Hales and Stokes

[DaveAngel]

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.

I am not saying that, thats what they are saying for fuck sake!!!!!!!! are you taking the piss?

Try actually reading what I said

Jesus wept. Its beyond belief now. I am not saying they are wrong, its them saying we are wrong just because they disagree.

Another one who thinks anyone who Stokes did nothing wrong is just talking shite.

Top "debate" that

 

[mackemmover94]

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.

Ok, I got it wrong.... it wasn't you telling people they were wrong...

Out of interest, when you saw someone get glasses but didn't step in like Stokes did (just wished you had), what stopped you helping? Fear of the CPS getting involved? I don't know, just speculating...

 

[DaveAngel]

Ok, I got it wrong.... it wasn't you telling people they were wrong...

Out of interest, when you saw someone get glasses but didn't step in like Stokes did (just wished you had), what stopped you helping? Fear of the CPS getting involved? I don't know, just speculating...

Erm you didn't even f***ing read what that was in reply to did you.

I was saying he was wrong to the idea that my opinion would be different if it was Vince who was in the fight.

Not that his opinion was wrong you plank

So unlucky in your attempt to try and lie about what I was saying, it didn't work.

I didnt step in because I am absolutely soft as shite and didn't want a glass smashed over my head. Is that a crime?

 

[Voice of fair play]

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?

What I am saying is the bigger picture is more important than one individual and if someone in the public eye gets a harsher sentence for a crime ,and that's means people watching it think twice about doing that crime,I could not care less and have sympathy with that person as they should have not committed that crime in the first place.

I understand that is not what the law is about it's my personal opinion.

As for the other point it has been said by many Stokes did not just intervene which of course is very understandable and actually a good thing if the circumstances were as you said.

He continued on and on even when it could be clearly heard by his own mates telling him enough was enough and clearly trying to restrain hin he continued.

Let me ask you this ,his mates were there and knew the circumstances so why were they not encouraging him to continue?

 

[Steak Pie]

What I am saying is the bigger picture is more important than one individual and if someone in the public eye gets a harsher sentence for a crime ,and that's means people watching it think twice about doing that crime,I could not care less and have sympathy with that person as they should have not committed that crime in the first place.

I understand that is not what the law is about it's my personal opinion.

As for the other point it has been said by many Stokes did not just intervene which of course is very understandable and actually a good thing if the circumstances were as you said.

He continued on and on even when it could be clearly heard by his own mates telling him enough was enough and clearly trying to restrain hin he continued.

Let me ask you this ,his mates were there and knew the circumstances so why were they not encouraging him to continue?

Fair enough but that's an horrific opinion IMO, absolutely terrible. I'm sure if you were in the demographic that was seen as acceptable to treat worse than everyone else, you'd sharp change your mind.

Completely swerved my question. It's telling that even after weeks and despite the fact that they weren't involved in the incident, everyone seems reticent to answer. Everyone quick to condemn someone in the heat of the moment though.

I would imagine some of them weren't as involved and were a bit more calm, I dunno I wasn't there.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Fair enough but that's an horrific opinion IMO, absolutely terrible. I'm sure if you were in the demographic that was seen as acceptable to treat worse than everyone else, you'd sharp change your mind.

Completely swerved my question. It's telling that even after weeks and despite the fact that they weren't involved in the incident, everyone seems reticent to answer. Everyone quick to condemn someone in the heat of the moment though.

I would imagine some of them weren't as involved and were a bit more calm, I dunno I wasn't there.

I don't think its a horrible opinion where a crime is involved, in a normal situation of course I agree everyone should be treat the same.

However where a crime is concerned can only repeat the more important thing for me is the deterrent, making sure that crime has less chance of happening again.

For example if someone famous commits a rape, I am certainly not going to lose any sleep if that person gets a stiffer sentence, because that stiffer sentence will be seen by more people therefore hopefully meaning less people committing that crime, and like I said before if that person thinks its unjust, tough fuck don't rape anyone.

