Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Questions about affray have been answered in the pages previous. If you want to know about it, refer backwards a few months

I guess the real question is how long his cricket ban will be if found guilty? Obviously if he goes to prison then it kind of takes care of itself.

If he doesn't, surely the ban he has already received will be taken into account, a bit like when a defendant is on remand.

It seems to me the key to affray is how did the witnesses to the incident regard their safety, because it normally requires members of the public not involved to feel threatened.

One series for shattering the eye socket of a member of the public, not long after you've committed a hate crime against two homosexuals....

I think he'd be lucky if he sees a test before 2020

Funny how it's suddenly a gay hate crime when the two men in question came out and stated that Stokes was a gentleman and saved them from getting attacked.

As I said have to hear the defence and their version of events before judging on that score.

sussexpob wrote:Questions about affray have been answered in the pages previous. If you want to know about it, refer backwards a few months

Not aware that there are many lawyers on this forum, just lay people who can go Google!

budgetmeansbudget wrote:
Interesting following the case online, poor guy has to rely on members of the public to come to a decision on his guilt, I like the way they were all questioned before they were sworn in if they were big England cricket fans? What would people on this forum have retorted?!

I'd have been taken off the jury not for being an England fan, but for being myopically Durham

budgetmeansbudget wrote:Funny how it's suddenly a gay hate crime.

You don't think his actions, if they are found to be proven, would be a hate crime? To me it sounds like the pure definition of one.

budgetmeansbudget wrote:

sussexpob wrote:Questions about affray have been answered in the pages previous. If you want to know about it, refer backwards a few months

Not aware that there are many lawyers on this forum, just lay people who can go Google!

Just saving people who can't use Google a lot of time, budget. I thought a thanks would be in order.

Not sure professional academic qualifications like LLB or LLMs make people lay persons mind

Gingerfinch wrote:

The Professor wrote:None of this looks very good AT ALL.

Depending on where you sit on this; Saturday may well be the last time we see him in an England shirt.

Looks like he acted like a complete d.ck but I'd be surprised to see him not play again. I suspect he may get a ban, though unsure.

If behaving like a d.ck disqualified you from playing cricket, most of the Australian team of the last 20 years would have been banned. And a fair few English, Indians, Pakistanis, South Africans and West Indians. Hell, probably only the Kiwis would be able to field a complete XI.

Does sound pretty damning against Stokes's behaviour, but it's affray that has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which requires other members of the public were in reasonable fear for their safety. He's not up on a charge of D&D, abusive or threatening behaviour or harassment (although I suppose it's possible he could be found guilty under one of those other charges if the affray isn't proven).

As discussed upthread, it's odd that is the charge that has been settled on, as it's a multiple person offence (you can't be individually guilty of causing an affray) - either a deal was cut, or the police and prosecution have been unable to work out who was the aggressor (despite the video).

Still, let's see what the defence case and witnesses say.

Nope, not even the Kiwis. Forgot Jesse Ryder.

sussexpob wrote:

budgetmeansbudget wrote:

sussexpob wrote:Questions about affray have been answered in the pages previous. If you want to know about it, refer backwards a few months

Not aware that there are many lawyers on this forum, just lay people who can go Google!

Just saving people who can't use Google a lot of time, budget. I thought a thanks would be in order.

Not sure professional academic qualifications like LLB or LLMs make people lay persons mind

Sorry I can't see LLB, LLM on anyone's username, I'm not ruddy psychic! Bit bleeding arrogant for me if they did. I don't know anyone well enough on here to know whether they've studied law anyway so I treat everyone the same, Google dwellers.

Give you thanks Sussex, are you seriously that conceited? Experience of your posts suggests you actually meant "don't try to understand the case yourself, you're too stupid, but take your education from the law experts that inhabit this forum."

No thanks!

budgetmeansbudget wrote: Give you thanks Sussex, are you seriously that conceited? Experience of your posts suggests you actually meant "don't try to understand the case yourself, you're too stupid, but take your education from the law experts that inhabit this forum."

No thanks!

I think this is one of those situations were your preconception is clouding your judgement; did you really think I just demanded to be thanked, or did you think this was maybe an attempt at a joke? Conceited, no. Sh*t sense of humour no one understands, more probable. For the record, you and others are asking questions regarding the technical aspects of the law. All I said was it was discussed previously, so if you had questions is best to check the previous posts, as these have been discussed. Saves clogging or repeating, and tbf if I answered them with the same info, you'd probably tell me I am lecturing you.

Bloody hell, just typed a nice long reply to you Sussex and then lost it due to a shite 4g signal.

Suffice to say I probably jumped the gun and shouldn't have reacted so quickly to a post which probably meant well. Trouble is it's difficult to always get the tone in a post.

As you say I probably did go with the preconception of you coming over as a superior git at times, not that that normally bothers me.

In any case you could normally call me a cxxx and punched me in the face, I might have reacted like a raving lunatic, but after ten minutes I wouldn't hold it against you, and after twenty minutes I'd have forgotten about it.

Doorman who didn't get on well with Stokes said in police statement in Sept he had seen CCTV at the time of the incident. In court today he says watching it in court today was the first time he'd seen it. Unreliable witness?!

I can't believe he didn't know who Stokes was, the most high profile name in the game in this country. My guess he was being a typical bouncer, I don't care who you are, I'm exerting my authority and not letting you in. Do we know why he didn't, was he wearing the wrong clothes or shoes?

Ha!. My impression is that Sussex is pretty modest considering how much stuff he knows!

But yes, it's difficult to read people's tone. There's an old phrase that happiness writes in write (I thought it was Tolstoy but it turns out it's someone called Henry de Montherlant!) which I've adapted to irony writes in white on the internet.

Anyway, terrible first day for Gentle Ben.