|
Post by raythesailor on Aug 14, 2018 14:13:44 GMT
Well I have not sat and listened in court to this trial, but I have to say I am somewhat suprised at this verdict.
It reminds me of the farcical OJ saga in the US. Justice does seem to be swayed at times by who you are and your ability to afford expensive lawyers.
If I ever get videotaped knocking the hell out of somebody I hope I get tried in Bristol.
Tin hat on. 🏏
|
|
|
Post by BuzzB on Aug 14, 2018 14:29:42 GMT
Got to agree, having seen that cctv that went well beyond self defence!!
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Aug 14, 2018 14:51:18 GMT
I don’t believe it. Pretty much everyone said he was out of control...
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Aug 14, 2018 15:14:47 GMT
If you or me did that up Hanley or Newcastle, we would be sent down for it. Absolutely farcical, yet predictable.
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Aug 14, 2018 15:49:29 GMT
You are mistaking justice with the concept of who can pay the most for the best barrister. That is what justice comes down to in this country, not the actual facts of the case. It’s why I have zero time for anyone in the legal profession; they are morally bankrupt but hide behind the noble facade of justice being pure and equally available to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by stayingupfor GermanStokie on Aug 14, 2018 16:31:04 GMT
You are mistaking justice with the concept of who can pay the most for the best barrister. That is what justice comes down to in this country, not the actual facts of the case. It’s why I have zero time for anyone in the legal profession; they are morally bankrupt but hide behind the noble facade of justice being pure and equally available to everyone. Was it a similar CCTV evidence as Gerrard, who seemed to “get away“ with his actions? It seems public figures are either made an example of in the worst way or let off unjustifiably... there’s no common ground?
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Aug 14, 2018 16:34:56 GMT
You are mistaking justice with the concept of who can pay the most for the best barrister. That is what justice comes down to in this country, not the actual facts of the case. It’s why I have zero time for anyone in the legal profession; they are morally bankrupt but hide behind the noble facade of justice being pure and equally available to everyone. Was it a similar CCTV evidence as Gerrard, who seemed to “get away“ with his actions? It seems public figures are either made an example of in the worst way or let off unjustifiably... there’s no common ground? As bad or worse. He said it was self defence to...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 16:57:08 GMT
The bloke he twatted was swinging a bottle at his mate. In my opinion if you try and hit someone with a bottle and you get a kicking for it then you've only got yourself to blame.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Aug 14, 2018 17:07:05 GMT
Was it a similar CCTV evidence as Gerrard, who seemed to “get away“ with his actions? It seems public figures are either made an example of in the worst way or let off unjustifiably... there’s no common ground? As bad or worse. He said it was self defence to... If someone had been in his face, backing him up and goading him, I would say he had a right to defend himself, but he followed one lad who had obviously had enough and chinned him. To me, he's an absolute wanker.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Aug 14, 2018 17:07:45 GMT
Got to agree, having seen that cctv that went well beyond self defence!! Yeah even Shane Watson would not have reviewed that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 17:44:21 GMT
It was a bit of a sticky wicket for the jury tbf, but his defense team bowled them over, but it does appear that this sort of thing is on the increase.
TEST
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Aug 14, 2018 19:04:13 GMT
The bloke he twatted was swinging a bottle at his mate. In my opinion if you try and hit someone with a bottle and you get a kicking for it then you've only got yourself to blame. Don’t you think he instigated the whole thing...
