Ben Stokes victim or...
Comments
-
nickice wrote:mamba80 wrote:nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:Rooney got away ridiculously lightly with the drink driving so I expect it will happen again here, so not really holding my breath.
He pleaded guilty and got a two-year ban and 100 hours community service. I don't think he got off lightly to be honest.
he was sentenced at the lower end for someone 3x over the DD limit and with a passenger.
given he can afford 3 or 4 drivers for 2 years with a weeks wages, 100 hours going into schools teaching a bit of footie to adoring fans......what exactly is his punishment?
But what exactly was the crime? His first drink-driving offence (in fact his first offence) which was admittedly stupid but I'd bet he was going really slowly and probably not that far. It's still a crime but hardly crime of the century. In fact, it's par for the course here in France and a lot of people do it without even thinking about it. That's not right but people calling for his head in this case are simply being over-zealous. Regarding the community service, it did cross my mind that it'd be more of a punishment to be picking up litter than coaching kids so I'd agree there.
Seriously? You're condoning drink driving?
FFS ..........Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:mamba80 wrote:nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:k?
He's worth 140 million. Chuck the financial book at him- it won't hurt him personally buy will wee-wee him off.
Complete and utter - foul mouthed, aggressive, adulterous, shyyyt gambler - the full bag.
And not even really that good to tell the truth.
None of this has anything at all to with his drink driving. I get it that you don't like him (and Ben Stokes) but you're conflating your personal hatred of them and what you see as their failings as individuals with the severity of the punishment they should receive. Personally I'm all for harsher sentencing and complete revamp of prisons so that they exist to punish and rehabilitate criminals rather than just warehouse them with a ready supply of illegal drugs in the hope that it stops them rioting. But that is for a different debate. Sentencing is a joke in this country. An Oxford student walked free last week despite stabbing her boyfriend after abusing illegal class A drugs........I mean FFS what do you have to do to go to jail in this country????!!!! If you put Rooney's offending in that sort of context then I'd say a 2 year ban and 100 hours community service for a first offence is positively draconian! What would you like to see? A hand each chopped off for being a shyyyt gambler and adultery with ugly prostitutes?0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:nickice wrote:mamba80 wrote:nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:Rooney got away ridiculously lightly with the drink driving so I expect it will happen again here, so not really holding my breath.
He pleaded guilty and got a two-year ban and 100 hours community service. I don't think he got off lightly to be honest.
he was sentenced at the lower end for someone 3x over the DD limit and with a passenger.
given he can afford 3 or 4 drivers for 2 years with a weeks wages, 100 hours going into schools teaching a bit of footie to adoring fans......what exactly is his punishment?
But what exactly was the crime? His first drink-driving offence (in fact his first offence) which was admittedly stupid but I'd bet he was going really slowly and probably not that far. It's still a crime but hardly crime of the century. In fact, it's par for the course here in France and a lot of people do it without even thinking about it. That's not right but people calling for his head in this case are simply being over-zealous. Regarding the community service, it did cross my mind that it'd be more of a punishment to be picking up litter than coaching kids so I'd agree there.
Seriously? You're condoning drink driving?
FFS ..........
Obviously not and you must know that. I mean I've even said above that I don't condone it. I just think the punishment should fit the crime which it does in Wayne Rooney 's case0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:mamba80 wrote:nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:Rooney got away ridiculously lightly with the drink driving so I expect it will happen again here, so not really holding my breath.
He pleaded guilty and got a two-year ban and 100 hours community service. I don't think he got off lightly to be honest.
he was sentenced at the lower end for someone 3x over the DD limit and with a passenger.
given he can afford 3 or 4 drivers for 2 years with a weeks wages, 100 hours going into schools teaching a bit of footie to adoring fans......what exactly is his punishment?
This.
100 hours community and a grand or so fine? Bollox punishment. Hes on 360,000 a week, so maximum fine - I understand that in the Netherlands they fine you on a ratio of your income, so why not?
Another arrogant twaaat - and if anyone thinks the letter of contrition was written by him and not his lawyer - well, say no more.
The judge said that he wasn't convinced any financial penalty would be sufficient punishment. Considering where he comes from and how young he was when he became famous, I'd say he's turned out alright. I don't watch football but is he really known as a pri$k?
He's worth 140 million. Chuck the financial book at him- it won't hurt him personally buy will wee-wee him off.
Complete and utter - foul mouthed, aggressive, adulterous, shyyyt gambler - the full bag.
And not even really that good to tell the truth.
Adulterous? You sound like a religious zealot.0 -
So shagging prostitues and who knows what else isn't adultery to you wife of how many years and 4 kids?Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:nickice wrote:mamba80 wrote:nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:Rooney got away ridiculously lightly with the drink driving so I expect it will happen again here, so not really holding my breath.
