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

I think the bouncer didnt let them in because it was late and the place was closing. It would take a pretty ballsy guy to have 6ft 5in and athletically toned Alex Hales staring down at you, flanked by a similarly built Stokes, tell them where to go..... although yes, Im inclined from personal experience to think bouncers and unnecessarily heavy handed policemen are at fault for a lot of escalation of violence on the late night streets of the UK.

Having been to the place numerous times, the bouncers there are notorious for being heavy handed and generally unpleasant (even by normal bouncer standards). Once one elbowed a female friend of mine in the stomach (may have been accidental tbf), then kicked her out when she complained about it. Anecdotal evidence yes, however I wouldn't trust these guys in the slightest.

GG - Amir Sohail wrote:Having been to the place numerous times, the bouncers there are notorious for being heavy handed and generally unpleasant (even by normal bouncer standards). Once one elbowed a female friend of mine in the stomach (may have been accidental tbf), then kicked her out when she complained about it. Anecdotal evidence yes, however I wouldn't trust these guys in the slightest.

Is it on Whiteladies? By memory, you could nuke that street in its entirety, and the world would be a much better place.

Don't know why Hales wasn't charged as well.

"Mr Murray asked PC Adams "would it be fair to describe that as Alex Hales kicking a man in the head?" PC Adams responds: "That's what it looks like yes."

Slipstream wrote:Don't know why Hales wasn't charged as well.

"Mr Murray asked PC Adams "would it be fair to describe that as Alex Hales kicking a man in the head?" PC Adams responds: "That's what it looks like yes."

Hales is the first that gets swung at with the bottle in the video, then the melee begins with the second swing. At that point Hales had retreated and started to walk away, only coming back to the scene while Stokes is outnumbered with one guy seemingly holding him from the floor, and another infront of him. In his position, you could say one of those people has just attacked him with a weapon, and now he knows his friend is out numbered potential with a weapon involved.

The kicks to the head dont seem to be full bloodied, they arent sustained (I think as soon as the guy gets kicked he releases Ben, and Hales stops), and its much more likely that his actions are seen as those defending a friend in a potentially threatening situation. After, he seemingly tries to plead with Stokes to walk away. All these things will go for him

Stokes gets charged for the punch and the continuation. Had he walked away Its doubtful he would have done. The other two are charged for the bottle, and I believe the actual video continues after this for some time but is unseen. The court says one of the guys they were fighting then gets a roadwork sign and tries to smash Stokes with it.

Reading the live feed, Id have to guess at this point it isnt going that well for the defendants. Seems a lot of damaging evidence being landed with concern to that video. Eyewitnesses talking about how shocking it is, from a legal perspective in the acid test of the offence, is really going to hurt them the most.

sussexpob wrote:

GG - Amir Sohail wrote:Having been to the place numerous times, the bouncers there are notorious for being heavy handed and generally unpleasant (even by normal bouncer standards). Once one elbowed a female friend of mine in the stomach (may have been accidental tbf), then kicked her out when she complained about it. Anecdotal evidence yes, however I wouldn't trust these guys in the slightest.

Is it on Whiteladies? By memory, you could nuke that street in its entirety, and the world would be a much better place.

Yep, Clifton triangle. So bottom of Whiteladies / Top of Park Street. Agreed, though I might not have putit so extremely

The place itself is nice, but the bars and clubs there seemed to attract the worst crowds in the city.

Interestingly the crowds are generally far better and more laid back if you go to the historically less affluent areas like Stokes Croft, or just south of the river.

sussexpob wrote:Reading the live feed, Id have to guess at this point it isnt going that well for the defendants. Seems a lot of damaging evidence being landed with concern to that video. Eyewitnesses talking about how shocking it is, from a legal perspective in the acid test of the offence, is really going to hurt them the most.

I might have missed the end of today's session, but as far as I'm aware the only witnesses who have testified so far was the bouncer who witnessed Stokes behaviour outside the club but none of the fighting, and a guy who filmed the incident on his mobile phone from his bedroom window. I guess there may well be others but can viewing an incident like that from your bedroom window make you that fearful for your safety. Not scared enough to prevent you from filming the whole thing. I don't know, just saying.

budgetmeansbudget wrote:

sussexpob wrote:Reading the live feed, Id have to guess at this point it isnt going that well for the defendants. Seems a lot of damaging evidence being landed with concern to that video. Eyewitnesses talking about how shocking it is, from a legal perspective in the acid test of the offence, is really going to hurt them the most.

I might have missed the end of today's session, but as far as I'm aware the only witnesses who have testified so far was the bouncer who witnessed Stokes behaviour outside the club but none of the fighting, and a guy who filmed the incident on his mobile phone from his bedroom window. I guess there may well be others but can viewing an incident like that from your bedroom window make you that fearful for your safety. Not scared enough to prevent you from filming the whole thing. I don't know, just saying.

Women who witnessed it from her house, the police officer near the scene that witnessed it, the attending senior policeman and the people you mention. Not sure how many eyewitnesses there are, but all of them have commeted negatively on the severity, and that is the main nail in the coffin. If people witnessing it say they were shocked, then its easier to fulfill that average man test as part of the offence.

GG - Amir Sohail wrote:

sussexpob wrote:

GG - Amir Sohail wrote:Having been to the place numerous times, the bouncers there are notorious for being heavy handed and generally unpleasant (even by normal bouncer standards). Once one elbowed a female friend of mine in the stomach (may have been accidental tbf), then kicked her out when she complained about it. Anecdotal evidence yes, however I wouldn't trust these guys in the slightest.

