Hales and Stokes

[Deleted member 30853]

So you have him guilty of flicking a cigarette butt with intent to hit someone.

Does that make him homophobic? Or violent? Or just a bit of a twat?

Does that in your book mean he’s guilty of affray? Against who? Barry and O’Connor? If so, why was he then later ushering them away from the fight scene in a way which clearly appears to be protecting them?

“CCTV footage appeared to show him escorting them away from the violence.”

Gay couple say Ben Stokes did not deserve to face trial

Which I must add, was barely reported ANYWHERE. Especially not by the major media outlets covering the trial, yet there it is there in that article.

I mean that right there for me could be the deal sealer that confirmed Stokes was the ‘hero’ and was acting in defence of others. That criteria would certainly mean he was NOT guilty of affray - considering affray relates to how others feel threatened. On the contrary, I’d say Barry and O’Connor felt protected by Stokes.

I reiterate, when the police and CPS saw that piece of footage, they should’ve closed the case immediately.

I've read the article. Fair enough I guess and if they've said in statements they were thankful to Ben Stokes, then I understand the verdict of not guilty.

I still see the flicking of the cigarette butt, but if this either didn't register with them or they saw this differently then that creates reasonable doubt about the video evidence. Not guilty is is.

But because of the cigarette butt, it would be an uncomfortable not guilty. To refer to my mother's remark about the case, it does seem to me as it did to her they've washed their hands of the whole thing.

unfortunate choice of phrase when describing a rape trial.

Oh bollocks!!!

The trial was stopped due to the police idea of Facebook screenshots being to photograph the computer screens rather than hit CTRL+ALT+PRINT SCREEN. The result was the printouts presented of dialogue between the accused and defendant to support the prosecution case was unreadable.

I talked to some plods about this later. They were not surprised at the CPS and forensics people cocking up the evidence collection.

 

[The Rat]

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

A few punches should not end up in a 7 day trial at crown court

The fact that you can’t see that absolutely baffles me, it really does

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.

The simple fact is the bloke was going to attack someone with a bottle and stokes smacked him

End of story

Move on

 

[stephen cartwright]

Anyone think he will start on Saturday?

 

[brandon]

I've read the article. Fair enough I guess and if they've said in statements they were thankful to Ben Stokes, then I understand the verdict of not guilty.

I still see the flicking of the cigarette butt, but if this either didn't register with them or they saw this differently then that creates reasonable doubt about the video evidence. Not guilty is is.

But because of the cigarette butt, it would be an uncomfortable not guilty. To refer to my mother's remark about the case, it does seem to me as it did to her they've washed their hands of the whole thing.



Oh bollocks!!!

The trial was stopped due to the police idea of Facebook screenshots being to photograph the computer screens rather than hit CTRL+ALT+PRINT SCREEN. The result was the printouts presented of dialogue between the accused and defendant to support the prosecution case was unreadable.

I talked to some plods about this later. They were not surprised at the CPS and forensics people cocking up the evidence collection.

With the greatest respect, I don’t think you’d make a good juror going off what you’re saying.

It seems to me you’re getting far too hung up on this cigarette butt.

Flicking a cigarette at someone does NOT make someone guilty of affray.

You must see the whole picture, one of the gay men was struck with a bottle, Ben Stokes acted in DEFENCE of the victim, not only by ushering the victim away from the danger area but by ‘neutralising’ the threat.

Make what you will of my wording, but the description contains only facts and on the balance of those facts there is absolutely no way Stokes can be guilty of affray. Cigarette butt or no cigarette butt - it’s undeniable that Stokes was the protector of Barry and O’Connor.

 

[Deleted member 30853]

A few punches should not end up in a 7 day trial at crown court

The fact that you can’t see that absolutely baffles me, it really does



The simple fact is the bloke was going to attack someone with a bottle and stokes smacked him

End of story

Move on

I've just read it as Stokes being threatened with the bottle.

"One of the guys responded - he said 'shut up or I'll bottle you' in an aggressive tone to me."

The 27-year-old, who played in England's one-day victory over the West Indies at the Bristol County Ground the evening before, said he saw a "dark bottle" in the right hand of the man and that he "thought he was going to assault me".

So we have Stokes's word there was a bottle???

Later:

Mr Spure said Ali "seemed to be trying to back away or get away from the situation" before he was punched by Stokes.

It's coming across as the jury were asked which to believe, did not know which to believe and unable to conclude two not guilty verdicts. All evidence is hearsay and is not "prima facae" evidence. I'll refer to my earlier remark that the jury has washed their hands of the case.

My earlier observations about the cigarette butt being aimed at the gay lad on the right by Stokes implying guilt have been put in doubt by the statements provided by the gay men's statements provided to the jury.

The whole thing is a "hearsay" mess. Therefore, thinking back to my own jury service, I'd now have to reluctantly say "not guilty". Reluctantly. That video of the cigarette butt flick sticks in my head.

I don't trust Ben Stokes as far as I can throw him.

