Does anyone know why the two gay men involved were not asked to testify? From following the trial closely it seems their evidence would have been vital. All very strange.
Because they never existed?
They sold their story to The S*N a few weeks after it happened singing the praises of Ben Stokes. They could have made it all up but here is a link to The Telegraph about their story...
I also think Ben Stokes is a bit of a twat and I am far from a violent man I use bad humour as my chosen method of combat, but if it came down to a fight and I was outnumbered by people carrying bottles etc I would probably go a bit overboard to protect myself as I am too fat to run. This is from somebody that hasn't had a fight since I was about 11, I am currently in my 40s.
People here criticising the CPS wrongly in my opinion. Based on the evidence in the public domain they were entirely correct in seeking a conviction.
I would be amazed if any jury in this country would have found a sporting hero guilty of anything, and no surprise he opted for trial by jury when I believe this could have been dealt with at Magistrate level.
So a jury being starstruck is a good reason for an acquittal, but questioning whether the CPS was starstruck in bringing charges is unfair?
You do raise a very important point about the evidence in the public domain though, and a point I should have heeded before questioning the motives of the CPS. We only know what we are told by the media in these cases, and that's often as not skewed.
Does anyone know why the two gay men involved were not asked to testify? From following the trial closely it seems their evidence would have been vital. All very strange.
Because they never existed?
Just seen them interviewed on TV. Definitely exist and definitely gay (if I'm allowed to say that in these PC times)
The CPS decide what charges they think will get a convictions. From what I've seen (only the video clips) it would look more like ABH than GBH, but certainly more than affray.
I coming to the conclusion that the juries didn't know what "affray" was or so used to seeing men fighting in the street it wasn't an issue to them.
He knocked 2 blokes unconscious. Perhaps he was charged with the wrong offence ? Perhaps the charge should have been GBH or ABH ?
Or he knocked out 2 aggressive homophobes who took swings at him with offensive weapons. Depends which convenient bits you clip out of what's been reported.
To prove the charge of affray, the prosecution must show that the accused was ‘involved in the unlawful use of force in such circumstances that a bystander of reasonable firmness and courage might reasonably expect to be terrified’. Three blokes have a tear up outside a nightclub in the early hours - hardly unusual is it? That fight was 2 onto 1, the 2 used weapons and the 1 emerged least damaged. None of which mitigates the neanderthal behaviour. Massive waste of public money, opportunity taken by the tabloid press to prove (if further proof were needed) that they're all avaricious moralising loathsome hypocrites with utter contempt for the process of the law they hector so loudly about. The selective hysteria in the headlines was deplorable. How the jury can remain uninfluenced by the tabloids openly perverting the trial process is beyond me. If you find yourself informed by the mail, express, star, mirror or any of the despicable m"rd0ch's organs, you're wrong about whatever it is. They're all beneath contempt.
this was always going to be the verdict .. English sporting hero in street brawl, brought to court before a jury .. not guilty …. three council estate herberts brought before a jury after a street brawl, probably guilty
from what I read of the prosecution presentation, the barrister was right over the top with his denunciation of Stokes and his description of the 'incident' .. The 2 Ryans were tooled up, Stokes used his fists .. and still won .. he should get sports all rounder of the year award .. for cricket and UFC
how Ryan 1 was dismissed before the jury had a chance to decide is bizarre.. he ran towards Stokes armed with the metal legs from a temporary road works sign, and Ben still clobbered him .. anyway, all is well that ends well
The gay men were just shown on the news (an interview from nearer the time of the incident I believe). They confirmed that Ali hit the elder one with a bottle in a homophobic attack and Stokes came to the rescue. It seems like the verdict was correct.
Does anyone know why the two gay men involved were not asked to testify? From following the trial closely it seems their evidence would have been vital. All very strange.
All involved found not guilty. Which, seeing as they were all charged with supposed affray against each other, makes the whole thing seem a bit of a waste of time.
I came to this thread to basically say this. 11 months that took. Bloody farce
this was always going to be the verdict .. English sporting hero in street brawl, brought to court before a jury .. not guilty …. three council estate herberts brought before a jury after a street brawl, probably guilty
from what I read of the prosecution presentation, the barrister was right over the top with his denunciation of Stokes and his description of the 'incident' .. The 2 Ryans were tooled up, Stokes used his fists .. and still won .. he should get sports all rounder of the year award .. for cricket and UFC
how Ryan 1 was dismissed before the jury had a chance to decide is bizarre.. he ran towards Stokes armed with the metal legs from a temporary road works sign, and Ben still clobbered him .. anyway, all is well that ends well
I mean why would you want to have a go at a medium fast right arm over? Beggars belief .
The gay men were just shown on the news (an interview from nearer the time of the incident I believe). They confirmed that Ali hit the elder one with a bottle in a homophobic attack and Stokes came to the rescue. It seems like the verdict was correct.
So why weren't they called to give this evidence in court?
