I think that the ECB are going to have to tread very carefully on this one, have been reading Agnew on the BBC site and there seems to be some kind of appetite for Stokes and Hales to be punished further, with the old ‘disrepute’ line.
Having been found not guilty, and also having self defence as a major part of his case, it will be interesting to see the line that they take. Essentially Stokes was banned from the last Ashes (not officially I know), but to slap another ban on that would seem a little harsh IMHO.
If he hasn’t learnt his lesson from this whole experience, then he would have to be the world’s biggest idiot
On another note, if the England team of the 70’s and 80’s had all received bans and suspensions every time they went on an unauthorised piss-up, that ended up with a fracas, then frankly I doubt we would have ever fielded a team.
Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. Think he got away a bit lightly but the laws of the land were applied and the verdict is what it is.
Thankfully citizens 'thoughts' aren't admissible in a court of law as they tend to be overly emotive and clouded. The verdict, based on the evidence provided, was that he was not guilty.
Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. Think he got away a bit lightly but the laws of the land were applied and the verdict is what it is.
Pretty sure it does actually. Now you may say he was silly to do it and lucky for all parties involved there were no further consequences but in the eyes of the law he is definitively innocent.
Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. Think he got away a bit lightly but the laws of the land were applied and the verdict is what it is.
Pretty sure it does actually. Now you may say he was silly to do it and lucky for all parties involved there were no further consequences but in the eyes of the law he is definitively innocent.
You can be guilty of something and know full well you are guilty but still be found innocent in a court of law as the case is not proven. It doesn't categorically mean you haven't done something.
This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. Think he got away a bit lightly but the laws of the land were applied and the verdict is what it is.
Pretty sure it does actually. Now you may say he was silly to do it and lucky for all parties involved there were no further consequences but in the eyes of the law he is definitively innocent.
This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
Innocent effectively means the case wasn't proven - somebody may commit an offence yet still be found not guilty. This happens whether we like it or not.
This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
He's innocent of affray. 100%
But this isn't a case where he can walk out of court with his character unblemished. Even if he hadn't been charged, the video footage is damning (as indeed it is for Hales)
As a contrast, Danny Capriani has been fined £2000 for assault in Jersey. Maybe it would have been better for all concerned if Stokes had just been charged with Common Assault in a magistrates court, rather than the expense of a crown court trial. I imagine he would have got a fine and been free to play in the Ashes.
This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
There are some folk that just can’t find it in themselves to accept what the jury has decided if it doesn’t suit their agenda....be it guilty if they think the individual is innocent or (as in this instance), innocent if they think they’re guilty. I ALWAYS accept the jury’s verdict and act upon their judgement as to how I treat or view a persons character in respect of the particular case involved. All this highly subjective grey area nonsense being spouted is pretty disgraceful IMHO. Not guilty.....he walks.....job done.....end of.....but on here evidently that’s not good enough for some, they want their retribution and see him punished anyway....WTF is all that about? Some real self righteous knobs around......was it ever thus.
This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
Stokes may have knocked out Ali and Hale, but there is considerable doubt as to who actually inflicted the fractured eye socket on Ali.
Gordon Cole, defending Stokes, suggested Nottinghamshire batsman Mr Hales, 29, was the real culprit. Mr Cole told the jury: “You have seen the kick, never mind the stamp by Alex Hales. Ali was clearly kicked in the head. If that is right, is it fair to attribute that injury to Ben Stokes?”
Mildly amusing that Stokes innocence was due in part to Hales kicking Ali in the head.
For what its worth I always accept the jury's verdict because that is how it works. However, I bet there was much back slapping and relief on the part of the defence team in this case.
This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
But not guilty doesn't mean innocent, that's not mental gymnastics - it's fact. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a thing either, it's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Taking it to the extreme - how many people believed OJ Simpson was "innocent" in 1994?
This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
But not guilty doesn't mean innocent, that's not mental gymnastics - it's fact. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a thing either, it's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Taking it to the extreme - how many people believed OJ Simpson was "innocent" in 1994?
Speaking for myself I took the wait and see stance and then accepted the jury’s decision.
This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
But not guilty doesn't mean innocent, that's not mental gymnastics - it's fact. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a thing either, it's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Taking it to the extreme - how many people believed OJ Simpson was "innocent" in 1994?
But that's not what's happening here. People aren't debating the difference between not guilty and innocent for academic or philosophical reasons, they're debating purely to back up their original assertion that he was guilty, and now that a jury has found him not guilty, rather than retracting their original statements, they are simply replying "well that doesn't mean he's innocent". That is the mental gymnastics I refer to, the gymnastics required to maintain their original point of view, despite a jury with access to far more information, hopefully present in a less biased form and presented in full rather than in the heavily edited "highlights" on the news and social media.