But his lass is a wad.

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at one stage the lad who was let off seemed to be trying to calm things down?

With a metal pole....

I’d say there’s a very big difference between forgetting some detail of an event when it’s quite emotionally charged and you’re directly involved, and claiming you’ve reviewed CCTV footage when you haven’t.

Then saying he couldn't explain it when he got caught telling lies. 100% liar, can't be dressed up any other way

I've just read it as Stokes being threatened with the bottle.



So we have Stokes's word there was a bottle???

Later:



It's coming across as the jury were asked which to believe, did not know which to believe and unable to conclude two not guilty verdicts. All evidence is hearsay and is not "prima facae" evidence. I'll refer to my earlier remark that the jury has washed their hands of the case.

My earlier observations about the cigarette butt being aimed at the gay lad on the right by Stokes implying guilt have been put in doubt by the statements provided by the gay men's statements provided to the jury.

The whole thing is a "hearsay" mess. Therefore, thinking back to my own jury service, I'd now have to reluctantly say "not guilty". Reluctantly. That video of the cigarette butt flick sticks in my head.

I don't trust Ben Stokes as far as I can throw him.

But his lass is a wad.

The 2 gay lads in an interview yesterday mentioned bottles and were full of praise for Stokes. Ryan Hale also had a metal pole

 

[mackemmover94]

With a metal pole....


Then saying he couldn't explain it when he got caught telling lies. 100% liar, can't be dressed up any other way


The 2 gay lads in an interview yesterday mentioned bottles and were full of praise for Stokes. Ryan Hale also had a metal pole

Still don’t understand this from the two gay lads yesterday - feels to me as if they’re trying to get 5 minutes fame on the back of the story and Stokes getting away with it. They weren’t called to give evidence by either party for some reason or another (presumably as their stories weren’t watertight and didn’t help either side) so although it’s good to see them seemingly support Stokes’ original story, it feels as though they’re in it for themselves now that the case has come to a verdict.

 

[Voice of fair play]

A few punches should not end up in a 7 day trial at crown court

The fact that you can’t see that absolutely baffles me, it really does



The simple fact is the bloke was going to attack someone with a bottle and stokes smacked him

End of story

Move on

I have never said it should go to court so putting words in people’s mouths again.

What baffles me is you can’t see he done anything wrong!

Never wanted anything to go to court just Stokes to admit in the heat of the moment he went too far and people to admit that getting into street fights is not what top sportsman or anybody for that matter should do.

 

[smoker]

I have never said it should go to court so putting words in people’s mouths again.

What baffles me is you can’t see he done anything wrong!

Never wanted anything to go to court just Stokes to admit in the heat of the moment he went too far and people to admit that getting into street fights is not what top sportsman or anybody for that matter should do.

Another one who thinks he knows better than the jury about reasonable force.

Should have just had a nice cup of tea with them and said 'dont attack people with bottles and metal poles chaps'.

 

[The Rat]

I have never said it should go to court so putting words in people’s mouths again.

What baffles me is you can’t see he done anything wrong!

Never wanted anything to go to court just Stokes to admit in the heat of the moment he went too far and people to admit that getting into street fights is not what top sportsman or anybody for that matter should do.

He’s faced a 6 month ban already

How can he admit something wrong when he’s under s ridiculous prosecution

He couldn’t comment on it

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

I do love that not guilty has become “I was right all along and now everything I say is fact”

He got off, the jury made an informed decision. I’m completely fine with that.

But let’s not make stuff up eh?

 

[Voice of fair play]

He’s faced a 6 month ban already

How can he admit something wrong when he’s under s ridiculous prosecution

He couldn’t comment on it

Well that’s fair enough, mine is more of a wider issue that we as a society see street fights as wrong and not acceptable.

Rather than people on here saying he done nothing wrong when he clearly did.

That what concerns me the most that people on here think he done nothing wrong!

I hope now he comes out and makes a statement to say that in the heat of the moment he went too far and his behaviour is the wrong example for a top sportsman.

If he does I will have a massive amount of respect for him.

Another one who thinks he knows better than the jury about reasonable force.

Should have just had a nice cup of tea with them and said 'dont attack people with bottles and metal poles chaps'.

I don’t know better than a jury.

I have my own principles in life and I am proud of them,and attacking somebody who has their hands up backing away and still continuing to attack that person while your own mate is saying enough is enough is not something I consider the right thing to do.

And in greatly concerns me that people do!

 

[rentaghost]

The verdict doesn’t mean Stokes didn’t go to far just that all 3 components of affray weren’t met according to the jury. Not guilty is the right verdict as there was no danger to the wider public. The ECB will have to judge whether it is right for a player that has already been sent home from an England tour for drink reasons to have had a load to drink, to be trying to get into club at 2.15 mid series and attempting to bribe a bouncer in the process. They will have to decide whether it is fitting for the England vice captain to be flicking tab butts at the public and getting involved in a sustained fight. They will have to balance this against the fact that he has already had some punishment. 6 month ban and stripped of the vice captaincy seems likely

 

[Deleted member 30853]

With a metal pole....

