Ben Stokes - not guilty....

badlywornroy said:
I suggest you and others are looking at this episode with ‘blinkers on’

This is a high profile top sportsman and yes he may not want to be but he is a ‘role model’ for my kids, your kids.

This is not an isolated incident, he has an history of yobbish behaviour and he does not have the excuse of youth to fall back on, he is 27 I believe.

All other top sportsman, celebrities, politicians etc in the public domain are held to higher standards than ‘johnny average’ who gets p***ed on a saturday evening and lets off steam.

The ECB need to come down hard on him and send a message to him and others.
Click to expand...

You could argue that sticking up for a gay couple who were threatened is a GOOD role model for kids.

Had he been found guilty, maybe you have a point but he wasn't, he was found not guilty. You are the one with blinkers on.
 
If the jury accepted that Ben Stokes acted in self defence then isn't at least one of the other two involved guilty of an offence? Presumably he was defending himself against being assaulted.

Did the CPS get it wrong by going for affray? Should all involved been charged with assault instead?

Dave
 
As I understand it, if you believe your life to be in danger/threatened and can prove that to be the case to a jury and it's incredibly difficult to disprove you didnt believe that to be the case then you have the right to defend yourself in any manner up to and including killing someone and be found not guilty of any offence. So it would appear Stokes convinced the jury he felt threatened, they did the correct thing (in law) and found him not guilty.
He may well be a yob, he may well have not been in any danger but he convinced the jury otherwise.
As for what his employers see fit, that's an entirely different matter but given he was defending others it would seem reasonable that it's the end of the matter as far as they are concerned, at least in public but they may well warn him of his future conduct.
As regards sticking 2 fingers up to the management, again that hardly makes him unique, or even wrong.
 
MatBin said:
As for what his employers see fit, that's an entirely different matter but given he was defending others it would seem reasonable that it's the end of the matter as far as they are concerned, at least in public but they may well warn him of his future conduct.
Click to expand...
My employer would have already punished me.
Remember, they’re not concerned with who hit who first, but the fact that his behaviour has damaged their reputation.
 
Phil V said:
My employer would have already punished me.
Remember, they’re not concerned with who hit who first, but the fact that his behaviour has damaged their reputation.
Click to expand...

Depends on the employer, if the person is not that good its a good way for them to put pressure on them to leave, if they are a star then they will probably not do anything (based on experience).
 
badlywornroy said:
I suggest you and others are looking at this episode with ‘blinkers on’

This is a high profile top sportsman and yes he may not want to be but he is a ‘role model’ for my kids, your kids.

This is not an isolated incident, he has an history of yobbish behaviour and he does not have the excuse of youth to fall back on, he is 27 I believe.

All other top sportsman, celebrities, politicians etc in the public domain are held to higher standards than ‘johnny average’ who gets p***ed on a saturday evening and lets off steam.

The ECB need to come down hard on him and send a message to him and others.
Click to expand...

I guess you are gutted then that Tiger Woods is looking good for a Ryder Cup recall?
 
@cambsno Why are you defending and supporting such a vile individual?
Is this just another attempt to push your agenda from the Guilty until innocent thread?
 
Mr Bump said:
@cambsno Why are you defending and supporting such a vile individual?
Is this just another attempt to push your agenda from the Guilty until innocent thread?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that would be the Guilty even when innocent thread, yeah. I'm trying to wonder what your agenda is, that we should dismiss a jury's verdict if it doesn't suit us. Oh and btw our understanding of vile are miles apart, there are truly vile people in this world and I wouldn't put Ben Stokes in that category
 
Last edited:
Mr Bump said:
@cambsno Why are you defending and supporting such a vile individual?
Is this just another attempt to push your agenda from the Guilty until innocent thread?
Click to expand...

Because I am not part of a lynch mob that would like to ignore the justice system and assumes guilt.

Lets look at the facts - he was arrested and tried of the offence. A court found him not guilty. Now, in reality, he may be as guilty as a dog sitting next to a pile of poop, or he could have acted with justification and cause, although it doesn't really matter as he was found not guilty. He has already 'suffered', missing test matches, losing sponsorship deals. Not to mention potentially being a more favoured target when he goes out. Just close the matter and move on? Why the obsession with wanting to further punish? Is our justice system not good enough?
 
The problem with the law now is that the definition of self defence has changed since the Criminal Law Act 1967. I think the 1967 act was a safe way to determine if a person acted in self defence.

Since 2008 and the Criminal Justices and Immigratin act in particular section 76(4) which has incorporated case law it has become almost imposible to convict were the defence of self defence is put forward.

Providing one has a good QC it is very difficult to convict.