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 14, 2018 19:22:00 GMT
Affray imo was the wrong offence to charge them with
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 19:24:38 GMT
Affray imo was the wrong offence to charge them with Hear Here, the CPS messed up on this
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Aug 14, 2018 19:32:58 GMT
Affray imo was the wrong offence to charge them with Affray is an offence that involves unlawful fighting, violence or a display of force by at least one person against one or more people. This meaning of affray makes it a charge that gets typically laid in situations where a person is involved in a fight or brawl in a public place. It was the only offence he could be charged with as other public order offences usually need a bystander/member of the public present but affray doesn't. He was claiming self defence due to the bottle that the others were carrying. The video showed that the bottle had been dropped some time before Stokes twatted them unconscious and were actually backing away from him. A star struck jury maybe?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 14, 2018 19:34:53 GMT
Under the Public Order Act 1986, 'a person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety'. So, though it may seem odd, the offence is not designed simply to protect those involved in the violent incident itself: it is also designed to protect other people who are present. That could include, for example, passers by in a street, those drinking in a pub, or fans at a football game when violence is threatened or actually occurs. However, the 'person of reasonable firmness' need not actually be present at the scene. This person is sometimes known as the 'hypothetical bystander' and it is he or she rather than the victim, who must fear for his or her personal safety. There must be a 'victim' present against whom the violence is to be directed, and some conduct, beyond the use of words, which is threatening and directed towards a person or people.
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Aug 14, 2018 19:43:01 GMT
Under the Public Order Act 1986, 'a person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety'. So, though it may seem odd, the offence is not designed simply to protect those involved in the violent incident itself: it is also designed to protect other people who are present. That could include, for example, passers by in a street, those drinking in a pub, or fans at a football game when violence is threatened or actually occurs. However, the 'person of reasonable firmness' need not actually be present at the scene. This person is sometimes known as the 'hypothetical bystander' and it is he or she rather than the victim, who must fear for his or her personal safety. There must be a 'victim' present against whom the violence is to be directed, and some conduct, beyond the use of words, which is threatening and directed towards a person or people. Yes but the hypothetical by stander doesn't actually have to be there, just that a 'person of reasonable firmness' would fear for their personal safety if they had have been there and not tucked up in bed. I like to think I'm a person of 'reasonable firmness' but I think I might have been a bit alarmed at the sight of a pissed up toned athlete knocking two males unconscious in a public street,
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Aug 14, 2018 19:53:52 GMT
Poor sod needs to see some action, it can't be easy with the boring drudgery of those 5 day farces. Give him a break
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 22:33:08 GMT
You are mistaking justice with the concept of who can pay the most for the best barrister. That is what justice comes down to in this country, not the actual facts of the case. It’s why I have zero time for anyone in the legal profession; they are morally bankrupt but hide behind the noble facade of justice being pure and equally available to everyone. The jury make a decision based on hearing both sides of the matter yet somehow it's the morally bankrupt over paid legal professionals fault he wasn't found guilty..... you realise how ridiculous you sound?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 15, 2018 7:09:07 GMT
You are mistaking justice with the concept of who can pay the most for the best barrister. That is what justice comes down to in this country, not the actual facts of the case. It’s why I have zero time for anyone in the legal profession; they are morally bankrupt but hide behind the noble facade of justice being pure and equally available to everyone. Speaking up as a member of the legal profession, the vast majority of my cases don’t require the court or a barrister and are settled by agreement between the parties. To assume all lawyers are morally bankrupt when we are virtually the most regulated profession out there is way off the mark. I hope you are never in a position to need a lawyer but if/when you are you should do your homework and your view will change. I was also surprised by the Stokes outcome but when you read the gay couple calling him a hero for saving from an attack by two blokes with a bottle, it gives a different perspective. Was the force he used proportionate and reasonable? That’s the key question. The jury decided it was and nobody who wasn’t there at the trial has the details to say otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Aug 15, 2018 7:20:21 GMT