Does anyone know why the two gay men involved were not asked to testify? From following the trial closely it seems their evidence would have been vital. All very strange.
Because they never existed?
Bit rich coming from you, Santa.
I don't understand this post, what are you trying to say about Santa?
Does anyone know why the two gay men involved were not asked to testify? From following the trial closely it seems their evidence would have been vital. All very strange.
Because they never existed?
Bit rich coming from you, Santa.
I don't understand this post, what are you trying to say about Santa?
He's still going out with that same old bag (= Santa's sack) .
Ive not read anything about this case, so just assumed it was a pissed up sports star being badly behaved. Looks like he was actually kinda in the right. Although fighting outside a night club isn’t great behaviour for anyone tbf! Glad he got found not guilty
Kick in the teeth for the BBC too, who with their headlines have been gagging for another celebrity scalp. Headlines on home page such as 'Stokes lied in testimony', which when you read the article was then refuted and knocked back by the defence lawyers. Laughable prosecution by the CPS and a waste of money.
Last week they put on their running headlines on the news channel, Ben Strokes giving evidence.
Just hope the ECB don't decide to suspend him for bringing the game into disrepute. He's already missed out on an Ashes tour,surely that's punishment enough.
Just hope the ECB don't decide to suspend him for bringing the game into disrepute. He's already missed out on an Ashes tour,surely that's punishment enough.
That's exactly the sort of thing the FA would do
So many people tell me and air the view of 'let justice run its course' that it wpuld indeed be grossly unfair for them to punish him on top having been found not guilty
Really can't do right for doing wrong anyone in the public eye. With dickheads from reality tv and noneties like that I've got no sympathy. When it's people who are in the public eye by default (elite sportspeople, actors, musicians) it must be hard work. Loads of people had condemned him before the jury retired and this shit will stick to him
Just hope the ECB don't decide to suspend him for bringing the game into disrepute. He's already missed out on an Ashes tour,surely that's punishment enough.
That's exactly the sort of thing the FA would do
So many people tell me and air the view of 'let justice run its course' that it wpuld indeed be grossly unfair for them to punish him on top having been found not guilty
Really can't do right for doing wrong anyone in the public eye. With dickheads from reality tv and noneties like that I've got no sympathy. When it's people who are in the public eye by default (elite sportspeople, actors, musicians) it must be hard work. Loads of people had condemned him before the jury retired and this shit will stick to him
The ECB have confirmed he's back in the squad for the 3rd Test.
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2017/10/27/ben-stokes-real-hero-saving-us-say-gay-menfollowing-homophobic/
You do raise a very important point about the evidence in the public domain though, and a point I should have heeded before questioning the motives of the CPS. We only know what we are told by the media in these cases, and that's often as not skewed.
I coming to the conclusion that the juries didn't know what "affray" was or so used to seeing men fighting in the street it wasn't an issue to them.
To prove the charge of affray, the prosecution must show that the accused was ‘involved in the unlawful use of force in such circumstances that a bystander of reasonable firmness and courage might reasonably expect to be terrified’.
Three blokes have a tear up outside a nightclub in the early hours - hardly unusual is it?
That fight was 2 onto 1, the 2 used weapons and the 1 emerged least damaged.
None of which mitigates the neanderthal behaviour.
Massive waste of public money, opportunity taken by the tabloid press to prove (if further proof were needed) that they're all avaricious moralising loathsome hypocrites with utter contempt for the process of the law they hector so loudly about. The selective hysteria in the headlines was deplorable. How the jury can remain uninfluenced by the tabloids openly perverting the trial process is beyond me.
If you find yourself informed by the mail, express, star, mirror or any of the despicable m"rd0ch's organs, you're wrong about whatever it is. They're all beneath contempt.
from what I read of the prosecution presentation, the barrister was right over the top with his denunciation of Stokes and his description of the 'incident' .. The 2 Ryans were tooled up, Stokes used his fists .. and still won .. he should get sports all rounder of the year award .. for cricket and UFC
how Ryan 1 was dismissed before the jury had a chance to decide is bizarre.. he ran towards Stokes armed with the metal legs from a temporary road works sign, and Ben still clobbered him .. anyway, all is well that ends well
They confirmed that Ali hit the elder one with a bottle in a homophobic attack and Stokes came to the rescue.
It seems like the verdict was correct.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=definition+of+affray+uk&oq=definition+of+affr&aqs=chrome.2.0j69i57j0l4.11175j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Where's the next bout, I mean match?
The fella done nothing wrong apart from five someone a dig who by the sounds of it deserved it
So many people tell me and air the view of 'let justice run its course' that it wpuld indeed be grossly unfair for them to punish him on top having been found not guilty
Really can't do right for doing wrong anyone in the public eye. With dickheads from reality tv and noneties like that I've got no sympathy. When it's people who are in the public eye by default (elite sportspeople, actors, musicians) it must be hard work. Loads of people had condemned him before the jury retired and this shit will stick to him