If true then we should let him go simple as that really . If not true then we could really do with the facts and not the hdm version to make an opinion based on facts .
im confused like a few others about the version of events ie a 15 stone bloke punching a women in the face and she only stumbles back ?

Obviously there is a time and a place for hitting Women, but Jason chose the wrong place, the wrong time, and it wasn't even his Woman! Her bloke should press charges for criminal damage!

Doesn't seem implausible. I know we're all brought up with 'Hollywood physics', but the force of a blow by itself is unlikely to knock somebody off their feet, unless they're unbalanced. Even a bullet from a handgun won't. People fall to the ground if they're knocked out or stunned, but not as a direct result of the force of a punch. That's my understanding anyway.

I find the comments by the judge a bit odd,

'I was very uneasy with his explanation that he went outside to 'make peace', which seemed to be an odd expression to use. I was also uneasy with the meeting at the retail park. It was four months after the event and, given he was supposed to be the injured party, I found that quite bizarre.
'The fact he was assaulted by two separate women within a short space of time for no apparent reason strikes me as being quite far-fetched.'
Now forgive me for being niave but the judge clearly has a bigotted viewpoint that women don't attack men, that men must be the instigators in violence.

He has added together a black eye and two friends version of events & come up with assault, now either the sentence shows that there is some doubt in the judges mind as to what has actually happened (in which case he is guessing/assuming a likely scenario) or he has handed out an extremely lenient sentence if he has no doubt that Crookes was the instigator and did not defend himself from violence from the other parties.

Also that not fully remembering events when you've had a few bevvies is a fairly common occurence, does the judge think we have perfect recall when we are sober, he needs to look at previous cases where someone has had a clear view of events as a witness stone cold sober and got things horribly wrong (in all innocence)

The judge is also very niave to think 'bizarre' someone would not want to make things go-away by having a meeting to smooth things over (guilty or not) who wants to go to court even if you are found innocent, it's a traumatic event either way.
I'm not for one instance condoning slapping/hitting out, drunk or not but certainly these things happen when alcohol is involved, yes there are guilty parties, sometimes we never know what really happened. I've seen/read instances of assault the police are not even remotely interested in, even with witnesses and video evidence. It seems that if it is a women on the end of things then you're more likely to 'get a result' for conviction than if it is a women against a man..
Things are never black and white and it is easy to apportion blame/make judgment & one side being believed over another oft on the basis of probability/bigotted viewpoint alone. I have had personal experience of this in (family) court were lies were told from the outset and due to the other party being the 'mother' everything stated was accepted as gospel without a single shred of evidence...

However, he has been found guilty, he has to face up to that, something that will hang over him long after he leaves FC. he should be given an opportunity to continue his career with Hull for now, he should be given strict stipulations as to his future behaviour/conduct, I'd even say that he should undergo regular alcohol/drug testing (which I think should be mandatory in the workplace anyhow) to show the club mean business. One slip, no matter how small then immediate termination.

No he doesn't he says to get attacked by two separate women in a short space of time. "Women" is incidental.

Good post, knockersbumpMKII - I found the judge's words odd as well...


and Judge Houlden said.....
.

All based on newspaper reporting, of course.

He said it was 'far fetched', why would that be? Does the judge not think that women can be violent after a few jars with seemingly little provacation (go out in any town centre most nights & you'll see for yourself)
He made a judgement on probability/his personal viewpoint that they did not attack Crookes first, unless there is an independant witness to say what happened from start to inish he has no real evidence to convict just the say-so of two friends.
The judges words are pretty clear in that he is using probability/guesswork and probably has experience of these types of cases to figure in his own mind how the events unfurled.. I don't know if there were witnesses but the judges viewpoint is bigotted as are most people's when it comes down to these types of scenarios..because women never hit/attack men in their eyes so the man must be guilty...

Nothing against Women! He seems 2 attacks by separate people (who happen to be women) far fetched.

Yeah, I know in your head you think that's fine, but trust me its not and you sound like a prat

He should have at least knocked her down. Imagine if it was travis burns against crookes! Not good release him.

Cutting!

Tubby Travis Bickle would probably miss being 5'3" 17 stone

I still wonder what Miller said to him about his lass "back home"

I'm please Briscoe repeated it too

Exactly how I saw it. Couldn't make it sound right without it sounding like condoning what a court of law has passed judgement on. I guess hull don't believe it neither hence the 'harsh' comment.

