Several troubling things about this case in my book.
I don't know how many of you have ever thrown a serious punch at anyone (as Stokes is shown doing not once but several times on film) let alone knocked them out. I never have.
Self defence which was his claim would suggest someone was advancing on him, not the other way round. The film only shows him going forward. Never retreating. If that is not aggression I don't know what is.
There is obviously some legal loophole or grey area in the law that the judge explained to the jury which got him off. Maybe it is the term affray which I do not 100% understand.
I also do not understand why the gay couple were not required to give evidence as that would surely have backed up or contradicted Stokes' story.
AK's statement that "The arrogance of some that they still feel they can argue with the jury based on what little they've heard about it in press thats out to get an England player" is correct if they are blaming the jury, as they are often directed by the judge.
However, being an apologist for someone who our eyes tells us used his sporting torso to beat up men clearly not as well built as him, having earlier imitated an insulting mincing pose in front of his gay "friends", makes me draw my own conclusions about the character of the man.
Finally, I wonder how much the case cost? I suspect we will all pick up the tab for a case that it now appears stood no chance of achieving a conviction, even with the benefit of clear video footage.