Stokes Arrested

[TNT]

On a side note if the ECB wont play him because he is waiting to see if he will be charged how is it they will let him play in NZ. Would he be allowed to play county cricket?.

 

[sledger]

On a side note if the ECB wont play him because he is waiting to see if he will be charged how is it they will let him play in NZ. Would he be allowed to play county cricket?.

Well they don't have the jurisdiction to stop him from playing in NZ for one.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

He will be playing at Mainpower Oval in Rangiora - population of 18,000.

 

[StephenZA]

Well they don't have the jurisdiction to stop him from playing in NZ for one.

Think he had to get a No Objection Certificate from ECB... so most have some say.

 

[Woodster]

Hahaha what a load of ****. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back this up?

If you are asking whether I have collated statistics in this area based on the last 20 years in order to build a case so I can therefore have a more informed opinion on this debate, then obviously the answer is no.

It is however a common 'perception' that I share along with many people I know throughout the United Kingdom based on life experiences rather than a bunch of figures I have seen ast at my desk. People that cause and instigate trouble are making a rod for their own backs.

To say it is a load of **** is your opinion, though I'd expect you to express that in a slightly more grown up manner.

 

[sledger]

If you are asking whether I have collated statistics in this area based on the last 20 years in order to build a case so I can therefore have a more informed opinion on this debate, then obviously the answer is no.

It is however a common 'perception' that I share along with many people I know throughout the United Kingdom based on life experiences rather than a bunch of figures I have seen ast at my desk. People that cause and instigate trouble are making a rod for their own backs.

To say it is a load of **** is your opinion, though I'd expect you to express that in a slightly more grown up manner.

Then the common perception is also a load of ****.

Anyway, go on then, I'll indulge you.

Can you tell me which "law" you refer to as a great protector of hooligans actually says? Surely if you're able to make a sweeping statement about how it is unfit for purpose, you must presumably be able to explain said law to me.

 

[Woodster]

Then the common perception is also a load of ****.

Anyway, go on then, I'll indulge you.

Can you tell me which "law" you refer to as a great protector of hooligans actually says? Surely if you're able to make a sweeping statement about how it is unfit for purpose, you must presumably be able to explain said law to me.

Ok, can you explain to me what the perpetrators of the Stokes incident have been charged with ?

 

[sledger]

Ok, can you explain to me what the perpetrators of the Stokes incident have been charged with ?

The decision to charge them/not charge them has nothing to do with the law. It is a matter of criminal justice process. Stop trying to avoid answering the question.

 

[StephenZA]

Ok, can you explain to me what the perpetrators of the Stokes incident have been charged with ?

But nobody has been charged in that incident... the case has gone to CPS who will decide if anybody in the incident should be charged. The case is not just on Stokes! So asking that question is pointless.

 

[Woodster]

Doesn't a homeowner have a leniency of 'reasonable force' in order to restrain or stop the perpetrator from taking all their hard earned valuables ? Bull****, I know we're going off topic so I will indeed keep this exceptionally brief, a burglar gets into your house and you're of the mindset to seek retribution, the burglar deserves everything he gets, reaonable force or not!

 

[Woodster]

The decision to charge them/not charge them has nothing to do with the law. It is a matter of criminal justice process. Stop trying to avoid answering the question.

But nobody has been charged in that incident... the case has gone to CPS who will decide if anybody in the incident should be charged. The case is not just on Stokes! So asking that question is pointless.

But surely Stokes will be punished more than those that instigated this situation ?

 

[sledger]

Doesn't a homeowner have a leniency of 'reasonable force' in order to restrain or stop the perpetrator from taking all their hard earned valuables ? Bull****, I know we're going off topic so I will indeed keep this exceptionally brief, a burglar gets into your house and you're of the mindset to seek retribution, the burglar deserves everything he gets, reaonable force or not!

I'll ask again. Which law is faulty? Since you are happy to decry how bad it is, surely the least you can do is identify it.

 

[StephenZA]

But surely Stokes will be punished more than those that instigated this situation ?

Why? We don't know what the legal charges would be? It is pure speculation and presumption, as Sledger said it is a legal matter. If Strokes is determined to have reacted with unnecessary force he may get a greater charge but that does not mean the others get nothing or even something similar.

 

[StephenZA]

Doesn't a homeowner have a leniency of 'reasonable force' in order to restrain or stop the perpetrator from taking all their hard earned valuables ? Bull****, I know we're going off topic so I will indeed keep this exceptionally brief, a burglar gets into your house and you're of the mindset to seek retribution, the burglar deserves everything he gets, reaonable force or not!

That is a most terrifying thought... can't imagine what I would be like whenever somebody cut me off in the traffic and I wanted retribution!

 

[Woodster]

That is a most terrifying thought... can't imagine what I would be like whenever somebody cut me off in the traffic and I wanted retribution!

Somebody cutting someone up in traffic is a mistake, somebody wandering into someone's house to steal their belongings, now I'm not the sharpest legal eagle, but that strikes me of something a little more sinister and certainly more intent on the part of the perpetrator.

 

[sledger]

Somebody cutting someone up in traffic is a mistake, somebody wandering into someone's house to steal their belongings, now I'm not the sharpest legal eagle, but that strikes me of something a little more sinister and certainly more intent on the part of the perpetrator.

Burglary has nothing to do with the Stokes incident.

 

[StephenZA]

Somebody cutting someone up in traffic is a mistake, somebody wandering into someone's house to steal their belongings, now I'm not the sharpest legal eagle, but that strikes me of something a little more sinister and certainly more intent on the part of the perpetrator.

You have not driven around SA much... the number of near misses and deaths on the roads due to irresponsible driving is some of the worst in the world. I am still not allowed to take the law into my own hands, no matter how angry or upset I get.

 

[Woodster]

I'll ask again. Which law is faulty? Since you are happy to decry how bad it is, surely the least you can do is identify it.

I'm not bring dragged into a legal debate, an area I'm clearly not as well researched in as you are, my perception, whether I incorrectly worded one or two comments ('protects' may not have been exactly the right word) in my initial post or not, is that time and again those committing the initial crimes, those that are looking for trouble, walk away with a smaller punishment than those that have reacted to it.

 

[Woodster]

Burglary has nothing to do with the Stokes incident.

Then stop asking me to produce evidence/examples of incorrect laws!

 

[sledger]

I'm not bring dragged into a legal debate, an area I'm clearly not as well researched in as you are, my perception, whether I incorrectly worded one or two comments ('protects' may not have been exactly the right word) in my initial post or not, is that time and again those committing the initial crimes, those that are looking for trouble, walk away with a smaller punishment than those that have reacted to it.

How can you possibly claim this without any evidence?