Benjamin Stokes & Alexander Hales

[Zambo]

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.

All that says is we have a shite criminal justice system, which has been the case for decades.

[Zambo]

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.

Yes, not guilty of affray, but if I was his employer, I wouldn't want a cunt like that in my company.

[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.

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

What - if that happened, you wouldn't step in and help her? I don't believe that.

But again, this is trial by CCTV footage, and there's more to it than that. All the comments I've read have decided that he's guilty purely based on the video footage; I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.

[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.

Yes, not guilty of affray, but if I was his employer, I wouldn't want a cunt like that in my company.

Well, that's a separate issue. I dare say many of us wouldn't get on with him. Botham has whacked a few people in his time; he seems to do all right.

[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.

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.

He punched someone? Have you seen footage? It’s been posted on here, it’s been shown countless times during the trial. He hit someone else with such force, he broke his eye socket? I suppose you’re going to use the same limp wristed “I did not see it” mitigation that we didn’t know what went on before. It wasn’t the sort of handbags at ten paces we saw at the World Cup where Neymar went down clutching his head when his finger nail was brushed.

I can see that you’re either on a wind up as you have it in for those with a contrary view like Royals and Rossco used to do on here or you really don’t understand that thuggish behaviour is not OK. I really hope you don’t go out for a decent night out and some aggressive bastard goes for you causing physical and emotional damage. Presumably, you wouldn’t go to the police and waste the court’s time as it would only be “a punch”. Man up and get on with it, eh?

On a wider issue, should women who experience domestic violence just let it go if they are punched, sub?

Surprised you haven’t called me a moron this morning.

[kancutlawns]

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.

Yes, not guilty of affray, but if I was his employer, I wouldn't want a cunt like that in my company.

People are dismissed from their organisations if they are going to stand trial. Companies don’t want the negative publicity but organisations like the ECB allow individuals like Stokes to continue to play in such circumstances. Utterly ludicrous.

The ECB will allow him to continue to play for England, will allow the matter to die down and will have a low profile file hearing about him later in the year and exonerate him. Just a typical whitewash with no lesson learnt about thuggish behaviour from an English cricketer.

[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?

What - if that happened, you wouldn't step in and help her? I don't believe that.

But again, this is trial by CCTV footage, and there's more to it than that. All the comments I've read have decided that he's guilty purely based on the video footage; I'm afraid it's not as simple as that.

I would step in, as I would if a couple of burglars entered my home, but then I would be protecting family. Stokes could have walked away from that situation.

[Zambo]

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.

Yes, not guilty of affray, but if I was his employer, I wouldn't want a cunt like that in my company.

Well, that's a separate issue. I dare say many of us wouldn't get on with him. Botham has whacked a few people in his time; he seems to do all right.

Botham is also a cunt.

[beingsoblase]

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.

I'd be a bit careful with that sub, as the most likely outcome would be the woman then attacks you for hitting her beloved, her beloved then starts on you, while a crowd of their mates get the police involved and you get nicked yourself.

[Eaststand]

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.

How was his behaviour reprehensible if he did nothing wrong?

[kancutlawns]

What are the lessons learnt from this case, sub for the ECB and Stokes? Should anything be done to ensure there is no repeat or do we just put it down as high jinks and one of those things that happens when English players should not be out on the piss before or during a game?

[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.

Yes, not guilty of affray, but if I was his employer, I wouldn't want a cunt like that in my company.

Well, that's a separate issue. I dare say many of us wouldn't get on with him. Botham has whacked a few people in his time; he seems to do all right.

Botham is also a cunt.

Heh.
I interviewed him once. He was one of my heroes (still is, really), but he came across as a bit of a nob. Had no time for anyone who disagreed with him. I did ask him if he regretted that famous comment about Pakistan being the kind of place to send your mother-in-law for two weeks, all expenses paid

[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.

How was his behaviour reprehensible if he did nothing wrong?

Never said he did nothing wrong.
But that's a different thing to whether a jury should convict him of affray.

[subsub]

What are the lessons learnt from this case, sub for the ECB and Stokes? Should anything be done to ensure there is no repeat or do we just put it down as high jinks and one of those things that happens when English players should not be out on the piss before or during a game?

I'm sure that Stokes will have been (or will be) read the riot act by the ECB and told that anything remotely like this ever again and he'll never play for England again, regardless that he was found not guilty. But I'm sure he knows that anyway.

I'm also sure that the ECB will start imposing curfews after games - there wasn't one on that particular occasion (clearly).

[subsub]

I can see that you’re either on a wind up as you have it in for those with a contrary view like Royals and Rossco used to do on here or you really don’t understand that thuggish behaviour is not OK. I really hope you don’t go out for a decent night out and some aggressive bastard goes for you causing physical and emotional damage. Presumably, you wouldn’t go to the police and waste the court’s time as it would only be “a punch”. Man up and get on with it, eh?

Definitely not on the wind-up, and please don't lump me in with that God-bothering twat Royals.
I'm just rather sick of all this 'I saw the video; therefore he's guilty' stuff - that is too simplistic a view.
Like I said earlier, I don't know the intricacies of affray and what it entails, but I'm sure the jury were properly informed of what they should have considered.

I've seen stuff on Twitter where they said that the CPS wanted to charge him with assault or ABH but they realised that there was insufficient evidence, so they went with a lesser charge of affray. But if it the matter was as cut and dry as you (and others) have said, why didn't they press for ABH charge, given that you can see on the footage what he did? Or perhaps it's not as simple as that…?