Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Stokes not guilty..... 19:45 - Aug 14 with 365 viewsgerry_us

I know this is a footy message board but personally I am astounded that having seen the footage and coverage of the trial how a jury could find him not guilty. The list of drinks that he allegedly consumed between the end of the match and the incident was incredible, probably a years alcohol intake for me.
And now I note that the ECB in their wisdom have added him to the squad for the Trent Bridge test for which I have unfortunately got tickets. Not sure how I feel having a proven (in my estimation) thug in the team. Still not decided if in fact I will attend if he is included to the team. One wonders what Sam Curran, Chris Woakes or even Porter will think if they are sidelined to accommodate Stokes.
I am sure others will have opposing views but I think that trying to attract the younger members of our society to the great game that is cricket, Stokes has done immense damage.
Just think if a football fan had been filmed behaving like this....not guilty? No way. Obviously different interpretation of the law for superstars.
0

Stokes not guilty..... on 19:51 - Aug 14 with 359 viewsdurham_exile

Gerry the footage looked overwhelming, but the entire England selectors were on the Jury and Strauss was the foreman.

At least he wasn't ball tampering!

Up the U's

Durham_exile

0

Stokes not guilty..... on 20:58 - Aug 14 with 345 viewsLeadbelly

Stokes was found not guilty of affray and, based on the legal definition of affray, that was the correct verdict. The CPS knew they had cocked up by charging him with affray and tried to change it to two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, less serious charges. The fact they waited until the first day of the trial to do that meant the judge rejected the application as it was too late.

I think it highly unlikely that Stokes was entirely innocent in his behaviour that night but the fact he was not found guilty today is because he was charged inappropriately by the CPS.

Both Stokes and Hales, who was not charged for his involvement, will now face an independent disciplinary hearing. In the interests of the game I hope they do find Stokes has a case to answer and that some meaningful punishment is imposed.

Poll: Safe standing at football; yes, know or don't know?

1
Stokes not guilty..... on 00:17 - Aug 15 with 331 viewspwrightsknees

Stokes not guilty..... on 20:58 - Aug 14 by Leadbelly

Stokes was found not guilty of affray and, based on the legal definition of affray, that was the correct verdict. The CPS knew they had cocked up by charging him with affray and tried to change it to two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, less serious charges. The fact they waited until the first day of the trial to do that meant the judge rejected the application as it was too late.

I think it highly unlikely that Stokes was entirely innocent in his behaviour that night but the fact he was not found guilty today is because he was charged inappropriately by the CPS.

Both Stokes and Hales, who was not charged for his involvement, will now face an independent disciplinary hearing. In the interests of the game I hope they do find Stokes has a case to answer and that some meaningful punishment is imposed.


An excellent explanation LB. Thank you.
0

Stokes not guilty..... on 08:59 - Aug 15 with 312 viewsnoah4x4

I can't comment on the Stokes case as I wasn't there. But during my former career as Head of Marketing of a sponsor I have frequently been out "celebrating" post match with easily recognisable international cricketers and other sports celebrities. Why is it that on almost every occasion some drunk has attempted to invade our quiet, but alcohol indulged group and a few simply want to throw a punch at a celebrity? This is not the first incident of its type where self-defence might be genuine mitigating circumstances.

But normally restraint (and Night Club bouncers) quickly resolve. Here, it unfortunately occured in a street and evidently got out of hand and CCTV might suggest Stokes went too far. But surely celebrities are entitled to a drink without suffering from provokation and aggresive behaviour from drunken idiots? Consider the hooligan mob that wrecked Head Street during the World Cup. Stokes is guilty of lacking restraint and common sense, but I suspect in my Rugby playing days I too would have smacked the other guy if he had approached me with a weapon (as was alleged here) but it would never have made the papers as I am no celebrity.

EDIT
The Metro is today reporting Stokes was having some friendly banter with two gay guys that have now suggested he was a hero for protecting them from an unprovoked aggressive homophobic attack where one assailant was carrying a bottle. Yes, he went too far, yes, restraint was justified. But in the heat of the moment all parties fueled by alcohol......
[Post edited 15 Aug 11:12]
0
Stokes not guilty..... on 17:47 - Sep 18 with 190 viewsLeadbelly

Stokes not guilty..... on 08:59 - Aug 15 by noah4x4

I can't comment on the Stokes case as I wasn't there. But during my former career as Head of Marketing of a sponsor I have frequently been out "celebrating" post match with easily recognisable international cricketers and other sports celebrities. Why is it that on almost every occasion some drunk has attempted to invade our quiet, but alcohol indulged group and a few simply want to throw a punch at a celebrity? This is not the first incident of its type where self-defence might be genuine mitigating circumstances.

But normally restraint (and Night Club bouncers) quickly resolve. Here, it unfortunately occured in a street and evidently got out of hand and CCTV might suggest Stokes went too far. But surely celebrities are entitled to a drink without suffering from provokation and aggresive behaviour from drunken idiots? Consider the hooligan mob that wrecked Head Street during the World Cup. Stokes is guilty of lacking restraint and common sense, but I suspect in my Rugby playing days I too would have smacked the other guy if he had approached me with a weapon (as was alleged here) but it would never have made the papers as I am no celebrity.

EDIT
The Metro is today reporting Stokes was having some friendly banter with two gay guys that have now suggested he was a hero for protecting them from an unprovoked aggressive homophobic attack where one assailant was carrying a bottle. Yes, he went too far, yes, restraint was justified. But in the heat of the moment all parties fueled by alcohol......
[Post edited 15 Aug 11:12]


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/45561380

It will be interesting to see what the ECB make of the behaviour of Stokes and Hales on the night in question. I'm not sure that any sanctions will be as heavy as we may have expected based solely on the CCTV footage.

I hear from a reliable source (works in sports media) that there were events prior to the fracas, not raised in court, that were the root cause of what transpired. If true it does put a different complexion on things without necessarily justifying them.

We shall see in due course.

Poll: Safe standing at football; yes, know or don't know?

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2018