Voice of fair play
Striker
I would rather avoid a street fight all round wouldn’t you?
It was the word normal! I took exception with, what you suggesting should be rare not normal
-
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
I would rather avoid a street fight all round wouldn’t you?
It was the word normal! I took exception with, what you suggesting should be rare not normal
Discopants91
Striker
Absolutely.
Still mental to think you can bray fuck out of someone in public with no repercussions but there you go.
Former Player
Full Back
Absolutely over the moon for Ben Stokes and his family. It must of been a very difficult 11 months.
All sensationalised by that horrible establishment THE SUN. Showed parts of the video which gave them what they wanted... sensational headline that sells them papers. Forget the truth just highlight the bits people will fall for.
Never forget Hillsborough where the evil bastards told a total pack of lies and made up stories for headlines. Keep hearing issues about fake news that the authorities want to stop... whats the difference between fake news and lies...
When a jury hear the full story they nearly always come up with the correct decision.
Disgraceful decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to go ahead with this trial. 3 people charged, 1 thrown out by the judge, the other 2 found not guilty. What a waste of taxpayers money.
All sensationalised by that horrible establishment THE SUN. Showed parts of the video which gave them what they wanted... sensational headline that sells them papers. Forget the truth just highlight the bits people will fall for.
Never forget Hillsborough where the evil bastards told a total pack of lies and made up stories for headlines. Keep hearing issues about fake news that the authorities want to stop... whats the difference between fake news and lies...
When a jury hear the full story they nearly always come up with the correct decision.
Disgraceful decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to go ahead with this trial. 3 people charged, 1 thrown out by the judge, the other 2 found not guilty. What a waste of taxpayers money.
GordonMuchallNo1Fan
Striker
Spot on
Couple of points
1) comparing this with Hillsborough is pretty ridiculous
2) cases get found not guilty. That’s the way the justice system works
No, he lied.
He claimed in court when being cross-examined by Stokes’ barrister that the playing of the CCTV from outside Mbargo was the first time he’d seen the footage.
Stokes’ barrister however read out a statement made by the bouncer to police where he claimed he’d seen the footage.
See above.
In fairness to your brother - he wasn’t in court, the jury were however and considering it’s since been proven just how badly and biased the press have been with their reporting, it’s reasonable to assume key facts FOR the defence were obviously more persuasive and compelling in court than what the tabloids have had us believe.
No, the Tories saw to that....... peasants shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves
Last edited:
Pleased for Stokes.
All parties involved seemed happy to put this drunken incident behind them but the CPS wanted their pound of flesh for no apparent reason.
The trial was all a bit odd. Hales not involved or called to give evidence, the gay lads not called either and 1 lad let off out of the blue.
Stokes has already missed the Ashes, the ODI's and T20's in Oz and all the games in NZ too. He's also missed the last test due to this nonsense of a trial.
He's already served his punishment and should be allowed to get on with his career.
All parties involved seemed happy to put this drunken incident behind them but the CPS wanted their pound of flesh for no apparent reason.
The trial was all a bit odd. Hales not involved or called to give evidence, the gay lads not called either and 1 lad let off out of the blue.
Stokes has already missed the Ashes, the ODI's and T20's in Oz and all the games in NZ too. He's also missed the last test due to this nonsense of a trial.
He's already served his punishment and should be allowed to get on with his career.
I admit that throughout I’ve wanted Stokes to be innocent and I cannot say with any certainty that I’ve not at some point allowed my judgement to be clouded - but after watching that video, it’s alarmed me even further just how bad the reporting has been. Mainly in this case by the Mirror, who’s updates I followed. I’d been led to believe all week from reports that Stokes was abusive towards the two gay men and that he intentionally flicked a lit cigarette at them - it’s left me wondering if actually Stokes was the homophobe all along and NOT Ali and Hale.
However, I just didn’t see that at all on review of the footage.
It appears from the outset that the mood is civil. Granted the attempt of Stokes to buy his way into the club was quite embarassing, but the thing is, I bet it’s worked in the past......... There are laughs and smiles from Stokes and Hales, probably at the point where the tattoo jokes were coming out. It appears one bouncer makes a joke back, as the lads clearly laugh at what has been said.
