Benjamin Stokes & Alexander Hales

[Reg]

I have been on a jury which delivered a completely wrong verdict (basically fitted up by the police) and people on the jury admitted it afterwards, when all the information was revealed in court after the verdict.

I and another bloke resisted, and the judge eventually accepted a majority verdict.

It was a travesty.

I am sick of people getting on their hind legs about this sort of thing.

[sjbarca]

[kancutlawns]

I agree it is. I just can’t understand your fastidious support for Stokes but each to their own. We’re just not going to agree on this.

[delboy1983]

I am afraid it is you Sub that is starstruck here and it's clouding your judgement for all to see.
When he offends again and he will ,you will have to admit that was a shocker of a verdict.
Lets hope the next person is able to get up .

I suggest you read what I wrote earlier on in the thread.
I fully expected him to be found guilty, but I wasn't in the court and wasn't privy to all the information – nor were any of you.
And – as I clearly need to spell it out for the umpteenth time – his behaviour was totally unacceptable and he needs to make sure he doesn't put himself in that position again.

But as for all this trial-by-Sun-video shit, that can fuck off. Just know-nowts pissed off that the jury didn't agree with them, hence the lame conspiracy theories about rich/famous people getting off. Not having it.

So you have gone from fully expecting a guilty verdict to accepting that was turned on ots in the trial.
Or was it just a clever lawyer doing his job.
We have a verdict in Scotland called Not proven for trials like this.

Have you seen any polls regarding the validity of the verdict.I bet know nowts as you call them out weigh the know alls like yourself.
It's a carve up and you know it.

[subsub]

Have you seen any polls regarding the validity of the verdict.I bet know nowts as you call them out weigh the know alls like yourself

What the fuck would that prove?
A load of people without the full info saying he should be guilty because he punched someone?

FFS, that was not what he was on trial for! It was affray, not ABH, not GBH, not common assault.

[subsub]

I agree it is. I just can’t understand your fastidious support for Stokes but each to their own. We’re just not going to agree on this.

I will make this point again as it's clearly not getting through. I have no love of Stokes; I expected him to be convicted; his behaviour was reprehensible. Is that clear now?

My issue is with all the rage being shown by people utterly outraged that he was found not guilty, purely on the "but...but...but he punched someone!", as if a trial was unnecessary in the first place and that he should have been convicted on the spot. That is not how it works.
And I've also seen comments with people saying "well, even if he was cleared, he should be punished some other way" - how, exactly? He was CLEARED. Just because you punch someone, it does not automatically make you guilty of a crime.

[delboy1983]

Have you seen any polls regarding the validity of the verdict.I bet know nowts as you call them out weigh the know alls like yourself

What the fuck would that prove?
A load of people without the full info saying he should be guilty because he punched someone?

FFS, that was not what he was on trial for! It was affray, not ABH, not GBH, not common assault.

And – as I clearly need to spell it out for the umpteenth time – his behaviour was totally unacceptable and he needs to make sure he doesn't put himself in that position again.

So guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time,thats it FFS man has won a watch

[subsub]

So guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time,thats it FFS man has won a watch

No, I mean England cricketers shouldn't be out on the piss at 2am in the first place.

[Zambo]

Have you seen any polls regarding the validity of the verdict.I bet know nowts as you call them out weigh the know alls like yourself

What the fuck would that prove?
A load of people without the full info saying he should be guilty because he punched someone?

FFS, that was not what he was on trial for! It was affray, not ABH, not GBH, not common assault.

So punching someone is OK, and no one should be charged for it?

Letting thugs like Stokes off, only sends out one message to his fellow thugs. Maybe the police and CPS fucked up for a change, and got the charge wrong, but you shouldn't be allowed to get off after beating people up in the street. If you don't walk away in a situation like that you deserve to be locked up imo.

[beingsoblase]

For the question of would Joe public be convicted for something like this, watch any of those cop camera shows, at the end of most of them there's a round up of what happened to people arrested, and for the most part they get extremely light sentencing.

Had stokes been a plasterer, all that would have happened at best would be a night in the cells to sober up.

[ToRmAtO]

So guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time,thats it FFS man has won a watch

No, I mean England cricketers shouldn't be out on the piss at 2am in the first place.

The ECB should throw the book at him as an example like a 12 month ban from cricket. But they won't, as they picked him for the next squad. This doesn't send out any message other than a bad one.

[subsub]

So punching someone is OK, and no one should be charged for it?

Yes, depending on the context.
If I was out and a man was beating up his wife right in front of me, maybe I wouldn't dial 999 and watch a woman get violently attacked for 10 minutes; I'd probably get involved and give the guy a smack. As I'm sure you would.

[subsub]

For the question of would Joe public be convicted for something like this, watch any of those cop camera shows, at the end of most of them there's a round up of what happened to people arrested, and for the most part they get extremely light sentencing.

Had stokes been a plasterer, all that would have happened at best would be a night in the cells to sober up.

Exactly. All this guff saying he was only cleared because he was famous – the matter only went to court because he was famous!

[subsub]

So guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time,thats it FFS man has won a watch

No, I mean England cricketers shouldn't be out on the piss at 2am in the first place.

The ECB should throw the book at him as an example like a 12 month ban from cricket. But they won't, as they picked him for the next squad. This doesn't send out any message other than a bad one.

As he was made to misses the entire Ashes tour (and the last Test), I'd be surprised if he was punished further – particularly as he was found not guilty.

[Zambo]

So punching someone is OK, and no one should be charged for it?

Yes, depending on the context.
If I was out and a man was beating up his wife right in front of me, maybe I wouldn't dial 999 and watch a woman get violently attacked for 10 minutes; I'd probably get involved and give the guy a smack. As I'm sure you would.

You need to show more restraint subs, but comparing that situation with Stoles is absurd. Did you watch what he did?