You are mistaking justice with the concept of who can pay the most for the best barrister. That is what justice comes down to in this country, not the actual facts of the case. It’s why I have zero time for anyone in the legal profession; they are morally bankrupt but hide behind the noble facade of justice being pure and equally available to everyone. Speaking up as a member of the legal profession, the vast majority of my cases don’t require the court or a barrister and are settled by agreement between the parties. To assume all lawyers are morally bankrupt when we are virtually the most regulated profession out there is way off the mark. I hope you are never in a position to need a lawyer but if/when you are you should do your homework and your view will change. I was also surprised by the Stokes outcome but when you read the gay couple calling him a hero for saving from an attack by two blokes with a bottle, it gives a different perspective. Was the force he used proportionate and reasonable? That’s the key question. The jury decided it was and nobody who wasn’t there at the trial has the details to say otherwise. We will have to agree to disagree. Regulation does not mean that things are done for the right reasons.My experiences with the legal profession has caused me to feel this way and when I have needed a lawyer it has been a negative experience. I fully expect you to stick up for your profession and would assume nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 15, 2018 7:27:52 GMT
As an ex Policeman I can verify that many people have ' got off with offences' that they have actually committed. Some have told me so. Some have said " I have done it, but you'll never prove it". Some have got off through a technicality of the law/ being charged with the slightly wrong offence eg Sec 18 instead of Sec 20 of the ( old?)Offences Against the Person Act.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 15, 2018 9:01:23 GMT
Speaking up as a member of the legal profession, the vast majority of my cases don’t require the court or a barrister and are settled by agreement between the parties. To assume all lawyers are morally bankrupt when we are virtually the most regulated profession out there is way off the mark. I hope you are never in a position to need a lawyer but if/when you are you should do your homework and your view will change. I was also surprised by the Stokes outcome but when you read the gay couple calling him a hero for saving from an attack by two blokes with a bottle, it gives a different perspective. Was the force he used proportionate and reasonable? That’s the key question. The jury decided it was and nobody who wasn’t there at the trial has the details to say otherwise. We will have to agree to disagree. Regulation does not mean that things are done for the right reasons.My experiences with the legal profession has caused me to feel this way and when I have needed a lawyer it has been a negative experience. I fully expect you to stick up for your profession and would assume nothing less. Lawyers are not the arbiters of doing things for the right reasons. Their job is to represent their client to the best of their ability within the constraints of the law and the regulations. A lawyer’s overriding duty is to the court and not their client. I work for a firm that represent the SRA against solicitors who are in breach of the regulations. I know first hand how corrupt and dishonest a very small minority are. But they are not in any way representative of the profession. Sorry to hear you have had bad personal experiences with lawyers but we aren’t all as you think we are.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Aug 15, 2018 9:06:07 GMT
As an ex Policeman I can verify that many people have ' got off with offences' that they have actually committed. Some have told me so. Some have said " I have done it, but you'll never prove it". Some have got off through a technicality of the law/ being charged with the slightly wrong offence eg Sec 18 instead of Sec 20 of the ( old?)Offences Against the Person Act. That’s disappointing to hear but also not at all surprising. If it were easier to convict criminals then far more innocent people would also be found guilty and you would have far more politically motivated arrests. The threashold in criminal law is very high on purpose because the impact on the accused and their family can be so high if found guilty and so there has to be beyond any reasonable doubt that they are guilty.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Aug 15, 2018 9:11:27 GMT
A police caution for some sort of public order or drunk and disorderly would have been more justice
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 9:24:25 GMT
You are mistaking justice with the concept of who can pay the most for the best barrister. That is what justice comes down to in this country, not the actual facts of the case. It’s why I have zero time for anyone in the legal profession; they are morally bankrupt but hide behind the noble facade of justice being pure and equally available to everyone. Speaking up as a member of the legal profession, the vast majority of my cases don’t require the court or a barrister and are settled by agreement between the parties. To assume all lawyers are morally bankrupt when we are virtually the most regulated profession out there is way off the mark. I hope you are never in a position to need a lawyer but if/when you are you should do your homework and your view will change. I was also surprised by the Stokes outcome but when you read the gay couple calling him a hero for saving from an attack by two blokes with a bottle, it gives a different perspective. Was the force he used proportionate and reasonable? That’s the key question. The jury decided it was and nobody who wasn’t there at the trial has the details to say otherwise. Reasonable force is not knocking someone out though, is it? Should have been charged with assault and the evidence was clear as is the now FACT that rich people get away with murder.