He pleaded guilty and got a two-year ban and 100 hours community service. I don't think he got off lightly to be honest.
he was sentenced at the lower end for someone 3x over the DD limit and with a passenger.
given he can afford 3 or 4 drivers for 2 years with a weeks wages, 100 hours going into schools teaching a bit of footie to adoring fans......what exactly is his punishment?
But what exactly was the crime? His first drink-driving offence (in fact his first offence) which was admittedly stupid but I'd bet he was going really slowly and probably not that far. It's still a crime but hardly crime of the century. In fact, it's par for the course here in France and a lot of people do it without even thinking about it. That's not right but people calling for his head in this case are simply being over-zealous. Regarding the community service, it did cross my mind that it'd be more of a punishment to be picking up litter than coaching kids so I'd agree there.
Seriously? You're condoning drink driving?
FFS ..........
Obviously not and you must know that. I mean I've even said above that I don't condone it. I just think the punishment should fit the crime which it does in Wayne Rooney 's case
"Hardly crime of the century"
"Going really slowly and probably not that far"
B"being over zealous"
Oh no, of course that's not condoning it.
Crack on fella - have a Pastis or two and drive home.
Can you drop a post next time you're leaving the local bar/tabac in your voiture as I particularly don't want to be within 10 miles of you.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:So shagging prostitues and who knows what else isn't adultery to you wife of how many years and 4 kids?
Yes but adultery isn't a crime which I'm sure you realise is the point Nick is making. Neither is being a rubbish gambler or not being as good a footballer as you think he should be.0 -
Jesus guys, you know Matthew trolls when he's bored.
As for Stokes, I'm not getting into the debate about the legal implications of his actions as it's not something I know much about. Regarding his career though Micheal Vaughan said he knows of conversations and warnings he was given about his off field activities a while ago and if he hasn't heeded them then he can't really complain. Personally I've no idea why you'd waste your time in nightclubs making a target of yourself when you've the talent and opportunities to forge a much better life away from them.0 -
Shortfall wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:So shagging prostitues and who knows what else isn't adultery to you wife of how many years and 4 kids?
Yes but adultery isn't a crime which I'm sure you realise is the point Nick is making. Neither is being a rubbish gambler or not being as good a footballer as you think he should be.
Were not discussing the criminality of adultery more the definition and morality.
Womble above reckons it's ok to drink and drive and shag around behind your wife's back.
My opinion differs.
Call me old fashioned .............Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Shortfall wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:So shagging prostitues and who knows what else isn't adultery to you wife of how many years and 4 kids?
Yes but adultery isn't a crime which I'm sure you realise is the point Nick is making. Neither is being a rubbish gambler or not being as good a footballer as you think he should be.
No it's not. RTP.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:nickice wrote:mamba80 wrote:nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:Rooney got away ridiculously lightly with the drink driving so I expect it will happen again here, so not really holding my breath.
He pleaded guilty and got a two-year ban and 100 hours community service. I don't think he got off lightly to be honest.
he was sentenced at the lower end for someone 3x over the DD limit and with a passenger.
given he can afford 3 or 4 drivers for 2 years with a weeks wages, 100 hours going into schools teaching a bit of footie to adoring fans......what exactly is his punishment?
But what exactly was the crime? His first drink-driving offence (in fact his first offence) which was admittedly stupid but I'd bet he was going really slowly and probably not that far. It's still a crime but hardly crime of the century. In fact, it's par for the course here in France and a lot of people do it without even thinking about it. That's not right but people calling for his head in this case are simply being over-zealous. Regarding the community service, it did cross my mind that it'd be more of a punishment to be picking up litter than coaching kids so I'd agree there.
Seriously? You're condoning drink driving?
FFS ..........
Obviously not and you must know that. I mean I've even said above that I don't condone it. I just think the punishment should fit the crime which it does in Wayne Rooney 's case
"Hardly crime of the century"
"Going really slowly and probably not that far"
B"being over zealous"
Oh no, of course that's not condoning it.
Crack on fella - have a Pastis or two and drive home.
Can you drop a post next time you're leaving the local bar/tabac in your voiture as I particularly don't want to be within 10 miles of you.
Missing out the bits where I said it's a crime and it isn't right. Also, it's not something I indulge in but you clearly lack the maturity to see the difference between questioning a punishment and supporting the commission of a crime.
Perhaps you can tell me what part of the Rooney drink-driving incident makes it such a great crime? Now, we both agree it's a crime but in your book it seems to be up there with far worse offences.0 -
No he doesn't, you've made that up.Matthewfalle wrote:Shortfall wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:So shagging prostitues and who knows what else isn't adultery to you wife of how many years and 4 kids?