Then, with the pair of Barry and O’Connor coming onto the scene the mood appears fine. You can quite clearly see the facial expressions and body language of all four being relaxed, jovial and friendly - at no point there do I see it being hostile or abusive. Even the cigarette appears to fall directly to ground in front of one of them as opposed to being flicked with any sort of intentional force. You can see eveidently the moment where Stokes’ shoes were made the butt of the joke, again this is met with what can only be described as a positive and friendly response.
Finally, when Stokes and Hales go to leave, Stokes engages with both bouncers in what appears again to be friendly conversation, with smiles and laughs clearly evident. I’ve no doubt Stokes was willing to bury the hatchet - it only turns sour for a second when the second bouncer refuses the outstretched hand of Stokes.
So in summary, even from that short clip I can completely and utterly see that the bouncer is a shithouse - I appreciate there’s no audio, but they say body language doesn’t lie and at no point there do I see hostility towards the bouncers or the lads he allegedly protected later. I truly believe the bouncer had a grudge against Stokes, for whatever reason is unclear, but just like with Ali today, it seems Stokes was more than happy to move on and clear the air - unfortunately the bouncer was not, which makes one wonder if such a vindictive, dishonest meathead is really suited to the job of keeping people safe.
It was a vile thing to do, but I’ve come to the conclusion regarding Hales that because the two lads involved didn’t wish to press charges it likely meant the police couldn’t proceed with it - perhaps they should’ve applied that logic to all parties....... Unfortunately though, as I’ve said, they wanted their fifteen minutes of fame.
Aye, very good point ghost - clearly he did get a fair trial, perhaps also the jury should be commended for only going off what they heard or were shown in the court room and making their decision based on that.
I think what I’m getting carried away over was his ‘trial by media’ which I feel I’ve proven wasn’t ‘fair’ but then who cares what the tabloids think. Suppose it’s a good thing as mentioned that the jury didn’t read any of it, or atleast took little notice.
All we need now is for FTECB to apply common sen........ oh
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 30853
Guest
Correct me if I'm wrong, but at one stage the lad who was let off seemed to be trying to calm things down?
Wouldn’t use The S*n to wipe my arse marra. If I had my way, if I was PM I’d make it Law to provide a fair press and any lies or bias by written press would result in massive fines.
D
Deleted member 30853
Guest
I admit that throughout I’ve wanted Stokes to be innocent and I cannot say with any certainty that I’ve not at some point allowed my judgement to be clouded - but after watching that video, it’s alarmed me even further just how bad the reporting has been. Mainly in this case by the Mirror, who’s updates I followed. I’d been led to believe all week from reports that Stokes was abusive towards the two gay men and that he intentionally flicked a lit cigarette at them - it’s left me wondering if actually Stokes was the homophobe all along and NOT Ali and Hale.
However, I just didn’t see that at all on review of the footage.
It appears from the outset that the mood is civil. Granted the attempt of Stokes to buy his way into the club was quite embarassing, but the thing is, I bet it’s worked in the past......... There are laughs and smiles from Stokes and Hales, probably at the point where the tattoo jokes were coming out. It appears one bouncer makes a joke back, as the lads clearly laugh at what has been said.
Then, with the pair of Barry and O’Connor coming onto the scene the mood appears fine. You can quite clearly see the facial expressions and body language of all four being relaxed, jovial and friendly - at no point there do I see it being hostile or abusive. Even the cigarette appears to fall directly to ground in front of one of them as opposed to being flicked with any sort of intentional force. You can see eveidently the moment where Stokes’ shoes were made the butt of the joke, again this is met with what can only be described as a positive and friendly response.
Finally, when Stokes and Hales go to leave, Stokes engages with both bouncers in what appears again to be friendly conversation, with smiles and laughs clearly evident. I’ve no doubt Stokes was willing to bury the hatchet - it only turns sour for a second when the second bouncer refuses the outstretched hand of Stokes.
So in summary, even from that short clip I can completely and utterly see that the bouncer is a shithouse - I appreciate there’s no audio, but they say body language doesn’t lie and at no point there do I see hostility towards the bouncers or the lads he allegedly protected later. I truly believe the bouncer had a grudge against Stokes, for whatever reason is unclear, but just like with Ali today, it seems Stokes was more than happy to move on and clear the air - unfortunately the bouncer was not, which makes one wonder if such a vindictive, dishonest meathead is really suited to the job of keeping people safe.
