or to join or start a new Discussion

Browse: Cricket  Tests 
30 Comments
Article Rating 2 Stars

Ben Stokes Not Guilty.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-45182868

posted on 16/8/18

comment by TCM (U8959)
posted 8 hours, 42 minutes ago
The decision came down to a jury and his defence of "self defence" remained consistent to be fair from the moment he was arrested to him standing trial and the prosecution never really gave us anything more than what we already saw.

All we've really been told is that Stokes intervened when Ali tried to use a bottle as a weapon. Has there been much of a counter argument to this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well said TCM...... Can’t believe some armchair experts here in JA606 act like they know the whole nine yards! They have no idea about the facts; why jury gave him NOT guilty verdict. Now u may know some idiots always bring race card everywhere and act like victims all the time. I do know that racism is still alive but you can’t have chip on your shoulders all da time. Life is too short folks and stop judging anyone without all the info. Always remember: Innocent until proven guilty! They will for sure sing a different tune when they are in similar circumstances or their loved ones......

posted on 16/8/18


Just to add about my Indian Cricket Team: As fans we are very upset with Kohli with his team selections but not as a batsmen though!

I just want to kick Shastri’s backside with a big cricket bat 🏏

Kohli did wrong with coach Kumble and I’m sure we would have been much better prepared if he was around. Kohli’s stupidity cost us SA series as we had golden chance to win the series for the first time.... Unfortunately I now see us getting spanked left n right and don’t think we will even be able to draw a test unless rain intervenes for the whole match. I would be glad if somehow we can fight back and win at least one game or two!

posted on 16/8/18

Wife of Ben Stokes was beautiful but I didn't even know that he was married!

posted on 16/8/18

comment by fact taker (U17513)
posted 7 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by TCM (U8959)
posted 8 hours, 42 minutes ago
The decision came down to a jury and his defence of "self defence" remained consistent to be fair from the moment he was arrested to him standing trial and the prosecution never really gave us anything more than what we already saw.

All we've really been told is that Stokes intervened when Ali tried to use a bottle as a weapon. Has there been much of a counter argument to this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well said TCM...... Can’t believe some armchair experts here in JA606 act like they know the whole nine yards! They have no idea about the facts; why jury gave him NOT guilty verdict. Now u may know some idiots always bring race card everywhere and act like victims all the time. I do know that racism is still alive but you can’t have chip on your shoulders all da time. Life is too short folks and stop judging anyone without all the info. Always remember: Innocent until proven guilty! They will for sure sing a different tune when they are in similar circumstances or their loved ones......
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most people have next to no experience of court proceedings. There's a very high evidential burden on the prosecution to prove criminal offences - they have to convince every member of the jury that the accused is guilty of EVERY element of the offence "beyond all reasonable doubt." It's not as simple as just showing the jury CCTV evidence and saying "Look, he was in a fight, he must be guilty."

If the jury weren't shown evidence compelling enough to clear that bar (i.e. if there was any reasonable doubt in any of the jury's mind), then not guilty was the correct verdict. We can only assume that was the case.

If people feel aggrieved by the verdict (not sure why they would, since they're not personally involved), then perhaps their ire should be pointed in the direction of the CPS, who had almost a year to get their case ready but ended up trying to bring a charge of ABH on the morning of trial (which the judge, correctly, threw out). Or perhaps go up the chain to the current government who are slashing public funding so hard that the CPS have almost no resources.

For what it's worth, the CPS were in an impossible position. They didn't charge Stokes with ABH or GBH because presumably they didn't think they'd succeed, so they went for the lesser public order affray charge. They couldn't possibly have NOT brought a case against Stokes given how high-profile it was, so their hands were tied even though the case was (apparently) not that strong.

posted on 16/8/18

@Haak....

I’m not so much familiar with judicial systems in Uk but here in USA, lots of innocent folks get f**ked up big time! Prosecutors have lot of power and if someone is found not guilty then he or she is most likely innocent. Now whatever info I or you know outside the court, it seems it was heavily biased against Stokes. Like the media, video footage etc but we don’t know other facts which jury may know. I’m not saying that Stokes is innocent but most likely he may be in this particular case as so much media was involved including ECB! May be his high profile was negative for him and got lot of attention. I’m sure average joe’s fight may not be even in any court of the world as every weekend you will see fights like these ones & lot more worse too......

posted on 16/8/18

I think that's the main fact being overlooked here. If fights like Stokes' one were all prosecuted then there would be queues at the courtrooms leading to the fecking moon. The CPS couldn't NOT charge him because of his public profile, though.

posted on 16/8/18

What is his public profile? He's hardly a household name the way top soccer stars are, cricket is a sport hardly followed by the public at large. I bet most of those involved didn't know who he was until after the event.

posted on 16/8/18

comment by hopeforthebest (U3251)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
What is his public profile? He's hardly a household name the way top soccer stars are, cricket is a sport hardly followed by the public at large. I bet most of those involved didn't know who he was until after the event.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's the most expensive IPL player in history, and the fight was splashed all over the media. It was massively high-profile. Plus it all happened before the Ashes, when cricket coverage is at its most focussed.

There was no way the CPS could've just dropped the whole thing. Just imagine the reaction in the tabloid press.

posted on 17/8/18

As I said Steven Gerrard all over again

posted on 18/8/18

Both found not guilty. Nothing happened. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
1 Vote
1
0 Votes

Average Rating: 2 from 1 vote

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available