The 2 gay lads in an interview yesterday mentioned bottles and were full of praise for Stokes. Ryan Hale also had a metal pole

I obviously saw a shortened version of the interview as I heard the praise for Stokes. That being the case, fair enough. I would therefore like to see an extended version of that interview.

It interesting though that different people can look at the video clip of the cigarette flick and read it different ways.

I wonder if there were different interpretations in the jury room too and in the end they convicted neither party, unable to make their minds up who was the aggressor. To repeat my mum's remark about the case again (we watched the video clip together), they washed their hands of the whole thing. She could see both interpretations.

 

[rentaghost]

I obviously saw a shortened version of the interview as I heard the praise for Stokes. That being the case, fair enough. I would therefore like to see an extended version of that interview.

It interesting though that different people can look at the video clip of the cigarette flick and read it different ways.

I wonder if there were different interpretations in the jury room too and in the end they convicted neither party, unable to make their minds up who was the aggressor. To repeat my mum's remark about the case again (we watched the video clip together), they washed their hands of the whole thing. She could see both interpretations.

I don't think the cigarette flick was very nice but you are putting way too much emphasis on it in the overall scheme of things. even if all of the jury thought it was deliberate and unpleasant it doesn't go 0.05% towards a conviction of affray unless you thought the wider general public were in danger because of the flicked cigarette butt.

 

[Deleted member 30853]

The verdict doesn’t mean Stokes didn’t go to far just that all 3 components of affray weren’t met according to the jury. Not guilty is the right verdict as there was no danger to the wider public. The ECB will have to judge whether it is right for a player that has already been sent home from an England tour for drink reasons to have had a load to drink, to be trying to get into club at 2.15 mid series and attempting to bribe a bouncer in the process. They will have to decide whether it is fitting for the England vice captain to be flicking tab butts at the public and getting involved in a sustained fight. They will have to balance this against the fact that he has already had some punishment. 6 month ban and stripped of the vice captaincy seems likely

I would strip him of the vice captaincy. I would also tell him to stay off the drink at least whilst within a series and if a drink problem is identified, to seek professional help. I would tell him his England-playing future is dependent upon future good behaviour.

I would not impose any immediate ban as he has been out for six months for this already and the ECB at least can;t punish him twice for the same offence.

I don't think the cigarette flick was very nice but you are putting way too much emphasis on it in the overall scheme of things. even if all of the jury thought it was deliberate and unpleasant it doesn't go 0.05% towards a conviction of affray unless you thought the wider general public were in danger because of the flicked cigarette butt.

It's the intimation and intend expressed by the cigarette butt I'm interested in, as little tells like this can be indicative of a person's state of mind at the time of the incident.

Danger to the wider public is the other issue I'm unclear. If someone else had inadvertently got in the way, what would have happened?
On balance, I think Ben Stokes was guilty - that is my opinion. However, the statements provided by the gay lads provides reasonable doubt and if they are on his side, then fair enough, not guilty it is.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

He has been found not guilty. And he has missed a lot of cricket

Thus I wouldn’t ban him. And I don’t think they will

I would remind him, and others, of their responsibilities. Particularly

- he is famous and thus can be a target. He needs to help himself
- alcohol, no matter what this board thinks, should be consumed in moderation. Particularly during series’

 

[Deleted member 30853]

He has been found not guilty. And he has missed a lot of cricket

Thus I wouldn’t ban him. And I don’t think they will

I would remind him, and others, of their responsibilities. Particularly

- he is famous and thus can be a target. He needs to help himself
- alcohol, no matter what this board thinks, should be consumed in moderation. Particularly during series’

Agreed. Whatever the varying thoughts on a message board or elsewhere, the verdict has been given and it's time to move on.

 

[rentaghost]

I would strip him of the vice captaincy. I would also tell him to stay off the drink at least whilst within a series and if a drink problem is identified, to seek professional help. I would tell him his England-playing future is dependent upon future good behaviour.

I would not impose any immediate ban as he has been out for six months for this already and the ECB at least can;t punish him twice for the same offence.



It's the intimation and intend expressed by the cigarette butt I'm interested in, as little tells like this can be indicative of a person's state of mind at the time of the incident.

Danger to the wider public is the other issue I'm unclear. If someone else had inadvertently got in the way, what would have happened?
On balance, I think Ben Stokes was guilty - that is my opinion. However, the statements provided by the gay lads provides reasonable doubt and if they are on his side, then fair enough, not guilty it is.

It wouldn't matter if his state of mind was completely and utterly mental. He couldn't get found guilty of affray if it wasn't felt the wider public were in danger by his actions. If you think the wider public were in danger of Ben Stokes actions then you can think he was guilty - if they weren't then you cant possibly think hes guilty and the tab butt incident is neither here nor there.

 

[stephen cartwright]

The smb jury, solicitors, barristers and judges are a tough school mind.