The kids made a big mistake in his life. Hands up those of us who haven't done something they are ashamed of?

My late dad used to say, there was only one man who never made a mistake and they crucified him.

Cut the lad some slack, and let him get on with his life. If he screws up again, THEN come down on him hard.

We all knew about this in January this year but the last I heard was he got questioned and nothing came of it.

I personally believe that everyone deserves a second chance but Jason Crookes second chance should have being at another club. Whether he was provoked or not, he is a professional and he represents our club. He should have gone IMO.

Blokes who go out on the and get 'nasty' with women are a scourge on society and a disgrace to the name of Hull FC. We are a family club and ask a lot of the player's wives what they think of what obviously happened.

I am no fan of his actions and yes he was found guilty

Murderers, Rapists & Paedophiles don't deserve a 2nd chance.

He did something that was cowardly and stupid, but to not give him a second chance is wrong IMO.

Don't think the club need to be 'publicly' seen to be doing anything either, I'm sure he'll be dealt with in-house. Just because AP may have remarked that he was treat harshly, doesn't mean he doesn't think he's an idiot in the first place.

I disagree, it sends a message out to the players or employees of this club that your ok to break the law once but you must behave afterwards. This was a big chance for Pearson IMO to show under his ownership the club has gone more professional and he has failed IMO.

you failed to read what the poster had said...'publicly' was the operative word. What goes on behind closed doors is down to FC, I for one do not think it sends the wrong message out in any case, that is what some people may think and they are entitled to their POV.
I think it says that AP isn't Draconian and can take a viewpoint that whilst (in the eyes of the law..which never gets anything wrong ever...

) a big mistake has being made, to cast away a young lad after making that mistake isn't the wholly right thing to do.
Whilst I'd never condone striking another without just cause this case isn't the worst crime ever committed, not by a long stretch (gauging by the judges sentence) .
The amount of vitriol on this forum is incredible, there's no thought of reform, there's no 2nd chance, there's no understanding that by binning someone off at the first sign of trouble it doesn't have a detrimental impact that ranges farther than one can deem imaginable. I imagine how perfect those whom are ready to sack Crookes off, that they are incapable of making mistakes....

I'm not saying Crookes isn't guilty, however the judges one sided, impartial (bigotted) comments spoke volumes to me, judges are very fallible, just as other humans are.
IF the club decide to keep him I hope that he is given guidance to try to ensure he doesn't step of the mark again

What have I missed? Is that what wound up Burns?

I never failed to read it, I just don't see how the club could deal with something like this internally.

We all make mistakes, me more then anybody. I go out drinking alot and have never had a fight whilst doing so. I don't think the judge is bigoted and even if he was your asking for trouble the minute you hit a women.

The fact of the matter is he would have got away with it if he hadn't of had a picture taken and I get the impression he only started to show some sort of remorse once he thought his career was on the line.

I have a sister who has being a victim of this in the past and its not very nice. If he didn't play for Hull FC I reckon alot of you would have different opinions. You all slated Travis Burns and Ryan Bailey in the past for much less.

To sack him would be harsh, relative to what has happened elsewhere. Cas kept their punishment of Richard Owen in house, when he smacked Santa. They did say though that its severity, reflected how seriously they took the incident. A suspension would have looked a bit hollow in the off season. As indeed would one for Jason Crookes while both Lineham and Briscoe were fit. Events have conspired to flip that and now the absence of a suspension looks bad. Giving him a suspension if he hadn't initially intended to, to appear strong, would actually be weak - and cutting his nose off. AP's quotes read like a slightly panicked and embarrassed attempt to bluff his way through an unfortunate set of circumstances, to me. As those circumstances were not of his making, I have some sympathy - tricky situation.

Why? He may have already been punished earlier in the season.

I'm sure that once he had been charged, a conversation would have taken place at the club and a decision made as to the action to be taken should he be found guilty. Adam has said his piece, Jason is going nowhere and its now up to the fans to put this behind them and get back to giving all the players their support.

This does not mean that I, in any way, condone what happened.

It's all well and good comparing punisments for different plays but every case is individual. Something to me seems like there is more to the case than is in the public eye which is why we can't be too quick to judge. I also think we we NEVER know the full facts as reporters can only fill a certain amount of newspaper inches with a story so can only pick out little pieces of the case summary that is often sensationalised. Let me make it clear i do not condone anything like this, i just think every case is individual and should not be treated with a blanket punishment