Is it on Whiteladies? By memory, you could nuke that street in its entirety, and the world would be a much better place.

Yep, Clifton triangle. So bottom of Whiteladies / Top of Park Street. Agreed, though I might not have putit so extremely

Yep, not a nice place to be out after hours.

Witnesses for the prosecution being cross-examined today, it appears. Presumably more tomorrow. Sounds very damning, but as we've said, affray requires a specific set of circumstances to be proved, and we haven't heard the case for the defence yet. Stokes and Hales yet to take the stand.

Even if he's (somehow) found not guilty or found guilty but escapes jail, surely a lengthy ban must be in the offing from the ECB for that behaviour. Even if you take into account the series he missed, he still owes some time. OK, Wee Davey only got two games for decking Joe Root, but the circumstances were different, and besides, I think he got off lightly.

sussexpob wrote:

budgetmeansbudget wrote:

sussexpob wrote:Reading the live feed, Id have to guess at this point it isnt going that well for the defendants. Seems a lot of damaging evidence being landed with concern to that video. Eyewitnesses talking about how shocking it is, from a legal perspective in the acid test of the offence, is really going to hurt them the most.

I might have missed the end of today's session, but as far as I'm aware the only witnesses who have testified so far was the bouncer who witnessed Stokes behaviour outside the club but none of the fighting, and a guy who filmed the incident on his mobile phone from his bedroom window. I guess there may well be others but can viewing an incident like that from your bedroom window make you that fearful for your safety. Not scared enough to prevent you from filming the whole thing. I don't know, just saying.

Women who witnessed it from her house, the police officer near the scene that witnessed it, the attending senior policeman and the people you mention. Not sure how many eyewitnesses there are, but all of them have commeted negatively on the severity, and that is the main nail in the coffin. If people witnessing it say they were shocked, then its easier to fulfill that average man test as part of the offence.

It seems that it is a hypothetical bystander that must fear for their safety, as opposed to actually someone being there so I guess the evidence of the phone video witness is important.

However surely the defence will try to argue that the violence was solely between the three up on the charge of affray, and they weren't looking to bring any innocent bystander into the situation.

It seems that it is a hypothetical bystander that must fear for their safety, as opposed to actually someone being there so I guess the evidence of the phone videwitness is important.

Yep. Its a public order offence, so its concerned only with the actions in their relation to the general public. The protagonists are committing a crime against the public good, not to each other. If these actions happen in a situation where, hypothetically, a random person could stumbled across it, then you have the possibility of an offence. In the most simple terms, if it happens on the street like this did, all the available evidence will be related to how that invisible person would react. Not how people present actually did react. If a group of I dont know, ex-Afghan vets who were 6ft 5inch stood watching laughing at them because they have, to some extent, been desensitized to violence, then it wouldnt matter. The possibility is, at any moment another random person could turn up, so why does it matter who was there. There is one other person at the party all the time, and it will be average-joe, invisible and not existing, but hes put there standing next to it at the front row..... its him who provides the test.

However surely the defence will try to argue that the violence was solely between the three up on the charge of affray, and they weren't looking to bring any innocent bystander into the situation.

A natural conclusion, but the problem is if its in the public view, and he can hypothetically be there, he will be. And he will see everything that can be proven to take place, and will react to that in the good old average way someone will do.

The really struggle in the trial will be the prosecution hammering home as many examples that can of actual people, because it is far easier to believe the average person would be scared, if you can demonstrate the average person was scared. The defence really have to find a way to separate being scared or shocked, and that turning into a fear of violence towards that person (which I accept is very close to what you were implying).

That can take many forms, and here lies the problem with predicting a case like this; while its all objective and hypothetical, the jury in the end will probably make a subjective judgement as if they were scared, if they would fear violence. And its far easier to envision something being relatively safe when your 12 months after the event, in a courtroom. The lady in her house was in her house, was she in any real danger. So the human element of this plays out, the lawyers and the judges can guide and tell the jury their opinion as to the law, how they should decide, what they should consider; but its impossible not for these people not to decide on their own feelings, guided a lot by the experiences of real people. Its hard to take subjectivity out of it and place conflicting emotions onto a hypothetical person.

I guess thats why the actions and actual violence are being shown. They dont actually really matter, but it all adds to that sense of situational control. I think that to me is the most important thing about affray. I might explain it badly, but if you and me were shouting at each other in the street aggressively over a parking spot or something, people would be inclined to think any form of restraint prevents escalation. And the opposite is true. If its only shouting from a distance, then people are more inclined to believe its a situation with control. They are less likely to fear something is going to happen thats bad.

Little things can trigger that fear. If I began walking towards you, a passerby might instantly panic seeing that action as aggressive, a precursor to me whacking you. If I push you, punch you... these actions all show that the potential for a full blown war to occur increase, and so does a persons fear. No one wants to see a skull get cracked. If I pulled a gun, a knife.... these are all things that prove, to some extent, that my rationality has disappeared. And once a person is angry and no longer thinking rationally, of course, a person meaning to split it up could get whacked. Or that person could spray bullets that hit other people.

So escalation of violence and total loss of control are hugely bad for defendants. The defence could try to isolate it, but on the fact coming out so far, its pretty hard to. Bottles being thrown (can easily hit a person standing close, because its thrown wildly), someone refusing to back off when given the opportunity, even when a friend is trying to calm him down (total loss of control, it ends with an eye socket shattered), someone else ripping out a sign from the ground and going back to the fight. These are pretty damning.

If I was Stokes, Id hope my lawyer damn well knows what hes doing.