made a example of, and that prevents further actions simliar to his, I believe looking at the bigger picture that would be a good thing.

As for my other point admittedly it is just based on my opinion based off reading extensive posts from the people who I am referring too, who in the past change their views and principles purely dependant on the individual or team they happen to be talking about at the time.
Click to expand...

You're happy for the law to discriminate, you're happy for a persons job to be used as a factor when it comes to sentencing. That is an horrific concept, and exactly the opposite of what society should be about.

We'll see what happens when it comes to Stokes. What happens in the run up to the start of the video is crucial IMO, and if it is what is being reported he won't face any further action.

Can I ask you then, seeing as no-one answered before. Let's assume that the reports we have are correct and a bloke was about to have his life ruined by a pissed up squaddie, just for being gay...... You say that Stokes goes to far, so where do you stop? Or do you not step in?
 
DaveAngel said:
Pointed out by several posters? Half the posters agree with me.

Again with your superiority complex,it doesn't make your opinion f***ing right. Sort it out man ffs, its your opinion, it doesn't make you right!!! How many times do you need bloody telling.



This post makes absolutely no sense, are you on your medication again? Hong Kong for work, what the fuck has that got to do with Ben Stokes? What a strange man, you can't help get personal can you just because I don't agree with you.

I just don't get why you guys can't accept that other people have a different opinion to yourself, I am not asking you to change your mind, or criticising your view, you can't help keeping this thread going. Get over it ffs.

Half the people on this message board don't agree with your view. That is probably the same in the wider public judging by what I have seen on twitter. Accept it and move on!! Leave the personal shit out of it.
Click to expand...


You'll just keep telling everyone with a different view they're 'wrong ffs' and that its odd they 'can't get it into your head' all the time...

Debate is good and such topic is guaranteed to result in differing opinions but stop trying to chair the debate and tell people off for what you are doing throughout. The people with different opinions aren't 'wrong', they just have a different opinion to you. Even if the CPS rule one way or other, those people's opinions on Stokes' actions are still valid opinions even if they're differing to how the CPS rule. Stop getting so irate with every poster that offers a different opinion to yourself, it ruins a good debate/thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top