Anyway back to Stokes, the point is his continued reaction was not heat of the moment, heat of the moment is reaction based to a incident, not calmly continuing to throw punch after punch

 

[brandon]

I don't think its a horrible opinion where a crime is involved, in a normal situation of course I agree everyone should be treat the same.

However where a crime is concerned can only repeat the more important thing for me is the deterrent, making sure that crime has less chance of happening again.

For example if someone famous commits a rape, I am certainly not going to lose any sleep if that person gets a stiffer sentence, because that stiffer sentence will be seen by more people therefore hopefully meaning less people committing that crime, and like I said before if that person thinks its unjust, tough fuck don't rape anyone.

The only thing that would ever seriously act as a deterrent would be an increase in the actual sentencing guidelines. Not isolated incidents of celebrities being treated more harshly than Joe Public.

However, in America, where the sentences are virtually draconian, it makes fuckall real difference.

 

[Steak Pie]

I don't think its a horrible opinion where a crime is involved, in a normal situation of course I agree everyone should be treat the same.

However where a crime is concerned can only repeat the more important thing for me is the deterrent, making sure that crime has less chance of happening again.

For example if someone famous commits a rape, I am certainly not going to lose any sleep if that person gets a stiffer sentence, because that stiffer sentence will be seen by more people therefore hopefully meaning less people committing that crime, and like I said before if that person thinks its unjust, tough fuck don't rape anyone.

Anyway back to Stokes, the point is his continued reaction was not heat of the moment, heat of the moment is reaction based to a incident, not calmly continuing to throw punch after punch

That's your opinion, fair enough. Did you know that most speeding is done by white middle aged men? So if you're caught speeding it would be OK to lock you up for 10 years, just as deterrent to your demographic? Speeding kills people after all, so it's only fair to punish you more harshly. That's your logic process extended. Not so great now it's you, is it? Tough fuck, don't speed.

Thankfully, that's not how the law works. If Ben Stokes is treated any more harshly (or leniently) than Barry Public, then it's wrong on every single level.

You're talking about approximately one minute from the start of that video until the end, and about 30 seconds from when the bottle drops to the end. No time at all. Sure, it's fine when you're looking at a video dispassionately from your settee, but a totally different story when you're a few seconds removed from a potential blinding. It's telling that you (and everyone else, to be fair) can't or won't answer a simple question.

 

[DaveAngel]

I don't think its a horrible opinion where a crime is involved, in a normal situation of course I agree everyone should be treat the same.

However where a crime is concerned can only repeat the more important thing for me is the deterrent, making sure that crime has less chance of happening again.

For example if someone famous commits a rape, I am certainly not going to lose any sleep if that person gets a stiffer sentence, because that stiffer sentence will be seen by more people therefore hopefully meaning less people committing that crime, and like I said before if that person thinks its unjust, tough fuck don't rape anyone.

Anyway back to Stokes, the point is his continued reaction was not heat of the moment, heat of the moment is reaction based to a incident, not calmly continuing to throw punch after punch

The last paragraph is absolutely laughable

That video is the definition of heat of the moment. This claim that he's calmly throwing punches is beyond belief and undermines your whole argument. You wouldn't last long as a lawyer mate.

What I am saying is the bigger picture is more important than one individual and if someone in the public eye gets a harsher sentence for a crime ,and that's means people watching it think twice about doing that crime,I could not care less and have sympathy with that person as they should have not committed that crime in the first place.

I understand that is not what the law is about it's my personal opinion.

As for the other point it has been said by many Stokes did not just intervene which of course is very understandable and actually a good thing if the circumstances were as you said.

He continued on and on even when it could be clearly heard by his own mates telling him enough was enough and clearly trying to restrain hin he continued.

Let me ask you this ,his mates were there and knew the circumstances so why were they not encouraging him to continue?

Wow. That's a worrying opinion to be honest, not the stokes but the top paragraph. Absolutely outrageous. Giving a bloke a sentence he doesn't deserve just because he's famous. Don't you know how mad that sounds?

 

[Voice of fair play]

The last paragraph is absolutely laughable

That video is the definition of heat of the moment. This claim that he's calmly throwing punches is beyond belief and undermines your whole argument. You wouldn't last long as a lawyer mate.



