Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 19 Oct 2026, 17:40
BoxRec
Not a good look for Liam Smith
Page 1 of 2
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 19 Oct 2026, 18:52
Not a good look but he’s not convicted of anything so let’s withhold judgement until the details emerge
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 19 Oct 2026, 18:53
I’ve been in the dock looking awful in a headline. Not saying this is the case here but there’s often a deeper story. Judge him when the facts emerge. And I’m not a fan of any of the Smiths in any way shape or form.
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 19 Oct 2026, 19:23
Was the fella gay?
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 20 Oct 2026, 09:49
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 20 Oct 2026, 11:19
2028... You'd have to assume that's Liam's boxing career over. It's a lot to have hanging over you during a training camp and not the best look for the paying public.Judge Gilbart fixed a provisional trial date for the week commencing 15 March 2028.
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 20 Oct 2026, 11:20
ya the smiths got into a tear up in a gay district some years ago, and then beefy has regularly used homosexual slurs
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 20 Oct 2026, 11:34
isn't a lot of homophobia from closet homosexuals?margaret thatcher wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 11:20ya the smiths got into a tear up in a gay district some years ago, and then beefy has regularly used homosexual slurs
Tyson is a convicted rapist and that didn't stop him after prison. If there's one thing I've learnt from boxing recently it's boxers go broke and come back to fight again. £££
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 20 Oct 2026, 11:38
Reform Mayor of Hull seems to be in trouble too
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... of-himself
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... of-himself
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 20 Oct 2026, 12:05
If you're a politician you better have no skeletons in the cupboardgolden_labrador wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 11:38 Reform Mayor of Hull seems to be in trouble too
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... of-himself
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 20 Oct 2026, 14:03
or allegedly surprise your female colleagues with your nudestony1234 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 12:05If you're a politician you better have no skeletons in the cupboardgolden_labrador wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 11:38 Reform Mayor of Hull seems to be in trouble too
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... of-himself
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 20 Oct 2026, 15:37
I sometimes believe that individuals with skeletons in the closet are deliberately chosen so they can be open to manipulation by blackmail (not in this case necessarily)tony1234 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 12:05If you're a politician you better have no skeletons in the cupboardgolden_labrador wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 11:38 Reform Mayor of Hull seems to be in trouble too
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... of-himself
As for Liam Smith - the case is delayed until 2028?? That seems nuts. It doesn’t sound like a very complicated incident. These kind of cases used to be dealt with in 6 months……
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 20 Oct 2026, 16:31
Don't people ever learn , facts are facts , when you become , famous or rich or borh , you are a target , a small ruckus between drunks soon becomes a major problem if theres someone with fame and or money involved , who the fook in public office would keep nude pics of themselves on a computer never mind show them to women employees , (if its true ) if he did keep pics of himself he deserves sacking straight away , simply because why allow someone that dumb in charge of a budget worth 100's of millions .
Case going on here , 5-6 young footballers , got some hookers in to there hotel rooms to perform lap dances , and are now suprised the hookers are claiming they were assaulted , when during the dances one or two of them got there arse slapped ,, thats 5-6 futures diwn the drain , couple marragies ruined , and why cos some hookers smelt , MONEY , Now there ashamed scared to go out and lap dance , , scared to take bookings in hotel rooms and feel they must be compensated , how thick were these guys
Case going on here , 5-6 young footballers , got some hookers in to there hotel rooms to perform lap dances , and are now suprised the hookers are claiming they were assaulted , when during the dances one or two of them got there arse slapped ,, thats 5-6 futures diwn the drain , couple marragies ruined , and why cos some hookers smelt , MONEY , Now there ashamed scared to go out and lap dance , , scared to take bookings in hotel rooms and feel they must be compensated , how thick were these guys
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 20 Oct 2026, 16:49
You really don't get charged with gbh unless there is serious injury, so safe to assume that there is a significant level of injury and indeed the BBC article states that the alleged victim was hospitalised and suffered facial injuries.2520386 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 02:55 I’ve seen a video of this and it’s not as brutal as it sounds. Liam’s clearly pissed and there are people fighting him back. I was told it was him who had been attacked.
