m-u-f-c Message Board

 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Ben Stokes

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    m-u-f-c.co.uk Forum Index -> m-u-f-c General Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Zoolander



Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Posts: 5923
Location: Duck Fat City Limits

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:03 pm    Post subject: Ben Stokes Reply with quote

Had enough of football. Laughing

So my two penneth, it should never have seen the inside of a court room and was a massive waste of time, effort and tax payers money. It only got to court because of who he is.

There was evidence from the two men that Stokes claimed he was initially defending, which was only given in writing and the men were not called as witnesses so this has gone largely unreported, the other two defendants were both armed and yet all 3 have been acquitted, by unanimous decision from the jury who took very little time to come to that decision.

The guys shook hands afterwards, which in my opinion should have been the action taken last year. A severe talking to, shake hand, stop being dicks. At the very most a police caution.

I do not hold an advanced law degree but I have seen this sort of brawl (if that's what you want to call it) before plenty of times in cities across the UK and they never result in a court appearance unless there is a specific reason (such as significant previous form)

Stokes will still have to face an ECB investigation (Hales too) for bringing the game into disrepute (which I think is perfectly fair) so it hasn't all gone away.

It's about 31 days away from being exactly a year since this took place and we have nothing to show for it but some handshakes, 3 acquittals and about 900 terabytes worth of 2nd rate journalism.

The CPS are useless.
_________________
The situation regarding spoons remains unchanged, if I see one, I will kill it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chubby



Joined: 18 Dec 2003
Posts: 3627

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Ben Stokes Reply with quote

Zoolander wrote:
Had enough of football. Laughing

So my two penneth, it should never have seen the inside of a court room and was a massive waste of time, effort and tax payers money. It only got to court because of who he is.

There was evidence from the two men that Stokes claimed he was initially defending, which was only given in writing and the men were not called as witnesses so this has gone largely unreported, the other two defendants were both armed and yet all 3 have been acquitted, by unanimous decision from the jury who took very little time to come to that decision.

The guys shook hands afterwards, which in my opinion should have been the action taken last year. A severe talking to, shake hand, stop being dicks. At the very most a police caution.

I do not hold an advanced law degree but I have seen this sort of brawl (if that's what you want to call it) before plenty of times in cities across the UK and they never result in a court appearance unless there is a specific reason (such as significant previous form)

Stokes will still have to face an ECB investigation (Hales too) for bringing the game into disrepute (which I think is perfectly fair) so it hasn't all gone away.

It's about 31 days away from being exactly a year since this took place and we have nothing to show for it but some handshakes, 3 acquittals and about 900 terabytes worth of 2nd rate journalism.

The CPS are useless.


I concur, plus we have an ashes trophy sitting in the wrong trophy cabinet.
_________________
Nic... I dare say you could kick everyone's arse on Mastermind with United as your specialist subject.... Pedantic wank-wipe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Southern Red



Joined: 08 May 2010
Posts: 2391
Location: Haywards Heath

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've only kept half an eye on the case.

One thing I don't get, which some maybe able to clear up... it was alleged that Stokes mocked a gay couple/person and then I hear he's defending a gay couple/person. If the latter if true, fair play to him. But if he's also being homophobic hasn't he lost the moral high ground?

All things considered and removing the alleged homophobia on Stokes part, this is just a silly scrap between two sets of blokes. Something I'm sure most of us have been involved in one way or another. It should never get to court unless, like zoo suggests, it's a repeat offence etc. At worst it's a £80 fine for a public order offence and perhaps a compo claim by the 'victim'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jackl



Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1116
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Southern Red wrote:
I've only kept half an eye on the case.

One thing I don't get, which some maybe able to clear up... it was alleged that Stokes mocked a gay couple/person and then I hear he's defending a gay couple/person. If the latter if true, fair play to him. But if he's also being homophobic hasn't he lost the moral high ground?

All things considered and removing the alleged homophobia on Stokes part, this is just a silly scrap between two sets of blokes. Something I'm sure most of us have been involved in one way or another. It should never get to court unless, like zoo suggests, it's a repeat offence etc. At worst it's a £80 fine for a public order offence and perhaps a compo claim by the 'victim'.


It's the view the jury will have taken of the evidence. The doorman is the only one who said he was homophobic. We only know what the two gays told the Sun. Certainly if they'd told the Police that Ben had defended them it's doubtful he would have been charged. As neither side thought they were reliable enough to call we'll never know.

It was a hard call for the CPS as if they hadn't charged they would have been accused of favouritism as soon as the CCTV hit the public domain. There's already a furore about not charging Hales. They are both lucky boys but I imagine Ben's pocket has been hit pretty hard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zoolander



Joined: 06 Mar 2004
Posts: 5923
Location: Duck Fat City Limits

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is absolutely no concrete evidence that Stokes was homophobic in any way at all. Jackl is correct it was only the doorman that made that claim.

The defence on the other hand had two written statements from the men who said Stokes was defending them that were given in evidence to both Judge & Jury and was one of the reasons that in his summing up the Judge suggested that they find Stokes not guilty. One of the men had already tweeted (the day after the incident in fact) that Stokes had been defending them and both have gone on record since the acquittal to thank and praise Stokes.

Total smoke screen, mostly media driven and a major reason that this should never have seen the inside of a court room.
_________________
The situation regarding spoons remains unchanged, if I see one, I will kill it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Southern Red



Joined: 08 May 2010
Posts: 2391
Location: Haywards Heath

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zoolander wrote:
There is absolutely no concrete evidence that Stokes was homophobic in any way at all. Jackl is correct it was only the doorman that made that claim.


Ah, that clear it up then.

This trial by media/social media creates huge problems for the jury etc. If I followed the impression I got from twitter/sky etc the book was going to be thrown at him and he was scum of the earth. The only person I saw jump to his defence was Piers Morgan. And he's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Perhaps a media blackout would be better for high profile case, with the media only reporting after the verdict?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Hertford Red



Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 815
Location: Hampshire UK

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Waste of tax payers money

Same scrap will happen in hundreds of towns tonight and they will not end up in court

On trial only because he is famous no other reason

Newspapers and media have a lot to answer for
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jackl



Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1116
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have more info than I do, Zoo. It does however add to the mystery. If the defence had served written statements the judge would see them but the jury wouldn't unless the Crown consented. It is difficult to see the Crown consenting to their admissibility if the defence wasn't prepared to call them as the only reason for the latter is fear of the damage which will be done by cross examination. There is an old adage in those things that the high point of the defence case is usually at the end of the Crown's. It toboggans downhill from there.

I suspect the judge having seen them may have tipped him in the defence direction and the jury will look to the judge for an indication of his view, particularly in a high profile case. The jury won't have wanted to convict but compare that case where Stevie G pulled the guy's pullover up over his head then slammed into him. Should he have been charged? Should he have been tried somewhere other than his home town?

It's never black and white. I think the right result came out in this case but it is always touch and go when you step beyond the boundary of legitimate defence of self or a vulnerable other.

That doorman probably had a mixture of an axe to grind and a shot at 15 minutes. I guess the judge and jury saw that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    m-u-f-c.co.uk Forum Index -> m-u-f-c General Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group