Search results

All-rounder Stokes, who in August was cleared of affray, has been fined a total of £30,000 and batsman Hales £17,500, £10,000 of which is suspended for 12 months from now. Hales did not face criminal charges. Their case was ruled on by the Cricket Disciplinary Commission, which is independent...

The CPS aren't involved in Family courts. I know that's stating the obvious. The CPS is basically Civil Service and have been cut back to the bone, and then some.

Which is why I've been saying wait until all the evidence is heard. I can imagine it was tragic for everyone. Life is short, and precious.

He has an agenda. I pointed out the article in the Other Stuff actually a niqab rather than a burka, and got the same response. I'm a liberal do gooder because I got on well with my Muslim neighbours in Huddersfield. I also said women choose to wear a niqab so it isn't the symbol of oppression...

Yes. One punch can kill. Someone takes a swing at you, and you punch them in self defence. They fall back on the pavement, hit their head and die. You are charged with manslaughter. Do you plead guilty, or is it a horrible accident? The cctv shows the actions but not the motives.

Is he on the jury? It's jurors who decide guilt or otherwise.

I hope it isn't and if it is, then he follows the letter of the law, rather than base his sentencing (if he is found guilty) on sentencing guidelines, not whether England or Durham need him. It's very possible, if he's found guilty, he won't be selected again.

You really do imagine some tosh.

Evidence under oath in court, where I can see the expression on the witnesses and defendant's face. Sorry for the boring reply.

That was my impression. I've no idea whether he'll be found guilty or not guilty, but am prepared to wait until all the evidence is heard, and not base my decision on whether he is ginger, a Kiwi, or lived in the north of England.

Have I missed something here? The jury doesn't go out to make a decision until all the evidence is given. I can only assume you were trying to be witty.

Possible that he'd stepped outside for a cigarette and then refused re-entry? Bouncers can be awkward like that.

This is the allegation from the prosecution, but one of the defence lawyers has already pointed out a flaw in the evidence.

I was reliably informed, the other day, that apeth was acceptable.

I have and I'm content to wait until all the evidence is heard before branding someone as head mental.

The 'random' tweet is being reported from the court room. You have no idea what happened before or after that clip of cctv.

Of course you wouldn't argue, you daft apeth. I used to print them off for the prosecutors to take to court with them. Why doesn't it seem the right thing to do? It can be up to year after giving your statement, before going to court to give evidence. Most of us can't remember what we did last...

Read the tweet.

Before you give evidence, you are given your statement to read again, whilst in the witness room.

Jumping to conclusions without evidence. That's why we have trials in this country with prosecution and defence lawyers.