Stokes - Interview with gay couple

I wish people would stop commenting on this; it's not as if they were at the scene or even at the court hearing. Prejudices, misconceptions, partial facts and quotes serve no justifiable purpose in this or any other trial. Let's just leave it at that please. If I were admin, which I am not, I'd take this and similar threads down. All anyone has to say/think is that I'm not aware of all the facts regarding this case.

 

‘Prejudices, misconceptions, partial facts and quotes serve no justifiable purpose in this or any other trial. ‘
This is what the Court hearing was all about and why no one was found guilty . You can watch the highlights and not attend the match , and still have an opinion you know

 

The single point i'm raising is that Ben Stokes walked aggressively towards a person backing away defensively and proceeded to break their eye socket, knocking them out in the process.

This is indisputable. I'm not debating the verdict, that's been agreed. What I am saying, which you seem to keep missing, is that he acted in a manner that had nothing to do with him, and smashed someones face in, literally.

From your defence of Stokes aggressive action, my one assumption in all of this is that you too, would also be content to smash someones face in.

Thankfully, we don't see eye to eye on this and I'm glad I have a view that such action is that of a drunken or thuggish (or both) idiot.

 

Had Stokes been charged with Assualt/ABH he'd have been done.

However the CPS decided to try and get him for affray, a completely different charge. The jury can only make a decision on the charge he's been given.

 

If you protect someone you don't do it in the way Stokes did by knocking 2 people to the ground in such an agresive way the video shows to me he was up for a fight and he's got away with it.
,

 

I'm a mental health professional and worked for the police for 10 years previously. I'm vetted to SC level, fully DBS checked and never been in any bother at all so no need to dish out personal insults.

My defence is of the justice syatem not Stokes.

Completely uncalled for!!!!

 

Yes, you can have an opinion. And then you can repeat your opinion and if you repeat it long enough and loud enough people will take it is fact.

I will cite two examples:

a) The endless smears that Mr Corbyn has had to endure - Mr Grayling the Transport Minister has, this morning, openly said that JC 'attended a funeral for terrorists'


b) The endless repititions of the (false) timings of the events at Orgreave - this is why there has been no review under a Tory Govt

 

Congratulations.

so why do you think its justifiable for an individual to walk up to another, who is defensively backing away and literally smash their face in? The verdict has been reached, there is clearly evidence, and frankly, a wrongful charge for the incident, to absolve Stokes of affray.

What he is not absolved of is aggressively smashing in someone elses face causing significant damage. So is that justifiable in your world, where you are a mental health professional, and worked for the police for 10 years, having been vetted and fully DBS checked? You must have seen a lot of justifiable not overly aggressive face smashings in that time.

 

When you see the full video of what happened it makes everything a lot clearer. But surprise surprise people only focus on the end clips that portray Stokes as the guilty party.

The video shows stokes having a laugh and smiling with the two gay fellas. Then it shows them walking off and Ryan Ali and Ryan Hale following them and Ali hits one on the back of the head with a bottle! At which point stokes goes in to break it up. Only when it turns more physical does Stokes start swinging. I probably would if I’d seen someone willing to hit an innocent bloke with a bottle. Then Ryan Hale comes charging back up the road with a metal pole. Again, if I was stokes I would make sure that bloke didn’t wrap a pole around my head.

Perhaps the lesson for Stokes is not to go drinking in public, not to step in when he see’s an innocent person getting bottled. Personally I don’t think he should have to avoid either. But he’ll be crucified by the criminal experts on here who condemned him without even being in court.

 

Look you've embarrassed yourself with that previous comment about my character, completely out of order.

I'm not debating it with someone such as yourself who clearly cannot contribute without getting personal. The law is the law, if you disagree with it then that's fine.

For the record I don't condone violence in any form but the posts I have made on this are about the justice system and people making assumptions without full facts and that alone.

If you draw inferences that im supporting Stokes in any way from that then that's your problem and are missing the entire point, but it's not true at all.

 

He acted to defend himself and others against one bloke who had bottled someone and threatened him with a bottle, and another who when given the chance had gone to get a metal pole to attack him with.

Let’s not pretend he was hitting innocent victims. The first chance Ryan Hale got to get away he picked up a metal pole and went back to attack Stokes.

You seem incapable of understanding that the jury have seen and heard a lot of evidence. Well done, you’ve managed to know more by watching a 20 second video clip.

 

Sure, you label it how you want with your myriad assumptions and evade the very simple question. Why is it acceptable for Stokes to walk over to a person who is backing away defensively and smash in their eye socket.

Not embarrassed at all. I'd be more embarrassed in your shoes taking umbrage when asked a perfectly simple question about a vicious aggressive attack that led to a person having their face smashed, but never mind, we each have different values in life. Always a useful example out there of a reminder that such is the case.

 

What was the person “backing away” saying? Was the person backing away still holding a bottle and threatening him? You don’t have a clue what was going on. But you’ve decided you do. More than a whole Jury who heard the evidence. May as well scrap law and order in this country. We’ll let you watch a few seconds of a video clip and decide who is guilty.

 

There is nothing that justifies aggressively rushing a person and smashing their face in. I've not once said he's guilty. I'm simply bringing attention, unequivocal evidence, that Ben Stokes has literally smashed in the face of another human being.

If the "non innocent victims" were indeed not innocent... how come they weren't charged with a suitable crime, and were found innocent of the crime they were on trial for?

Everyone was found innocent of the charges put forward. The simple fact at the end of the day is that Ben Stokes literally smashed the face of another human being. I don't think many people would take that action, and this I am thankful for.

 

Of course it isnt acceptable on the situation you present, but i cant comment on the trial because i wasn't privy to all the facts. That is the point ive made since the very start.

No need to get personal.

 

A) Have I said anywhere that Stokes is guilty of affray? No
B) Did Ben Stokes literally break the face of a person backing away defensively? Yes

Youre also having a sweeping assumption that I'm accusing Stokes of being guilty of affray. I haven't said that, nor would I. what I am saying is that as captured fully on video, Ben Stokes has smashed in the face of another human being backing away from him.

if you think that's acceptable, that's your view. In my world, it most certainly is not.

 

He punched someone. Yes. And if there was an alternative way for him to neutralise the threat of a homophobic thug who had just bottled an innocent victim I would prefer him to have done that. He didn’t. But he stopped the attack so well done to him. Wish more people in this country would stand up to protect inncocent victims of hate crime.

 

Not disagreeing with you on those examples

 

As mentioned before. I'm not trying to be personal. Fair enough of you feel it was, but it wasn't. I'm not trying to say stokes is guilty of affray, simply he literally smashed in the face of a human being backing away, and in every scenario I play in my mind without the other person having a loaded gun, I can't see why a human being would do what ben stokes did. Its not about guilt, a trial verdict or anything other than I don't understand why he did what he did, and why that action may be defended.

 

Hate crime is a vile thing. Its increasing and that's a tragedy. If someone had been bottled, surely that person would have been charged guilty of an offence do to the witnesses and severity of that action.

Justice isn't people smashing the face of another. if they are guilty, they are punished by the courts (if charged properly!).