I fully understand as he’s a professional fighter he shouldn’t be in these situations but when you see it, doesn’t look like anyone was badly hurt.
Infact I felt a bit embarrassed for beefy.
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 20 Oct 2026, 17:57
I admit I haven't seen the video and only know what I've been able to glean from this forum.liamlion wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 16:49You really don't get charged with gbh unless there is serious injury, so safe to assume that there is a significant level of injury and indeed the BBC article states that the alleged victim was hospitalised and suffered facial injuries.2520386 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 02:55 I’ve seen a video of this and it’s not as brutal as it sounds. Liam’s clearly pissed and there are people fighting him back. I was told it was him who had been attacked.
I fully understand as he’s a professional fighter he shouldn’t be in these situations but when you see it, doesn’t look like anyone was badly hurt.
Infact I felt a bit embarrassed for beefy.
That being said, a person can be taken to the emergency room (hospitalized) and treated for a broken nose with cuts (facial injuries), or it could be something much more serious and/or potentially life-altering. This could also be the matter of a prosecutor looking to make a name for him or herself, or as what happens here in the States quite regularly, hit with them with the most egregious charges possible and then plea bargain down from there.
But as Liamlion stated, Smith shouldn't have put himself in that position in the first place, although that's often easier said than done. However, if he was the one who was initially attacked, he should have the right to defend himself to the extent that the threat was no longer a threat.
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 20 Oct 2026, 18:22
This isn't the US legal system pal. The Crown Prosecution Service have a code to follow when charging people with criminal offences. There is case law as to what level of injury amounts to grievous bodily harm. It's easy to do serious damage to someone by punching them to the face. Generally the level of injury isn't in dispute as it's independently, medically verified and evidenced by the doctor at hospital dealing with the injury.MPW wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 17:57I admit I haven't seen the video and only know what I've been able to glean from this forum.liamlion wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 16:49You really don't get charged with gbh unless there is serious injury, so safe to assume that there is a significant level of injury and indeed the BBC article states that the alleged victim was hospitalised and suffered facial injuries.2520386 wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 02:55 I’ve seen a video of this and it’s not as brutal as it sounds. Liam’s clearly pissed and there are people fighting him back. I was told it was him who had been attacked.
I fully understand as he’s a professional fighter he shouldn’t be in these situations but when you see it, doesn’t look like anyone was badly hurt.
Infact I felt a bit embarrassed for beefy.
That being said, a person can be taken to the emergency room (hospitalized) and treated for a broken nose with cuts (facial injuries), or it could be something much more serious and/or potentially life-altering. This could also be the matter of a prosecutor looking to make a name for him or herself, or as what happens here in the States quite regularly, hit with them with the most egregious charges possible and then plea bargain down from there.
But as Liamlion stated, Smith shouldn't have put himself in that position in the first place, although that's often easier said than done. However, if he was the one who was initially attacked, he should have the right to defend himself to the extent that the threat was no longer a threat.
Charges can be reduced by agreement between the prosecution and defence on a guilty plea but if you're getting charged with Section 18, gbh with intent the likely best outcome to avoid a trial and preserve credit in sentence is usually to offer a guilty plea to a lesser offence of Section 20, gbh. It's not often a gbh would be dropped to an abh but it is possible.
The law on self defence is quite clear too. Essentially you have to fear for your immediate safety and your actions have to be reasonable (not excessive) and necessary. Self-defence is a matter for the jury to determine at trial. Punching someone who is on the ground would generally not be considered self-defence but Ben Stokes and Steven Gerard both got amazing outcomes despite the law and evidence seemingly against them owing to favourable juries, so unexpected outcomes at crown court trials do happen.
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 20 Oct 2026, 18:28
I have always found
Liam as extremely pleasant and approachable.
Typical of certain posters ..😡😡😡😡
Liam as extremely pleasant and approachable.
