TOPIC:

swan42 wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

Greatwhiteshark wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote: You have to laugh at the absurdness of it all........we here in Australia ban 3 blokes for 12 months for the obscene crime of roughing up a cricket ball.......meanwhile in England one of their cricketers (another an accomplice) punch drunkenly king hits 2 innocent fellas outside a pub is somehow unbelievably acquitted despite the damning footage and then is picked straight away for the 3rd Test this weekend vs the Curries........to borrow me ol mate Freeze's favourite acronyms- LOL!!!!!!!

With all due respect BH Stokes was suspended from the Ashes tour so it's not as if the English Cricket board did nothing. He didn't get off scott free with them. As for the law and the legal action well thats another story I guess. He obviously had a good lawyer and some hush money.

He missed the Ashes hiding whilst still on his full English contract (worth 7 figures minus the match payments he missed vs Australia last Summer-although his IPL contract would substantially cover that 100 times over).....hardly seems like a penalty to me GWS?!

And here I was thinking that one had the presumption of innocence until proved guilty; so I am at a loss as to what penalty there should be for him.

Did you see the damning footage of said incident involving Stokes king hitting 2 innocent blokes 42? Or were you too preoccupied reading a book at the time?

Beasley Hutton wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

Greatwhiteshark wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote: You have to laugh at the absurdness of it all........we here in Australia ban 3 blokes for 12 months for the obscene crime of roughing up a cricket ball.......meanwhile in England one of their cricketers (another an accomplice) punch drunkenly king hits 2 innocent fellas outside a pub is somehow unbelievably acquitted despite the damning footage and then is picked straight away for the 3rd Test this weekend vs the Curries........to borrow me ol mate Freeze's favourite acronyms- LOL!!!!!!!

With all due respect BH Stokes was suspended from the Ashes tour so it's not as if the English Cricket board did nothing. He didn't get off scott free with them. As for the law and the legal action well thats another story I guess. He obviously had a good lawyer and some hush money.

He missed the Ashes hiding whilst still on his full English contract (worth 7 figures minus the match payments he missed vs Australia last Summer-although his IPL contract would substantially cover that 100 times over).....hardly seems like a penalty to me GWS?!

And here I was thinking that one had the presumption of innocence until proved guilty; so I am at a loss as to what penalty there should be for him.

Did you see the damning footage of said incident involving Stokes king hitting 2 innocent blokes 42? Or were you too preoccupied reading a book at the time?

I am sure that all the relevant evidence was presented at the trial.

swan42 wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

Greatwhiteshark wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote: You have to laugh at the absurdness of it all........we here in Australia ban 3 blokes for 12 months for the obscene crime of roughing up a cricket ball.......meanwhile in England one of their cricketers (another an accomplice) punch drunkenly king hits 2 innocent fellas outside a pub is somehow unbelievably acquitted despite the damning footage and then is picked straight away for the 3rd Test this weekend vs the Curries........to borrow me ol mate Freeze's favourite acronyms- LOL!!!!!!!

With all due respect BH Stokes was suspended from the Ashes tour so it's not as if the English Cricket board did nothing. He didn't get off scott free with them. As for the law and the legal action well thats another story I guess. He obviously had a good lawyer and some hush money.

He missed the Ashes hiding whilst still on his full English contract (worth 7 figures minus the match payments he missed vs Australia last Summer-although his IPL contract would substantially cover that 100 times over).....hardly seems like a penalty to me GWS?!

And here I was thinking that one had the presumption of innocence until proved guilty; so I am at a loss as to what penalty there should be for him.

Did you see the damning footage of said incident involving Stokes king hitting 2 innocent blokes 42? Or were you too preoccupied reading a book at the time?

I am sure that all the relevant evidence was presented at the trial.

The “relvant” evidence would have been presented swan, The fact that he is an integral part of the pommy cricket team would have had no bearing on the end decision.

Leather Stops wrote:

gtrxuone wrote: The night in question. Stokes and two of his mates where leaving the pub.The CCTV camera shows Stokes going down an alley next to the pub. Wasn't there 3 men kicking a man already on the ground.And BS and his two mates just evened up the odds.It took a really long time for the Police to lay charges under pressure.They seen it for what it really was.

CRAP. Stokes was VERY aggressive & "bounced" one bloke over better than he bowls..
ONE year for sandpaper. One ashes series in Australia for a maniac..

The Court case went for 5 days and there was over 30 hours of evidence given to the court. The 12 person jury of 6 male and 6 females. Where in recess for just under 2 hours. With a massive amount if evidence given to the jury. All 12 voted unanimously not guilty. Not sure what the sandpaper in SA has to do with the Stokes assault case.

yeah and I am pretty sure all the relevant evidence was provided at the Rodney King trial as well 42.....because all those 4 police officers got acquitted for "not beating up" Rodney, even the video footage shown all over the world said other wise.....just another case of legal terminology making a farce of the blatant obvious...what in fark does "affray" mean......Stokes clearly is shown to punch two guys with aggressive intent.....end of.....but hey love the fact Stokes defence team said Hales was just to blame but was getting off scott free.......

correct gtr, Swan 42: we were not on the jury, therefore we did not hear the evidence, or for that matter, what the judge said to the jury in his or her summation.

Its given the English team a bit of a headache in that his replacement Woakes was one of the matchwinners for England in the last test. So I wonder if he will make way for Stokes in the 3rd test? Nice problem to have I guess.

ArkRoyal wrote: correct gtr, Swan 42: we were not on the jury, therefore we did not hear the evidence, or for that matter, what the judge said to the jury in his or her summation.

Ark if the jury has made the wrong decision.The Prosecution will ask for a retrial. Have read the British Press and the Prosecution seems to have accepted the decision.

It might come as a great to shock to some on here that there would be a significant of people who could be selected in England for jury duty that have absolutely no interest in sport in general and cricket specifically.

gtrxuone wrote:

ArkRoyal wrote: correct gtr, Swan 42: we were not on the jury, therefore we did not hear the evidence, or for that matter, what the judge said to the jury in his or her summation.

Ark if the jury has made the wrong decision.The Prosecution will ask for a retrial. Have read the British Press and the Prosecution seems to have accepted the decision.

Can't happen, gtr.

In countries which follow the British system, the jury's verdict is (generally) final - known as double jeopardy.

However some countries have now introduced a severely restricted system whereby new evidence can be bought forward, which may result in a re-trial.

I doubt that will happen in Stokes's case.