Wow. That's a worrying opinion to be honest, not the stokes but the top paragraph. Absolutely outrageous. Giving a bloke a sentence he doesn't deserve just because he's famous. Don't you know how mad that sounds?

I simply prefer less crimes mate, for example as a debate let's take rape,which is a serious crime.

If a famous person gets 7 years and another let's say normal person gets 5 years, more people would know about that sentence and might think twice about committing that crime.

If just one or two people do not commit rape as a result of seeing that famous person get a stiffer sentence that is more important imo than a rapist getting a fair sentance comparable to another person.

Why anybody would care if a known proven rapist getting a fair sentence is beyond me, as I could not understand anybody committing that crime, therefore would not care less if they got 25 years in prison.

The only thing that would ever seriously act as a deterrent would be an increase in the actual sentencing guidelines. Not isolated incidents of celebrities being treated more harshly than Joe Public.

However, in America, where the sentences are virtually draconian, it makes fuckall real difference.

Well that first sentence is up for debate, but deterrent is the most important thing for me.

That's your opinion, fair enough. Did you know that most speeding is done by white middle aged men? So if you're caught speeding it would be OK to lock you up for 10 years, just as deterrent to your demographic? Speeding kills people after all, so it's only fair to punish you more harshly. That's your logic process extended. Not so great now it's you, is it? Tough fuck, don't speed.

Thankfully, that's not how the law works. If Ben Stokes is treated any more harshly (or leniently) than Barry Public, then it's wrong on every single level.

You're talking about approximately one minute from the start of that video until the end, and about 30 seconds from when the bottle drops to the end. No time at all. Sure, it's fine when you're looking at a video dispassionately from your settee, but a totally different story when you're a few seconds removed from a potential blinding. It's telling that you (and everyone else, to be fair) can't or won't answer a simple question.

Obviously speeding is a minor crime where you don't mean to intentionally hurt someone, other than more serious crime where you do.

If someone means to hurt another indivavual and gets a harsh sentence I can't have no sympathy.


The last 30 seconds kills Stokes as many others on this thread have said but you fail to see.

 

[DaveAngel]

I simply prefer less crimes mate, for example as a debate let's take rape,which is a serious crime.

If a famous person gets 7 years and another let's say normal person gets 5 years, more people would know about that sentence and might think twice about committing that crime.

If just one or two people do not commit rape as a result of seeing that famous person get a stiffer sentence that is more important imo than a rapist getting a fair sentance comparable to another person.

Why anybody would care if a known proven rapist getting a fair sentence is beyond me, as I could not understand anybody committing that crime, therefore would not care less if they got 25 years in prison.



Well that first sentence is up for debate, but deterrent is the most important thing for me.




Obviously speeding is a minor crime where you don't mean to intentionally hurt someone, other than more serious crime where you do.

If someone means to hurt another indivavual and gets a harsh sentence I can't have no sympathy.


The last 30 seconds kills Stokes as many others on this thread have said but you fail to see.

Just as many people say the complete opposite to you, so stop pretending your view is the majority, its 50/50.

 

[Voice of fair play]

Just as many people say the complete opposite to you, so stop pretending your view is the majority, its 50/50.

They do mate, without going over old ground, different people have different principles of what is right or wrong, or indeed what is going too far.

I think it's fair to say we will never agree on this issue, bit of a understatement that tbh!!!

 

[Brexit]

Fair enough but that's an horrific opinion IMO, absolutely terrible. I'm sure if you were in the demographic that was seen as acceptable to treat worse than everyone else, you'd sharp change your mind.

Completely swerved my question. It's telling that even after weeks and despite the fact that they weren't involved in the incident, everyone seems reticent to answer. Everyone quick to condemn someone in the heat of the moment though.

I would imagine some of them weren't as involved and were a bit more calm, I dunno I wasn't there.

Without wanting to open a can of worms, an ex winger of ours got a more hefty than usual sentence because of his profession and fame.

 

[Steak Pie]

Obviously speeding is a minor crime where you don't mean to intentionally hurt someone, other than more serious crime where you do.