Both Steve Gerrard (football player) and Steven Terry (football player) successfully used the defence of self defence after battering people.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/jul/24/steven-gerrard-verdict-affray


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-cleared-of-assault-at-nightclub-174370.html

Ben stokes can now be added to that list.

Just some general enlightenment not necessary exactly correct (preamble before it begins phew!)

The law regarding self defence was changed due to some cases of wife beating.

In the past some women were abused and frightened to such an extent that they killed their husbands whilst asleep in bed.Using a hammer in one case IIRC.

They were subseqently jailed for at least manslaughter if not murder.

After years of fighting, appeals against the convictions were heard and the senior courts ruled that such was the control and fear of these women that they acted in self defence in killing thier husbands as they slept.

The courts said even though the women could have taken other measures that may have been plain to others to stop the abuse, as long as they honestly believed that what the did was their only course of action in self defence then they had a defence.

The distinction is that previous to these rulings it was for the jury/magistrates to decide if what was done in self defence was necassary. The jury/ Magistrates are now only required to assertain if the person held the honesly held belief that they were acting in self defence when they acted.Even if that belief is wrong. The judge must tell that to the jury.

That is a far more difficult thing to disprove.

At least section section 76(4) is a problem in attempting to convict if not ammendments to the entire act. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime

Some additional information.

I sat in on the Lee Bowyer(footballer) Grievous Bodily Harm trail. Lee Bowyer was represented by QC Desmond de Silva

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...llers-charles-taylor-war-crimes-a8398896.html

There were two other people in the dock with Lee Bowyer.

In total there where 21 legal representatives solicitors and QC's with juniors most of whom were to defend those 3 people. Some of the seats were used in the public gallery for the legal team.

Oh I nearly forgot as if you did not know anyway. Lee Bowyer not guilty.
 
Last edited:
On from my post #52

Another not guilty Ched Evans (footballer) https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/14/footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-in-retrial

He and the other three footballers ulitimately all got their or kept their jobs and may even have got promotion after not guilty verdicts.

I recon thier employers did not apply for an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate if they did the Chief Constable maybe kept quite. Premiership football players not as easy pray as a school teacher.:help:
 
cambsno said:
Depends on the employer...
Click to expand...
It does; whilst your experience appears to be with private companies, try it where every headline links the transgressors to their employer, where the employer needs to be careful of their reputation.
Like Ben Stokes
Or tv personality (esp bbc)
Politician
Doctor
Public servant.
 
shapeshifter said:
On from my post #52

Another not guilty Ched Evans (footballer) https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/oct/14/footballer-ched-evans-cleared-of-in-retrial

He and the other three footballers ulitimately all got their or kept their jobs and may even have got promotion after not guilty verdicts.

I recon thier employers did not apply for an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate if they did the Chief Constable maybe kept quite. Premiership football players not as easy pray as a school teacher.:help:
Click to expand...
Premiership?
And he lost his job
And had difficulty finding another for anywhere near the money he was on previously.
And his employers wouldn’t have had access to an enhanced dbs check, because it’s not relevant. Because we’re not putting him in charge of kids or vulnerable adults.
But we’ll not let the facts get in the way ;)
 
Last edited:
One of the player at least was premiership.

'Ulimatly' I said ( I know your always prowling) they all were employed. Evans was even back at Sheff Utd within a year/18 months that's his old job back.
A basic DBS check could have been done but it would have been a bit pointless as their employers new about the not guilty verdict.

The point being they were all found not guilty and their employers either kept them in thier job and took them back into there old job.

.
 
Mr Bump said:
@cambsno Why are you defending and supporting such a vile individual?
Is this just another attempt to push your agenda from the Guilty until innocent thread?
Click to expand...
You have absolutely no idea if he's a vile person. You're basing that opinion on this case, and alleged previous incidents of which I'm sure you have no knowledge whatsoever.

Is he also a bad husband? A bad father?

I'm surprised you're not screaming for him to be deported to the country of his birth. :rolleyes:
 
shapeshifter said:
One of the player at least was premiership.
.
Click to expand...
Truly irrelevant as the only one charged with an offence was Evans, stop digging...

shapeshifter said:
'Ulimatly' I said ( I know your always prowling) they all were employed. Evans was even back at Sheff Utd within a year/18 months that's his old job back.j
.
Click to expand...
He was offered his job back by the club, but the offer was soon withdrawn due to a high profile media campaign. He did return later, but on nowhere near his previous terms, and failed to deliver on his early promise, the episode really did ‘ruin his life’ ;)
shapeshifter said:
A basic DBS check could have been done but it would have been a bit pointless as their employers new about the not guilty verdict.