Womble above reckons it's ok to drink and drive and shag around behind your wife's back.
.............0 -
I think that we all agree that it is a crime, wrong and dangerous.nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:nickice wrote:mamba80 wrote:nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:Rooney got away ridiculously lightly with the drink driving so I expect it will happen again here, so not really holding my breath.
He pleaded guilty and got a two-year ban and 100 hours community service. I don't think he got off lightly to be honest.
he was sentenced at the lower end for someone 3x over the DD limit and with a passenger.
given he can afford 3 or 4 drivers for 2 years with a weeks wages, 100 hours going into schools teaching a bit of footie to adoring fans......what exactly is his punishment?
But what exactly was the crime? His first drink-driving offence (in fact his first offence) which was admittedly stupid but I'd bet he was going really slowly and probably not that far. It's still a crime but hardly crime of the century. In fact, it's par for the course here in France and a lot of people do it without even thinking about it. That's not right but people calling for his head in this case are simply being over-zealous. Regarding the community service, it did cross my mind that it'd be more of a punishment to be picking up litter than coaching kids so I'd agree there.
Seriously? You're condoning drink driving?
FFS ..........
Obviously not and you must know that. I mean I've even said above that I don't condone it. I just think the punishment should fit the crime which it does in Wayne Rooney 's case
"Hardly crime of the century"
"Going really slowly and probably not that far"
B"being over zealous"
Oh no, of course that's not condoning it.
Crack on fella - have a Pastis or two and drive home.
Can you drop a post next time you're leaving the local bar/tabac in your voiture as I particularly don't want to be within 10 miles of you.
Missing out the bits where I said it's a crime and it isn't right. Also, it's not something I indulge in but you clearly lack the maturity to see the difference between questioning a punishment and supporting the commission of a crime.
Perhaps you can tell me what part of the Rooney drink-driving incident makes it such a great crime? Now, we both agree it's a crime but in your book it seems to be up there with far worse offences.
The problem some people have is that the punishment appears to be negligible to someone of his means.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I thought the fact Everton had fined Rooney 2 weeks wages (about £320,000 iirc), was used in mitigation during the case,0
-
Matthewfalle wrote:
Complete and utter - foul mouthed, aggressive, adulterous, shyyyt gambler - the full bag.
And not even really that good to tell the truth.
Never comes across as particularly foul mouthed or aggressive to me but saying the England and Man Utd all time record goal scorer is not that good does suggest you are somewhat blinkered.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
If a brickie was fined 2 weeks wages then we would all agree it was too light a sentence, no? Which was rather the point. PS - Stokes=knob.awavey wrote:I thought the fact Everton had fined Rooney 2 weeks wages (about £320,000 iirc), was used in mitigation during the case,The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
I think that we all agree that it is a crime, wrong and dangerous.nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:nickice wrote:mamba80 wrote:nickice wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:Rooney got away ridiculously lightly with the drink driving so I expect it will happen again here, so not really holding my breath.
He pleaded guilty and got a two-year ban and 100 hours community service. I don't think he got off lightly to be honest.
he was sentenced at the lower end for someone 3x over the DD limit and with a passenger.
given he can afford 3 or 4 drivers for 2 years with a weeks wages, 100 hours going into schools teaching a bit of footie to adoring fans......what exactly is his punishment?
But what exactly was the crime? His first drink-driving offence (in fact his first offence) which was admittedly stupid but I'd bet he was going really slowly and probably not that far. It's still a crime but hardly crime of the century. In fact, it's par for the course here in France and a lot of people do it without even thinking about it. That's not right but people calling for his head in this case are simply being over-zealous. Regarding the community service, it did cross my mind that it'd be more of a punishment to be picking up litter than coaching kids so I'd agree there.
Seriously? You're condoning drink driving?
FFS ..........
Obviously not and you must know that. I mean I've even said above that I don't condone it. I just think the punishment should fit the crime which it does in Wayne Rooney 's case
"Hardly crime of the century"
"Going really slowly and probably not that far"
B"being over zealous"
Oh no, of course that's not condoning it.
Crack on fella - have a Pastis or two and drive home.
Can you drop a post next time you're leaving the local bar/tabac in your voiture as I particularly don't want to be within 10 miles of you.
Missing out the bits where I said it's a crime and it isn't right. Also, it's not something I indulge in but you clearly lack the maturity to see the difference between questioning a punishment and supporting the commission of a crime.
Perhaps you can tell me what part of the Rooney drink-driving incident makes it such a great crime? Now, we both agree it's a crime but in your book it seems to be up there with far worse offences.
