advertisement


Ben Stokes going down?

Barrymagrec said:
I wouldn`t want to live anywhere near premier league footballers or Ben Stokes................ I don`t know you....
Click to expand...

What a stupid comment. It's like saying you wouldn't want to live near a GP in case he turned out to be like Harold Shipman. Gareth Southgate used to be a premier league player. It would be hard to find a nicer individual.
 
HarryB said:
What a stupid comment. It's like saying you wouldn't want to live near a GP in case he turned out to be like Harold Shipman. Gareth Southgate used to be a premier league player. It would be hard to find a nicer individual.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but O.K., I don`t want to live anywhere near you either....
 
wyjsar said:
Whatever the verdict is, I'm pretty certain that this isn't the sort of mularkey that Chris Woakes would get involved in...
Click to expand...

I have some connections at Warwickshire CCC and am led to believe that Chris would be far too concerned about messing up his hairdo to indulge in Stokesian activities.
 
No doubt he will be selected for England in the future as well.

It is amazing nobody has been found guilty, given the footage of Stokes laying into two blokes and allegedly flicking a cigarette at one guy. There is also the video showing somebody treading on the face of one of the men laying on the ground.

Jack
 
jackbarron said:
It is amazing nobody has been found guilty, given the footage of Stokes laying into two blokes and allegedly flicking a cigarette at one guy. There is also the video showing somebody treading on the face of one of the men laying on the ground.
Click to expand...

To arrive at a decision you need to have heard all the evidence, and no one outside of the courtroom had heard that. When I did jury service I realised how easy it would be for the media to misrepresent that case against the defendant.
 
The video evidence alone does not tell the whole story. It very rarely does.

Nonetheless, the jury clearly were not convinced ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, or the verdict would have been different.
 
Stunsworth - quite right.

Always best to not let the facts get in the way of assumptions, tho.:)
 
Stunsworth said:
To arrive at a decision you need to have heard all the evidence, and no one outside of the courtroom had heard that. When I did jury service I realised how easy it would be for the media to misrepresent that case against the defendant.
Click to expand...

True, however when I did jury service I was impressed with how bone idle the prosecution were, leading to a failure to convict an obvious shoplifter.
 
Stunsworth said:
One of the problems I had was what exactly does 'reasonable' doubt mean? What's reasonable and what isn't?
Click to expand...

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then theprosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
 
jackbarron said:
No doubt he will be selected for England in the future as well.

It is amazing nobody has been found guilty, given the footage of Stokes laying into two blokes and allegedly flicking a cigarette at one guy. There is also the video showing somebody treading on the face of one of the men laying on the ground.

Jack
Click to expand...

Probably. What a role model for young up & coming cricketers.

No surprised at the verdict though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top