This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
But not guilty doesn't mean innocent, that's not mental gymnastics - it's fact. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a thing either, it's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Taking it to the extreme - how many people believed OJ Simpson was "innocent" in 1994?
But that's not what's happening here. People are debating the difference between not guilty and innocent for academic or philosophical reasons, they're debating purely to back up their original assertion that he was guilty, and now that a jury has found him not guilty, rather than retracting their original statements, they are simply replying "well that doesn't mean he's innocent". That is the mental gymnastics I refer to, the gymnastics required to maintain their original point of view, despite a jury with access to far more information, hopefully present in a less biased form and presented in full rather than in the heavily edited "highlights" on the news and social media.
Yep get that.
Speaking for myself, completely accept the jury's verdict but he is ( in my opinion) lucky to walk away Scot-free (from a legal sense) with the information (video) that we have seen. Whether that's the failing of the CPS or something else is a whole other debate.
This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
But not guilty doesn't mean innocent, that's not mental gymnastics - it's fact. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a thing either, it's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Taking it to the extreme - how many people believed OJ Simpson was "innocent" in 1994?
Speaking for myself I took the wait and see stance and then accepted the jury’s decision.
But what did you believe?
If everyone just "accepted" jury's decisions then there would be no appeals, no overturning of verdicts etc. Just "accepting" things is a dangerous stance in my eyes.
Stokes may have knocked out Ali and Hale, but there is considerable doubt as to who actually inflicted the fractured eye socket on Ali.
Gordon Cole, defending Stokes, suggested Nottinghamshire batsman Mr Hales, 29, was the real culprit. Mr Cole told the jury: “You have seen the kick, never mind the stamp by Alex Hales. Ali was clearly kicked in the head. If that is right, is it fair to attribute that injury to Ben Stokes?”
Mildly amusing that Stokes innocence was due in part to Hales kicking Ali in the head.
For what its worth I always accept the jury's verdict because that is how it works. However, I bet there was much back slapping and relief on the part of the defence team in this case.
Know some lads who had something similar. Both up for GBH, one for a punch the other for a stamp. Victim's jaw was broken from a blow.
Suspect 1 pleaded his punch was self defence. Jury agreed with him having seen CCTV of victim picking up a bottle and running at him with 3 others. Free to go.
Suspect 2 said that Suspect 1's punch had broken the jaw, and the stamp had only grazed the victim and was on the other side of the face. Prosecution's medical expert agreed, charge was dropped to ABH and he got a suspended sentence instead of jail time.
This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
But not guilty doesn't mean innocent, that's not mental gymnastics - it's fact. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a thing either, it's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Taking it to the extreme - how many people believed OJ Simpson was "innocent" in 1994?
But that's not what's happening here. People are debating the difference between not guilty and innocent for academic or philosophical reasons, they're debating purely to back up their original assertion that he was guilty, and now that a jury has found him not guilty, rather than retracting their original statements, they are simply replying "well that doesn't mean he's innocent". That is the mental gymnastics I refer to, the gymnastics required to maintain their original point of view, despite a jury with access to far more information, hopefully present in a less biased form and presented in full rather than in the heavily edited "highlights" on the news and social media.
Yep get that.
Speaking for myself, completely accept the jury's verdict but he is ( in my opinion) lucky to walk away Scot-free (from a legal sense) with the information (video) that we have seen. Whether that's the failing of the CPS or something else is a whole other debate.
Having not been privy to everything in the courtroom it's hard to say, but from the bits I've seen, a lesser charge of assault may well have been successful. It's easy to attribute the decision to go for the greater charge as a rush of blood by the CPS, or some form of celebrity bashing, but from the little I know, places like the CPS tend to be very considered in their decision make. They'll point to the stats and say they are successful far more often than not, but it's obviously the ones they get wrong, particularly if in high profile cases, that get remembered.
Head coach Trevor Bayliss says the decision to include Ben Stokes in the England squad for the third Test against India on Saturday was taken for the all-rounder's "wellbeing".
However, Bayliss said he would take time before deciding whether the 27-year-old would play at Trent Bridge.
This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
But not guilty doesn't mean innocent, that's not mental gymnastics - it's fact. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a thing either, it's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Taking it to the extreme - how many people believed OJ Simpson was "innocent" in 1994?
Speaking for myself I took the wait and see stance and then accepted the jury’s decision.
But what did you believe?
If everyone just "accepted" jury's decisions then there would be no appeals, no overturning of verdicts etc. Just "accepting" things is a dangerous stance in my eyes.
It isn’t what I “or anyone else” believes, it’s what the jury says at the end of the day that counts. Why are you even thinking anything different, I just don’t get it WSS.
This happens every time a court case story appears on here and it doesn't go the way people expect. They decide, from incomplete and biased evidence presented on social media and in the papers, that they know which way it should have gone, and then use semantics, logical fallacies and whatever else they can think of to explain how the court decision doesn't make them wrong.