The point being they were all found not guilty and their employers either kept them in thier job and took them back into there old job.

.
Click to expand...
DBS checks cannot be obtained by members of the public directly but are only available to organisations and only for those professions, offices, employments, work and occupations listed in the Exceptions Order (1975) to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1975
So they couldn’t request a DBS check, it’s simply not what the DBS is for.
The point being, you were factually incorrect all the way through, not to mention of course that Evans was found guilty at his original trial, whereas your diatribe hangs on him being found not guilty.
 
Last edited:
cambsno said:
Because I am not part of a lynch mob that would like to ignore the justice system and assumes guilt.
Click to expand...

You’re making some pretty daft assumptions.

The court found him not guilty of a specific criminal offence, I’m pretty confident that the defence lawyer and then the judge clearly spelled out all the technical reasons he wasn’t guilty of that specific offence. And I’m happy that the law works well mostly, even though it’s clearly not perfect.

He has admitted hitting the bloke (he could hardly deny it as we’ve all seen it happen on video). Whilst it’s ridiculous to pretend he’s still guilty of the offence, it’s just as daft to pretend he’s ‘innocent’.

His employer (the ECB) has a completely different issue to decide, and that’s whether he’s brought the game into disrepute by his actions. Clearly that’s not related to whether he’s guilty of the specific criminal offence and is more about what he did (that he’s admitted to) and how that reflects on them.

As an aside; I’m properly impressed that my taxes have been spent on this farce, but that’s for a different time. I’m a million miles from a Lynch mob, the court have done their job, and now the ecb have to do theirs, just remember those are 2 very different decisions.
 
Phil V said:
You’re making some pretty daft assumptions.

The court found him not guilty of a specific criminal offence, I’m pretty confident that the defence lawyer and then the judge clearly spelled out all the technical reasons he wasn’t guilty of that specific offence. And I’m happy that the law works well mostly, even though it’s clearly not perfect.

He has admitted hitting the bloke (he could hardly deny it as we’ve all seen it happen on video). Whilst it’s ridiculous to pretend he’s still guilty of the offence, it’s just as daft to pretend he’s ‘innocent’.

His employer (the ECB) has a completely different issue to decide, and that’s whether he’s brought the game into disrepute by his actions. Clearly that’s not related to whether he’s guilty of the specific criminal offence and is more about what he did (that he’s admitted to) and how that reflects on them.

As an aside; I’m properly impressed that my taxes have been spent on this farce, but that’s for a different time. I’m a million miles from a Lynch mob, the court have done their job, and now the ecb have to do theirs, just remember those are 2 very different decisions.
Click to expand...

You sum that up pretty well.

People on here keep banging on how he is been judged innocent, time to forget it and move on. They are not seeing the 'bigger picture' who he is, what he does. Like it or not people in the 'public eye' are expected to set a good example. Look at all the politicians who have been

forced to resign by public opinion for misdemeanors that in many cases wouldn't even come to the notice of the general public.

IMO Stokes is a lucky boy to come away with the not guilty verdict but I fully expect and hope his employers hold him to account.

I will add I am a sports fan and England supporter football/cricket/athletics etc and believe me I have no grudge against these highly paid young men and women.

My last word on the subject, it has been done to death. :(
 
He was charged with something and found not guilty. That’s how the legal system works in this country. Maybe he should have been charged with something else, but he wasn’t.
 
Well, that's sorted then

"Ben Stokes will make his England return in the third Test against India at Trent Bridge on Saturday - four days after being found not guilty of affray."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/45221068
 
Last edited:
Sorted? How?
As the article states, he's free to play until the ECB decides if he should be censured or not.
 
And when they DO make a final decision, it'll (probably) be based on all the evidence available to them rather than the relatively few snippets that make it into the "news"papers or onto the evening news.
 
There is no law about being on the winning side in a fracas. Stokes can clearly handle himself. But knocking down a cople of assailents does not make him guilty of anything.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
But knocking down a cople of assailents does not make him guilty of anything.
Click to expand...

Using the dictionary definition?

Of course he’s guilty of punching the bloke, he admitted it, we’ve all seen it and you’ve just said he did it.

The court found him not guilty of affray. I’m happy to take their word for that, they had the law explained to them and they had more evidence than us.
 
I had to google Ben Stokes :D never heard of him. Outside of the UK this didn't even make the news. Looks like no more than the usual drunken brawl to me
 
Cagey75 said:
I had to google Ben Stokes :D never heard of him. Outside of the UK this didn't even make the news. Looks like no more than the usual drunken brawl to me
Click to expand...
That’s because Ireland doesn’t have a cricket team :D.
I’m open to being educated if they do,:LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top