Typical of certain posters ..😡😡😡😡
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 21 Oct 2026, 02:47
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 21 Oct 2026, 05:00
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 21 Oct 2026, 09:57
Stokes got off because the route to verdict for affray was very favourable for him.liamlion wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 18:22This isn't the US legal system pal. The Crown Prosecution Service have a code to follow when charging people with criminal offences. There is case law as to what level of injury amounts to grievous bodily harm. It's easy to do serious damage to someone by punching them to the face. Generally the level of injury isn't in dispute as it's independently, medically verified and evidenced by the doctor at hospital dealing with the injury.MPW wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 17:57I admit I haven't seen the video and only know what I've been able to glean from this forum.
That being said, a person can be taken to the emergency room (hospitalized) and treated for a broken nose with cuts (facial injuries), or it could be something much more serious and/or potentially life-altering. This could also be the matter of a prosecutor looking to make a name for him or herself, or as what happens here in the States quite regularly, hit with them with the most egregious charges possible and then plea bargain down from there.
But as Liamlion stated, Smith shouldn't have put himself in that position in the first place, although that's often easier said than done. However, if he was the one who was initially attacked, he should have the right to defend himself to the extent that the threat was no longer a threat.
Charges can be reduced by agreement between the prosecution and defence on a guilty plea but if you're getting charged with Section 18, gbh with intent the likely best outcome to avoid a trial and preserve credit in sentence is usually to offer a guilty plea to a lesser offence of Section 20, gbh. It's not often a gbh would be dropped to an abh but it is possible.
The law on self defence is quite clear too. Essentially you have to fear for your immediate safety and your actions have to be reasonable (not excessive) and necessary. Self-defence is a matter for the jury to determine at trial. Punching someone who is on the ground would generally not be considered self-defence but Ben Stokes and Steven Gerard both got amazing outcomes despite the law and evidence seemingly against them owing to favourable juries, so unexpected outcomes at crown court trials do happen.
It is why the prosecution tried to bring either assault or ABH in on the first day, and the judge told them to do one as the defence had prepared for the affray charge
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 21 Oct 2026, 10:00
Yes, I am sure Spud would be like 'that Ted Bundy gets a hard press, he was dead nice to me once'.
Of course we don't know the circumstances so I will reserve judgement on the case, but if Gandhi started pounding guys when they were already down (as it being reported) he would be in a lot of trouble.
But we should not rush to judgement
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 21 Oct 2026, 10:08
Thanks for the info on the Crown Prosecution Service. Obviously, I'm not familiar with it, and my comments weren't intended to disparage it.liamlion wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 18:22This isn't the US legal system pal. The Crown Prosecution Service have a code to follow when charging people with criminal offences. There is case law as to what level of injury amounts to grievous bodily harm. It's easy to do serious damage to someone by punching them to the face. Generally the level of injury isn't in dispute as it's independently, medically verified and evidenced by the doctor at hospital dealing with the injury.MPW wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 17:57I admit I haven't seen the video and only know what I've been able to glean from this forum.
That being said, a person can be taken to the emergency room (hospitalized) and treated for a broken nose with cuts (facial injuries), or it could be something much more serious and/or potentially life-altering. This could also be the matter of a prosecutor looking to make a name for him or herself, or as what happens here in the States quite regularly, hit with them with the most egregious charges possible and then plea bargain down from there.
But as Liamlion stated, Smith shouldn't have put himself in that position in the first place, although that's often easier said than done. However, if he was the one who was initially attacked, he should have the right to defend himself to the extent that the threat was no longer a threat.
Charges can be reduced by agreement between the prosecution and defence on a guilty plea but if you're getting charged with Section 18, gbh with intent the likely best outcome to avoid a trial and preserve credit in sentence is usually to offer a guilty plea to a lesser offence of Section 20, gbh. It's not often a gbh would be dropped to an abh but it is possible.
The law on self defence is quite clear too. Essentially you have to fear for your immediate safety and your actions have to be reasonable (not excessive) and necessary. Self-defence is a matter for the jury to determine at trial. Punching someone who is on the ground would generally not be considered self-defence but Ben Stokes and Steven Gerard both got amazing outcomes despite the law and evidence seemingly against them owing to favourable juries, so unexpected outcomes at crown court trials do happen.
Perhaps the US could learn a few things, because our legal system oftentimes results in curious charging decisions and commonsense-defying outcomes.