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
But not guilty doesn't mean innocent, that's not mental gymnastics - it's fact. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a thing either, it's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Taking it to the extreme - how many people believed OJ Simpson was "innocent" in 1994?
But that's not what's happening here. People are debating the difference between not guilty and innocent for academic or philosophical reasons, they're debating purely to back up their original assertion that he was guilty, and now that a jury has found him not guilty, rather than retracting their original statements, they are simply replying "well that doesn't mean he's innocent". That is the mental gymnastics I refer to, the gymnastics required to maintain their original point of view, despite a jury with access to far more information, hopefully present in a less biased form and presented in full rather than in the heavily edited "highlights" on the news and social media.
Yep get that.
Speaking for myself, completely accept the jury's verdict but he is ( in my opinion) lucky to walk away Scot-free (from a legal sense) with the information (video) that we have seen. Whether that's the failing of the CPS or something else is a whole other debate.
With respect... no, you don't. You have expressly said he's been found innocent but that doesn't mean he's not guilty... even though that is EXACTLY what it means. A verdict of "not proven" would be one of ''technical'' innocence but not guilty means NOT GUILTY. You are so sure he is guilty that his being found innocent must be a failing of the CPS, instead of the case being examined and tried and the correct verdict being reached.
Comments
Having been found not guilty, and also having self defence as a major part of his case, it will be interesting to see the line that they take. Essentially Stokes was banned from the last Ashes (not officially I know), but to slap another ban on that would seem a little harsh IMHO.
If he hasn’t learnt his lesson from this whole experience, then he would have to be the world’s biggest idiot
On another note, if the England team of the 70’s and 80’s had all received bans and suspensions every time they went on an unauthorised piss-up, that ended up with a fracas, then frankly I doubt we would have ever fielded a team.
Ben Stokes
Danny Cipriani
Soapboxsam
If your the happy drunk then well done you.
Unfortunately the fighting drunk is prevalent in our society and has been around for centuries.
I became depressive when I drank to excess and more likely to harm myself.
Say what you like on CL to portray your macho personality, BUT don't lie to yourself because you will be the loser in the long run.
Cheers.
He's certainly "guilty" of violent behaviour though, as is Alex Hales for that matter...
He's innocent of affray, not a single person here saw all the evidence, nor heard all the arguments, so how people can question it, or pull the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" mental gymnastics is beyond me.
But this isn't a case where he can walk out of court with his character unblemished. Even if he hadn't been charged, the video footage is damning (as indeed it is for Hales)
As a contrast, Danny Capriani has been fined £2000 for assault in Jersey. Maybe it would have been better for all concerned if Stokes had just been charged with Common Assault in a magistrates court, rather than the expense of a crown court trial. I imagine he would have got a fine and been free to play in the Ashes.
I ALWAYS accept the jury’s verdict and act upon their judgement as to how I treat or view a persons character in respect of the particular case involved.
All this highly subjective grey area nonsense being spouted is pretty disgraceful IMHO.
Not guilty.....he walks.....job done.....end of.....but on here evidently that’s not good enough for some, they want their retribution and see him punished anyway....WTF is all that about?
Some real self righteous knobs around......was it ever thus.
Gordon Cole, defending Stokes, suggested Nottinghamshire batsman Mr Hales, 29, was the real culprit. Mr Cole told the jury: “You have seen the kick, never mind the stamp by Alex Hales. Ali was clearly kicked in the head. If that is right, is it fair to attribute that injury to Ben Stokes?”
Mildly amusing that Stokes innocence was due in part to Hales kicking Ali in the head.
For what its worth I always accept the jury's verdict because that is how it works. However, I bet there was much back slapping and relief on the part of the defence team in this case.
Taking it to the extreme - how many people believed OJ Simpson was "innocent" in 1994?
Speaking for myself, completely accept the jury's verdict but he is ( in my opinion) lucky to walk away Scot-free (from a legal sense) with the information (video) that we have seen. Whether that's the failing of the CPS or something else is a whole other debate.
If everyone just "accepted" jury's decisions then there would be no appeals, no overturning of verdicts etc. Just "accepting" things is a dangerous stance in my eyes.
Suspect 1 pleaded his punch was self defence. Jury agreed with him having seen CCTV of victim picking up a bottle and running at him with 3 others. Free to go.
Suspect 2 said that Suspect 1's punch had broken the jaw, and the stamp had only grazed the victim and was on the other side of the face. Prosecution's medical expert agreed, charge was dropped to ABH and he got a suspended sentence instead of jail time.
However, Bayliss said he would take time before deciding whether the 27-year-old would play at Trent Bridge.
Why are you even thinking anything different, I just don’t get it WSS.