FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Ben Stokes ??

Jump to newest
 

By *ifferent69 OP   Man
over a year ago

BRIGHTON, UK

Wtf....!!!

Not Guilty...???

Is it just me or what .....??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lex46TV/TS
over a year ago

Near Wells

I like cricket but I thought he would be found guilty and possibly the end of an international career.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He’s definitely got away with that one. He was guilty all day long and he knows it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Jury of his peers says otherwise

He’s innocent

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lbert_shlossedMan
over a year ago

Manchester

The jury said no.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How many threads do you need for this topic ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Two threads, OP?

The jury found him not guilty. That's the system.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He was charged with affray, not assault of any kind. From the CPS website:

It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that unlawful violence has been used. There has to be violence of such a kind that a bystander would fear for his safety. Where the violence is focussed solely and exclusively on the victim, such that it would be incapable of causing a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his safety, then the offence is not made out.

So there you have it, a not guilty verdict does not mean that the jury considered there was no unlawful violence, just that if there was, it was directed solely at the victim.

I do wonder why the prosecution was not for assault, which would seem to have a much greater chance of being successful.

In the eyes of the law though, he's innocent so that's that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andlingswingersCouple
over a year ago

Woodbridge

Because it saves time to scoop the pool and charge them all with affray and it's a more serious charge than assault.

It's cost-accountancy justice. When people keep voting for cuts, that's what they get.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Because it saves time to scoop the pool and charge them all with affray and it's a more serious charge than assault.

It's cost-accountancy justice. When people keep voting for cuts, that's what they get."

Can't argue with that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *radleywigginsMan
over a year ago

northwest

Apparently he has shaken hands with his co-accused. So it’s all ok now

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Because it saves time to scoop the pool and charge them all with affray and it's a more serious charge than assault.

It's cost-accountancy justice. When people keep voting for cuts, that's what they get.

Can't argue with that."

Actually, I probably could argue that people vote for cuts in policing, I think it's something that comes as a side effect of What they do actually vote for. But that's a whole other argument, for another time!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"He was charged with affray, not assault of any kind. From the CPS website:

It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that unlawful violence has been used. There has to be violence of such a kind that a bystander would fear for his safety. Where the violence is focussed solely and exclusively on the victim, such that it would be incapable of causing a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his safety, then the offence is not made out.

So there you have it, a not guilty verdict does not mean that the jury considered there was no unlawful violence, just that if there was, it was directed solely at the victim.

I do wonder why the prosecution was not for assault, which would seem to have a much greater chance of being successful.

In the eyes of the law though, he's innocent so that's that.

"

there was actually a specific reporting restriction on this case that wasn't told before....

the CPS on the day the trial started wanted to add 2 charges of assault causing actual bodily harm........ but the judge said it was too late at that stage

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"He was charged with affray, not assault of any kind. From the CPS website:

It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that unlawful violence has been used. There has to be violence of such a kind that a bystander would fear for his safety. Where the violence is focussed solely and exclusively on the victim, such that it would be incapable of causing a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his safety, then the offence is not made out.

So there you have it, a not guilty verdict does not mean that the jury considered there was no unlawful violence, just that if there was, it was directed solely at the victim.

I do wonder why the prosecution was not for assault, which would seem to have a much greater chance of being successful.

In the eyes of the law though, he's innocent so that's that.

there was actually a specific reporting restriction on this case that wasn't told before....

the CPS on the day the trial started wanted to add 2 charges of assault causing actual bodily harm........ but the judge said it was too late at that stage"

I didn't know that, but sounds fair enough. They had months to prepare their case, they can't be moving the goalposts at that late stage

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As I said on the other thread we have a justice system in this country...

It consists of trial by a jury if our peers who listen to all the evidence and come to a conclusion.

That conclusion was not guilty.

If you were in his shoes OP and had been found not guilty would you appreciate your actions in ignoring the justice system in favour of your own prejudices.

Ffs enough threads on this already.

He's been found not guilty. Give the guy a break.

Btw cricket .....I'm not a fan

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top