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Aug 15, 2018 9:26:11 GMT
We will have to agree to disagree. Regulation does not mean that things are done for the right reasons.My experiences with the legal profession has caused me to feel this way and when I have needed a lawyer it has been a negative experience. I fully expect you to stick up for your profession and would assume nothing less. Lawyers are not the arbiters of doing things for the right reasons. Their job is to represent their client to the best of their ability within the constraints of the law and the regulations. A lawyer’s overriding duty is to the court and not their client. I work for a firm that represent the SRA against solicitors who are in breach of the regulations. I know first hand how corrupt and dishonest a very small minority are. But they are not in any way representative of the profession. Sorry to hear you have had bad personal experiences with lawyers but we aren’t all as you think we are. If their overriding duty is to the court and not the client how does this best represent the client....surely there is a conflict. I just think there is this notion promoted by the legal profession that better the legal system is served rather than the client. If I was a customer or client, I would expect the person providing that service to me to be serving my interests and my interests alone. PS....I’m sure you are a very nice chap and there are some decent lawyers with a set of morals to do the right thing; I’ve just yet to encounter any.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 9:32:07 GMT
Lawyers are not the arbiters of doing things for the right reasons. Their job is to represent their client to the best of their ability within the constraints of the law and the regulations. A lawyer’s overriding duty is to the court and not their client. I work for a firm that represent the SRA against solicitors who are in breach of the regulations. I know first hand how corrupt and dishonest a very small minority are. But they are not in any way representative of the profession. Sorry to hear you have had bad personal experiences with lawyers but we aren’t all as you think we are. If their overriding duty is to the court and not the client how does this best represent the client....surely there is a conflict. I just think there is this notion promoted by the legal profession that better the legal system is served rather than the client. If I was a customer or client, I would expect the person providing that service to me to be serving my interests and my interests alone. PS....I’m sure you are a very nice chap and there are some decent lawyers with a set of morals to do the right thing; I’ve just yet to encounter any. Our obligation is to represent the client. Of course, as officers of the Court, we have a duty to the Court that will often overlap. However as long as the client is aware of the position there will be no conflict. I'm not sure what lawyers you have dealt with but I'm positive if you ever find yourself on the wrong side of the law you'll be glad you have or another next to you
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 9:38:50 GMT
Speaking up as a member of the legal profession, the vast majority of my cases don’t require the court or a barrister and are settled by agreement between the parties. To assume all lawyers are morally bankrupt when we are virtually the most regulated profession out there is way off the mark. I hope you are never in a position to need a lawyer but if/when you are you should do your homework and your view will change. I was also surprised by the Stokes outcome but when you read the gay couple calling him a hero for saving from an attack by two blokes with a bottle, it gives a different perspective. Was the force he used proportionate and reasonable? That’s the key question. The jury decided it was and nobody who wasn’t there at the trial has the details to say otherwise. Reasonable force is not knocking someone out though, is it? Should have been charged with assault and the evidence was clear as is the now FACT that rich people get away with murder. The jury decided it was. End of discussion. You can't weigh up a niceity when dealing with a situation. Whether it was an assault or an affray the defence and outcome would have been the same. Not sure what being rich has to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 9:57:11 GMT
Reasonable force is not knocking someone out though, is it? Should have been charged with assault and the evidence was clear as is the now FACT that rich people get away with murder. The jury decided it was. End of discussion. You can't weigh up a niceity when dealing with a situation. Whether it was an assault or an affray the defence and outcome would have been the same. Not sure what being rich has to do with it. For a poor person it would have been sorted on one day by a magistrate, the option of taking it to crown court with an expensive barrister would not have been there. Nor would the "Media Show" have been there. I would have expected a charge of common assault with a six month suspended jail sentence if it was a first offence. However if he was threatened with a bottle then the other person should also have been found guilty of threatening behaviour. To find both parties not guilty is just stupid as in any disagreement one party at least has to be the aggressor.
|
|