It was a vile thing to do, but I’ve come to the conclusion regarding Hales that because the two lads involved didn’t wish to press charges it likely meant the police couldn’t proceed with it - perhaps they should’ve applied that logic to all parties....... Unfortunately though, as I’ve said, they wanted their fifteen minutes of fame.
Aye, very good point ghost - clearly he did get a fair trial, perhaps also the jury should be commended for only going off what they heard or were shown in the court room and making their decision based on that.
I think what I’m getting carried away over was his ‘trial by media’ which I feel I’ve proven wasn’t ‘fair’ but then who cares what the tabloids think. Suppose it’s a good thing as mentioned that the jury didn’t read any of it, or atleast took little notice.
All we need now is for FTECB to apply common sen........ oh
I see what you say in the video footage and up to the cigarette butt flick, I see the same as you. But I'm afraid here I disagree with you as it seemed to be flicked towards the lad on the right.
I saw the flick, then the fight. My thinking is the jury couldn't conclude guilt beyond reasonable doubt on either site. My mother also watched the footage and said perhaps the jury just decided to wash their hand of the whole thing.
But here, I'm hung up on the flicking of the cigarette butt. I've done jury service and that flick to me indicated intent. That jury with me on it would have been 11 to 1 as that was just enough to me to indicate guilt and to me, Ben Stokes is guilty.
1) I don’t think he was comparing this with Hillsborough, he was merely using that to highlight how much The S*n is a shitcunt rag who will lie in order to sell copies.
2) Indeed, but clearly the CPS need to be very careful about how they use their powers and importantly how they use taxpayers money - it’s been more or less universally agreed on here that it should never have got to trial, for me the CPS are massively guilty of chasing notoriety ahead of properly applying the law.
D
Deleted member 30853
Guest
I'm just saying how I saw it. I hear you though.
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.”
You must be logged on to see external links
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 said this before but when people arm themselves with bottles then suddenly become defensive it doesn't excuse their previous behaviour. When the fight or flight adreline kicks in it isn't easy to switch it off. It is very easy to watch the footage sober and make judgement calls. It is all very different in the real world at 2AM when someone has been threatening you or others with a bottle.
I speak as someone who has been attacked by 2 'peace makers' in the past so I know this to my cost. I was kicked unconscious. I bumped into one of the blokes the week after and I didn't wait for the police to arrive, I meated out my own justice. I was young and daft, it happens.
D
Deleted member 30853
Guest
Question 1): I saw the cigarette butt flick as deliberate and indicating he was contemplating having a go. Sorry, I saw that as deliberate.
Question 2): He possibly did decide he needed to use force to defend himself, but I think he went beyond what was reasonable.
Question 3): The lad who had the cigarette butt flicked at him had reason to fear for his safety. But fair enough, he was able to walk away. However, Ben Stokes was later concentrating on the other defendants. As I said, the defendant who was first acquitted appeared to me to be trying to calm things down at one stage, but the fighting continued. Thus a person at the scene would have to fear for their personal safety.
I'm sorry, from my take I still have to say guilty. The flick of the cigarette butt indicated mischief in Ben Stokes's mind and that to me was deliberate.
Take out the cigarette butt flick, then the whole narrative is far less clear and I can see why not guilty was brought. As commented earlier, my mother's remark that the jury might have washed their hands of the the whole thing seems to be valid as logically one side or the other in the affray was guilty.
I was on a jury for a rape trial years ago. As it happens, the drugs the defendant was under the influence of, he couldn't have "performed" as the victim said.
I was heading for not guilty in that case before the trial was stopped due to a police cock up.
I hear you and I'd have probably done the same as you.
What I'm trying to do is make sense of what I saw. I can't past the cigarette butt and often, a jury can take just the tiniest action as intent, affecting the narrative of what is to follow.
I've seen that footage of the cigarette butt a number of times now. To me, he aimed flicked it at the man on the right.
Last edited by a moderator:
Charmless Man
Striker
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.
- Status
