• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Hales and Stokes

Status
Not open for further replies.
rentaghost said:
Hale hasn't done a thing. Even Stokes own defence team aren't making any reference or mileage about Hale having a bottle. Its possible he had a bottle and was drinking in the street initially but he certainly didn't use it at any stage. Hale never threw a punch in anger towards anyone, he just had his lights knocked out by Stokes while not defending himself. Ali did have a bottle and did approach Stokes with it initially but I don't see how sparking Hale out can be seen as self defence. Stokes has a top lawyer though.
Click to expand...

Seriously, why are you arguing this? It was accepted in court that Hale and Ali both had bottles. Why are you now saying they didn’t?

  • There’s two blokes with bottles.
  • One of them hits someone with his bottle.
  • It’s absolutely reasonable to assume the other may use his as a weapon.
It’s therefore completely acceptable to take the necessary actions of self defence.

Or atleast in this case, it cannot be proven whatsoever that it is NOT self defence.

Anyway, whatever happens - Stokes has NOT had a fair trial.
 
Last edited:

brandon said:
Seriously, why are you arguing this? It was accepted in court that Hale and Ali both had bottles. Why are you now saying they didn’t?

  • There’s two blokes with bottles.
  • One of them hits someone with his bottle.
  • It’s absolutely reasonable to assume the other may use his as a weapon.
It’s therefore completely acceptable to take the necessary actions of self defence.

Or atleast in this case, it cannot be proven whatsoever that it is NOT self defence.

Anyway, whatever happens - Stokes has NOT had a fair trial.
Click to expand...
My view is still that he went beyond self defence
 
brandon said:
Seriously, why are you arguing this? It was accepted in court that Hale and Ali both had bottles. Why are you now saying they didn’t?

  • There’s two blokes with bottles.
  • One of them hits someone with his bottle.
  • It’s absolutely reasonable to assume the other may use his as a weapon.
It’s therefore completely acceptable to take the necessary actions of self defence.

Or atleast in this case, it cannot be proven whatsoever that it is NOT self defence.
Click to expand...

I didn't say Hale didn't have a bottle. He had a bottle in the same way thousands of drinkers every week in every city have a bottle. He didn't do anything with it, didn't threaten anyone with it and wasn't even in possession of a bottle when he got sparked for trying to defend his mate. I had a bottle in my hand sitting outside the Bay Horse last weekend and I am sure you have recently. I didn't do anything with it and neither did hale but he got sparked clean out for the privilege. In the summing up by Stokes own defence they didn't even make the slightest reference to Hale having a bottle why do you think that is?
 
rentaghost said:
I didn't say Hale didn't have a bottle. He had a bottle in the same way thousands of drinkers every week in every city have a bottle. He didn't do anything with it, didn't threaten anyone with it and wasn't even in possession of a bottle when he got sparked for trying to defend his mate. I had a bottle in my hand sitting outside the Bay Horse last weekend and I am sure you have recently. I didn't do anything with it and neither did hale but he got sparked clean out for the privilege. In the summing up by Stokes own defence they didn't even make the slightest reference to Hale having a bottle why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

Thousands of people haven't got bottles in the street at 2AM in the morning. The vast majority leave bottles in pubs and clubs when they exit the building.
 
Keith S30S said:
Thousands of people haven't got bottles in the street at 2AM in the morning. The vast majority leave bottles in pubs and clubs when they exit the building.
Click to expand...

Either way its not an offence. On the CCTV you saw the gay lads leaving with a bottle in their hands plenty do and its not an unreasonable or unusual thing to happen on a Saturday night / Sunday morning.
 
rentaghost said:
Either way its not an offence. On the CCTV you saw the gay lads leaving with a bottle in their hands plenty do and its not an unreasonable or unusual thing to happen on a Saturday night / Sunday morning.
Click to expand...

Any bouncer worth his salt, probably one without tattoos on the back of his head wouldn't let customers walk out of a night club with a potential weapon in his hand. It's called common sense.
 
Keith S30S said:
Any bouncer worth his salt, probably one without tattoos on the back of his head wouldn't let customers walk out of a night club with a potential weapon in his hand. It's called common sense.
Click to expand...
Do you think the bouncer let them take the bottles out on the promise that they'd bray someone with them then?
 
brandon said:
Your view and my view is irrelevant.

Has it been proven beyond reasonable doubt? Based on information gathered from various reporters - I think not.
Click to expand...

As you say our views are irrelevant we can only give opinions. In my opinion it most certainly has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. However it only takes 3 jurors to have your view and that's enough. However none of them are cricket fans apparently.
 
Judge is absolutely f***ing Stokes over. He's gonna be found guilty.

Also, how much of a moron is that eye witness Mr Wilson.......

"I didn't know what to do, I've never been in that situation before, so I rang The Sun"

f***ing cockwomble.

Jap Stammer said:
How did they check that?

I can safely say I'm not a rugby fan but I read newspapers and watch TV and can probably rattle a few names off from the current England squad.
Click to expand...

They can't, there'll definitely be a few undercover operatives amongst them :lol:

Just like the lying c*nt bouncer I suppose :rolleyes:
 
Jap Stammer said:
How did they check that?

I can safely say I'm not a rugby fan but I read newspapers and watch TV and can probably rattle a few names off from the current England squad.
Click to expand...

They asked them as part of jury selection. They could lie I suppose.

brandon said:
Judge is absolutely f***ing Stokes over. He's gonna be found guilty.

Also, how much of a moron is that eye witness Mr Wilson.......

"I didn't know what to do, I've never been in that situation before, so I rang The Sun"

f***ing cockwomble.



They can't, there'll definitely be a few undercover operatives amongst them :lol:

Just like the lying c*nt bouncer I suppose :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

His comments seems to be supportive of Ali which is wrong IMO.
 
Last edited:
HABA87 said:
How is the judge doing stokes over? He's just giving a recap of evidences presented over the course of the trial.
Click to expand...
No idea. The bias on here is astounding.

We don’t know which way it will go as none of us have sat through it, obviously all of us hope he gets off for cricketing reasons.

But he only has himself to blame for being in the dock. The justice system hasn’t fucked him over at all
 
If you want to talk about bias, how about this for a biased headline.......

‘Stokes lied about self-defence’

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top