-
The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Hales and Stokes
- Thread starter WCC
- Start date
- Status
We f***ing wouldn’t like
I said "might"We f***ing wouldn’t like
rentaghost
Striker
There is a difference though. Some people have thought he would get found guilty or not guilty based on the weighing up the evidence against the charge and coming up with a decision. You decided he was not guilty because Stokes was nice to your lass and 'you get what you deserve for waving a bottle around'
I don’t think it was confirmed whether the punch or the kicks from Hales did that. The jury actually asked today whilst deliberating, to see the medical report on it.
I stand to be corrected, but I don’t think the causation of the injury was confirmed.
Fair point
Yep, this is what I strongly believe also.
All the talk of making an example of him was bullshit, I’ve also stated from the outset that he wouldn’t get a fair trial. I’m delighted he’s a free man, even more so because the reporting of it by the tabloids (and even the BBC) this last week or so has been an absolute f***ing disgrace.
I don’t think it has, most people who are rightminded know that getting tanked up and getting into a fight is wrong.
Only complete idiots will see this as some sort of justification of such an action.
rentaghost
Striker
He did get a fair trial though. He was found not guilty in super quick time because of the clear instruction given to the jury on the 3 elements that must be proven to convict on affray. Reading the other thread I can see why as well now having a better understanding of what affray means and that a 3rd party must also have felt threatened by his actions. Stokes hasn't necessarily proved he was acting in self defence but that he wasn't guilty of what he was charged with. It may have been different if he had been up for ABH but we will never know.
GordonMuchallNo1Fan
Striker
Ha i was full or praise for him as I have been many times, but I said on here yesterday he would be found not guilty when @brandon asked folk for their views. The 2 gay lads have since come out and praised Stokes which to me says everything. Only went to trial because of who he is in my opinion.There is a difference though. Some people have thought he would get found guilty or not guilty based on the weighing up the evidence against the charge and coming up with a decision. You decided he was not guilty because Stokes was nice to your lass and 'you get what you deserve for waving a bottle around'
As posted yesterday:
You must be logged on to see external links
Very poor wording of a headline from the BBC, yes, I know it’s a quote but unfortunately a lot of people won’t see that and will believe it to be true.
Just like people who believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic because certain red tops said so........
Various articles this last 8 days have been selective of their reporting of the case, often focussing more on sensationalism than giving a fair and balanced report - which is the main reason why I won’t buy a newspaper now. The press in this country are very poor IMO, this trial for me has highlighted further that point.
For the absolute down the middle story, I’d advise reading nothing but the case notes - it and when they’re made available.
He acted like a dick for getting into a fight considering he’s a pro athlete
But the other bloke was prepared to use a bottle
So no I don’t think he broke the law and I’ve been proved 100% correct
I normally hate people who gloat but I make no apologies on this
I always knew he would never be convicted and it was an absolute farce that this got to trial
It’s actually shameful
They did it 100% because it was Ben stokes
All the papers led with the prosecution and when the defense was offered it didn’t get the same coverage as it’s not as good a story
He’s innocent, some of these twats, including John Etheridge from the sun should be let nowhere near the access, ban them
Once again George dobell, the voice of reason, had this one nailed from the start
They didn’t charge him with ABH at the time because they knew he had grounds for self defense
You’ve been quite sensible on this to be fair but some weren’t
He was never ever going to be found guilty by a jury
I’m honestly baffled by the whole thing
He should have had a night in cells. A ban from the ECB and that was the end of it
If he has big memory lapses then he shouldn’t be the key prosecution witness
Absolute farce
The media were mental mate
You’re forgetting how crazy it was at the time
They then believed th bulls hit from smith and Bancroft about Bairstow and nailed him and the culture
They’ve acted so so poorly and its the thing I’n most angry about
End of thread really
Well put
Last edited:
Voice of fair play
Striker
Just a normal street fight after a few drinks eh.
You make it sound like a normal thing to do like going to the shop for your morning paper!!
Street fights should not be NORMAL
smoker
Striker
That is directing the jury in accordance with the law TBF
HABA87
Striker
Fully agreed and when looking at it closer I'm surprised it ever went to charge let alone trial. The fighting never went beyond those involved so it was never going to go beyond point 3.
They're all probably guilty of something, just not affray.
smoker
Striker
As I said elsewhere, guilty of being pissed twats and nothing more
houst69
Striker
Yeah but they are
Voice of fair play
Striker
Isn’t that the point, as a country we should be trying to create a culture where a street fight is considered very wrong and not considered as a normal thing to do?
smoker
Striker
I would rather we didn't create a culture where you can't challenge people who are being arseholes of are afraid to defend yourself, your mates and property through fear of prosecution.
- Status