If someone means to hurt another indivavual and gets a harsh sentence I can't have no sympathy.

The last 30 seconds kills Stokes as many others on this thread have said but you fail to see.

But that's just your logic advanced a couple of steps though, it just takes the minimum amount of thought to see what a horrific concept it is. I doubt Stokes went out to get into a fight with a pissed up squaddie armed with a bottle, but such is life.

Not in my opinion or in the opinion of millions of others. To turn it round on you..... You fail to see the provocation and you've failed to take into account any extenuating circumstances, and you've failed to provide the point where you would have stopped.

Without wanting to open a can of worms, an ex winger of ours got a more hefty than usual sentence because of his profession and fame.

He did, Johnson's sentence was massively out of proportion.

 

[KGC83]

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.

Custodial sentences? It was a scrap that went wrong for the lad that got decked. Happens up and down the country daily.

 

[mackemmover94]

out of interest, and not really that important tbh, when high profile people are sentenced, what does the court/public notice or whatever they produce say with regard to their extended sentence? Presumably they don't say '2 extra years as a celebrity'.

Think it does also work both ways at times though, sure there will be cases of celebrities getting away with things that a Joe Bloggs would get a sentence/more substantial fine for because they can afford the upper fine/bail to reduce sentence. Again, not sure how it all works so if I'm wrong I hope DaveAngel doesn't tell me I wouldn't last long as a lawyer either!

 

[DaveAngel]

They do mate, without going over old ground, different people have different principles of what is right or wrong, or indeed what is going too far.

I think it's fair to say we will never agree on this issue, bit of a understatement that tbh!!!

Aye that is fine

I have no problem with that

Just stop pretending you have the normal majority view and we are scumbags for thinking otherwise

You are wrong, its 50/50, thats been my point all along.

 

[TheRey]

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?

The blokes a f***ing tit.

If I walked out the boozer tonight, a friend of mine got homophoically abused and I had a glass waved in my face and cracked the **** a few times, the old bill would say behave yourself from now on son, now off you fuck.

Because Stokes is a pro cricketer and a celeb, they're being wankers.

 

[Voice of fair play]

But that's just your logic advanced a couple of steps though, it just takes the minimum amount of thought to see what a horrific concept it is. I doubt Stokes went out to get into a fight with a pissed up squaddie armed with a bottle, but such is life.

Not in my opinion or in the opinion of millions of others. To turn it round on you..... You fail to see the provocation and you've failed to take into account any extenuating circumstances, and you've failed to provide the point where you would have stopped.



He did, Johnson's sentence was massively out of proportion.

The key difference between speeding and another crime, is the intention.

You would always have more sympathy with a crime committed accidentally as in a speeding case rather than somebody purposely committing a crime, so understand the conceipt but speeding not a good example.

I honestly don't see it as horrific concept if a individual as purposely set out to commit a crime.


Of course I see the provocation, but as I thought I have made clear my own mates telling me enough is enough and trying to physically restrain me would tell me that is the point to stop.

In one way you can have sympathy with Stokes as I believe he went too far, however clearly he did not set out to hurt anyone, however with someone like Johnson he knew what he was doing purposefully did that,therefore have no sympathy whatsoever with him getting a stiffer sentence

I guess for me it depends on the severity of the crime,I have no issue with somebody famous getting a stiffer sentence for a serious crime.

The bottom line for me is what is more important a bloke who has committed a crime getting a fair deal or trying to preven that crime happening again.

Preventing or trying to prevent that crime happening again is what I think is more important.

 

[brandon]

I guess for me it depends on the severity of the crime,I have no issue with somebody famous getting a stiffer sentence for a serious crime.

The bottom line for me is what is more important a bloke who has committed a crime getting a fair deal or trying to preven that crime happening again.

Preventing or trying to prevent that crime happening again is what I think is more important.

Do you work in the justice system? If not, thank fuck!

It's more important to you that a celebrity gets a stiffer sentence than a layman and it's more important someone gets a draconian punishment than a fair trial?!

Christ, if you want to live in a country like that, North Korea might be more your thing.