Quote: Firkin @ 14th August 2018, 6:12 PMDreams can come true in America ! We need more good news like this Da Butt. Maybe a Sarah Palin sex tape ?
Yes!
Quote: zooo @ 14th August 2018, 6:33 PMOr raping underage girls and using the 'n' word.
And 'Yes!' again.
Maybe if babies knew there was a risk of them being eaten or punched in the face they wouldn't cry and poop as much. I think it's definitely worthy of further research.
As for Trump I really don't know what to think anymore. I liked him years ago on the American Apprentice because it was like the British version but x10 better and he didn't seem like such a bellend.
I've remained astounded someone as brash and clearly lacking in the understanding of global politics has become the President of the so called free world but no-one can deny he has broken new ground. The meeting with Kim Jong Un left me open mouthed because of how it has always seemed impossible. This could turn out to be one of those times when someone does great in the job even though they lack the traditional skills and prerequisites.
Quote: billwill @ 14th August 2018, 5:25 PMMy earlier response seems to have vanished.
Not a chance, the Mammals will die off early, the descendants of ants and cockroaches will take over.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PS: there was a fox in my garden today, s/he glared at me through the window then slunk off under my summer house. I do hope they are not undermining the foundations of the summer house by digging a lair under there.
That made me do some googling and it doesn't seem like they are viewed as pests (so there is no need for it/them to be exterminated) and according to Wiki they don't burrow large areas so the chances of them causing structural issues under the summer house are small but it's still something you should check out to be sure to be sure. Foxes are cute but I'm sure livestock like chickens and sheep strongly disagree.
Any holes they dig will become culverts for water that could become a major ballache so even though I don't think foxes should be killed I also think when it comes to problems with your property we should say to them "FUCK Y**", leave or die motherf**k***.
My dad discovered a problem earlier this year with trees on council property that had grown roots in to his land and had infiltrated the sewer system big time. If left it would have got a lot worse but thankfully after some snipping here and snipping there it's got the growth under control at least for now. Nothing to do with foxes though but still deserved a mention.
Quote: billwill @ 14th August 2018, 5:25 PMPS: there was a fox in my garden today, s/he glared at me through the window then slunk off under my summer house. I do hope they are not undermining the foundations of the summer house by digging a lair under there.
Better than them over mining and taking away all the coal.
Does anybody wonder if the jury was got at in the Ben Stokes trial? We all saw the tv footage of him kicking hell out of somebody. How can that result in an 'innocent' verdict?
Quote: Briosaid @ 15th August 2018, 12:04 AMDoes anybody wonder if the jury was got at in the Ben Stokes trial? We all saw the tv footage of him kicking hell out of somebody. How can that result in an 'innocent' verdict?
He wasn't innocent of attacking the other man and injuring him but having said that, he wasn't charged with attacking the other man and injuring him. He was charged with affray.
In order to be guilty of affray, his conduct would have to be such that a person of reasonable firmness might have feared for his safety despite not being involved in the altercation. We are all familiar with fights (usually in western saloons in films and on TV), which quickly get out of hand and involve violence between people other than the original combatants. That's the sort of incident that might well be described as an affray in English law. Also, it might be used to describe a situation where one man is being violent or is threatening violence to another, and his demeanour is such that a passerby might reasonably fear that he also might be targeted by the violent man.
On all the evidence in the Ben Stokes case, it seems to be that the violence was contained between the people involved and that a reasonable person walking past the scene would probably have decided that nobody involved in the violence was likely to extend that violence to a passerby. In those circumstances, the violence does not constitute affray in English law and the jury was right to acquit Mr Stokes.
Quote: Rood Eye @ 15th August 2018, 8:33 AMa person of reasonable firmness
What like Pamela Anderson or Jackie Chan or a strict teacher ? How to you prove someone is reasonably firm ? Do you prod them ?
As I understand it Stokes was defending two gay men from homophobic slurs. Looks like this trial was a bit of a home goal for Mr Ali. Nice to see they shook hands at the end of the trial. That's cricket for you.
Quote: Definitely Tarby @ 14th August 2018, 8:53 PMMaybe if babies knew there was a risk of them being eaten or punched in the face they wouldn't cry and poop as much.
Poop?
Were you referring to 'air biscuits' or defecation?
Or were you using the American version of 'to shite'.
Quote: Firkin @ 15th August 2018, 10:03 AMAs I understand it Stokes was defending two gay men from homophobic slurs.
The way I heard it Stokes was the one dishing out the homophobic slurs.
Quote: Firkin @ 15th August 2018, 10:03 AMAs I understand it Stokes was defending two gay men from homophobic slurs. Looks like this trial was a bit of a home goal for Mr Ali. Nice to see they shook hands at the end of the trial. That's cricket for you.
Home goal? I knew someone else who thought the same. I think you meant Own Goal.
And yes - I agree with zooo. He was hitting them.
Quote: zooo @ 15th August 2018, 3:23 PMThe way I heard it Stokes was the one dishing out the homophobic slurs.
According to one of the gay men involved, a man holding a bottle approached him and his partner aggressively and Stokes came across the road to intervene. Both gay men have expressed gratitude for Stokes' intervention.
I can see no reason why the gay man would tell such a story if it were not true.
So some nobhead goes out drinking and gets in a fight - happens all the time
I think videoing himself taking the piss out of Katie prices disabled child shows you what a prick this guy really is
Quote: Rood Eye @ 15th August 2018, 4:21 PMAccording to one of the gay men involved, a man holding a bottle approached him and his partner aggressively and Stokes came across the road to intervene. Both gay men have expressed gratitude for Stokes' intervention.
I can see no reason why the gay man would tell such a story if it were not true.
Because they were bribed? It's interesting that the defence didn't call them to give evidence. Men and cricket! Says it all.
Quote: Briosaid @ 15th August 2018, 7:04 PMBecause they were bribed? It's interesting that the defence didn't call them to give evidence. Men and cricket! Says it all.
Actually, it isn't at all interesting that the defence didn't call them to give evidence. Their testimony would have been worthless to the defence.
As I said in an earlier post, Stokes wasn't charged with assaulting anybody or with injuring anybody. If he had been so charged, he would have been convicted in the twinkling of an eye, based on the overwhelming evidence that, for at least part of the time, he was the aggressor in the conflict.
The prosecution services decided to charge him only with the very serious charge of affray and to ignore lesser charges of assault occasioning bodily harm which would have resulted in surefire convictions. Indeed, it seems that the prosecution realised their mistake shortly before the start of the trial when they tried to introduce the lesser charges in addition to the existing affray charge. The judge, however, was having none of it. He said the defence had spent a great deal of time working on the affray charge and it was not fair that the defence be ambushed with additional charges on the first day of the trial.
The question for the jury was therefore not "Did Stokes attack and injure anybody?"
The question was "Was his conduct sufficiently violent (either physically or verbally) that a reasonably strong and confident person standing or passing nearby might have feared for his/her safety?"
The jury was not convinced that such was the case. They must've taken the view that a passerby would probably have realised that the men fighting had some sort of quarrel with each other and were not simply looking for a fight with just anybody they could lay their hands on.
In terms of justice, he committed a crime and got away with it - simply because the prosecution didn't charge him with the crime he committed.
In terms of the law, the prosecution failed to prove the one charge they brought against him and he was, accordingly, acquitted.
So, it was a balls up. How convenient. Looks like we have a typical football hooligan scenario, but as I said - men and cricket. Lot of money involved there.