The problem some people have is that the punishment appears to be negligible to someone of his means.
As it would be to anyone who can afford a driver. Then again, if I was banned from driving, it would also be fairly minor inconvenience for me and I'm not rich. I think the fact he's been publicly humiliated would also be taken into account. And 100 hours community service is a fair bit when you think about it.0 -
1. Exactly.
2. Hopefully lessons learned.
3. 100 hours kickabout with fans is hardly punishment. More good pr.
As an aside, a first conviction is not necessarily doing it for the first time.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
If a brickie was fined 2 weeks wages then we would all agree it was too light a sentence, no? Which was rather the point. PS - Stokes=knob.awavey wrote:I thought the fact Everton had fined Rooney 2 weeks wages (about £320,000 iirc), was used in mitigation during the case,
You do realise that it was his employer that 'fined' Rooney 2 weeks wages not the court don't you?
Are you advocating that all employers mete out punishments to their employees? Do you foresee brickies being 'fined' by their employer in accordance with a Blakey scale? Self employed? Do they make a donation to charity?0 -
As an aside, it is correct that it is not necessarily his first time, but that is irrelevant.
It is the first time he has been convicted.0 -
Yes, I am aware it was his employer, it was someone else saying that it was taken into consideration.Ballysmate wrote:You do realise that it was his employer that 'fined' Rooney 2 weeks wages not the court don't you?
Are you advocating that all employers mete out punishments to their employees? Do you foresee brickies being 'fined' by their employer in accordance with a Blakey scale? Self employed? Do they make a donation to charity?
Yes, I do think that for a fine to be a punishment then it should be related to income, as it is in some other Countries. But no, the courts not employers.
He can only be punished as a first time offender, but someone earlier was supporting his character with it being his first time drink driving. I am merely pointing out that is not necessarily the case.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:1. Exactly.
2. Hopefully lessons learned.
3. 100 hours kickabout with fans is hardly punishment. More good pr.
As an aside, a first conviction is not necessarily doing it for the first time.
Agreed on the community service (is coaching what he's doing though). Much better to have him picking up litter but, then again, he's going to end up being a target for some idiot football fans if he does that.
I doubt he's regular drink driver just given how unnecessary it must be for him to drive. Then I saw the story that he was in her car and it all became clear.0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:Shortfall wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:So shagging prostitues and who knows what else isn't adultery to you wife of how many years and 4 kids?
Yes but adultery isn't a crime which I'm sure you realise is the point Nick is making. Neither is being a rubbish gambler or not being as good a footballer as you think he should be.
Were not discussing the criminality of adultery more the definition and morality.
Womble above reckons it's ok to drink and drive and shag around behind your wife's back.
My opinion differs.
Call me old fashioned .............
I've been shagging behind Womble's and your wife's back for years and I feel no shame whatsoever 0 -
No rational person should condone drink driving.
A colleague of mine was found asleep in his car just off the motorway. Cops had clocked him there a few hours earlier, so on the second drive-by decided to wake him up and breathalyse him. Several times over the limit, and his rambling account of the past few hours and the booze in the car led them to prosecute him for drink driving even though they didn't actually catch him doing it. I'm sure they could've found some video footage if they'd tried...
Second offence apparently, so his lawyer did well to limit the damage to an 18 month ban, sizeable fine and community service.
Not so successful the subsequent chat with HR...Dismissal with immediate effect. Sounds like he'd been unravelling for a while and this was the last straw.
He had a wife, child, mortgage. And, he's finally admitting, a drink problem. Might be the shock he needed to finally get some proper help, but my personal experience with alcoholics leaves me thinking otherwise
I'm just relieved they've taken him off the road before he killed anyone0 -
Drink driving is a misnomer these days AFAIK you can be charged simply for having the keys as you are technically in charge of the vehicle.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yep, been like that with the keys for a long time. I got told by a police driving instructor who was a volunteer instructor on a road safety course I did that of you've had a drink and decide to sleep if off in the car to throw the keys a distance from the car where you can find it again then sleep it off. If you get woken up my plod you've got no keys so can't be in control of car.
He told us stories of doing ppl for drunk driving in a layby near a popular, country pub just for sleeping with their keys in n their pocket when over the limit.0 -
Stokes has been found not guilty of affray.0
-
if that would have been you or I in the same circumstances... :roll:0
-
joe2008 wrote:if that would have been you or I in the same circumstances... :roll:
Would it have even made it to court?
The jury found him not guilty, not a member of the legal profession.
We go to very dangerous places if we convict someone based on the views of the Internet rather than the actual evidence0