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 21 Oct 2026, 10:17
I disagree.The Pocket Rocket wrote: ↑21 Oct 2026, 09:57Stokes got off because the route to verdict for affray was very favourable for him.liamlion wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 18:22This isn't the US legal system pal. The Crown Prosecution Service have a code to follow when charging people with criminal offences. There is case law as to what level of injury amounts to grievous bodily harm. It's easy to do serious damage to someone by punching them to the face. Generally the level of injury isn't in dispute as it's independently, medically verified and evidenced by the doctor at hospital dealing with the injury.MPW wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 17:57
I admit I haven't seen the video and only know what I've been able to glean from this forum.
That being said, a person can be taken to the emergency room (hospitalized) and treated for a broken nose with cuts (facial injuries), or it could be something much more serious and/or potentially life-altering. This could also be the matter of a prosecutor looking to make a name for him or herself, or as what happens here in the States quite regularly, hit with them with the most egregious charges possible and then plea bargain down from there.
But as Liamlion stated, Smith shouldn't have put himself in that position in the first place, although that's often easier said than done. However, if he was the one who was initially attacked, he should have the right to defend himself to the extent that the threat was no longer a threat.
Charges can be reduced by agreement between the prosecution and defence on a guilty plea but if you're getting charged with Section 18, gbh with intent the likely best outcome to avoid a trial and preserve credit in sentence is usually to offer a guilty plea to a lesser offence of Section 20, gbh. It's not often a gbh would be dropped to an abh but it is possible.
The law on self defence is quite clear too. Essentially you have to fear for your immediate safety and your actions have to be reasonable (not excessive) and necessary. Self-defence is a matter for the jury to determine at trial. Punching someone who is on the ground would generally not be considered self-defence but Ben Stokes and Steven Gerard both got amazing outcomes despite the law and evidence seemingly against them owing to favourable juries, so unexpected outcomes at crown court trials do happen.
It is why the prosecution tried to bring either assault or ABH in on the first day, and the judge told them to do one as the defence had prepared for the affray charge
The prosecution have to prove the use of unlawful violence in relation to both affray and assault abh charges.
Stokes raised a defence of self-defence of another.
Stokes was acquitted because the jury found that he acted in self-defence of another. It was the same defence regardless of affray or assault abh charges.
The reason the prosecutor sought to amend the indictment was because the facts meant that Stokes had arguably been undercharged owing to the fact that he knocked two men unconscious. Convictions for all three offences would have increased any potential sentence than had he simply have been convicted solely of affray.
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 21 Oct 2026, 10:21
Sorry, but respectfully you are incorrect.liamlion wrote: ↑21 Oct 2026, 10:17I disagree.The Pocket Rocket wrote: ↑21 Oct 2026, 09:57Stokes got off because the route to verdict for affray was very favourable for him.liamlion wrote: ↑20 Oct 2026, 18:22
This isn't the US legal system pal. The Crown Prosecution Service have a code to follow when charging people with criminal offences. There is case law as to what level of injury amounts to grievous bodily harm. It's easy to do serious damage to someone by punching them to the face. Generally the level of injury isn't in dispute as it's independently, medically verified and evidenced by the doctor at hospital dealing with the injury.
Charges can be reduced by agreement between the prosecution and defence on a guilty plea but if you're getting charged with Section 18, gbh with intent the likely best outcome to avoid a trial and preserve credit in sentence is usually to offer a guilty plea to a lesser offence of Section 20, gbh. It's not often a gbh would be dropped to an abh but it is possible.
The law on self defence is quite clear too. Essentially you have to fear for your immediate safety and your actions have to be reasonable (not excessive) and necessary. Self-defence is a matter for the jury to determine at trial. Punching someone who is on the ground would generally not be considered self-defence but Ben Stokes and Steven Gerard both got amazing outcomes despite the law and evidence seemingly against them owing to favourable juries, so unexpected outcomes at crown court trials do happen.
It is why the prosecution tried to bring either assault or ABH in on the first day, and the judge told them to do one as the defence had prepared for the affray charge
The prosecution have to prove the use of unlawful violence in relation to both affray and assault abh charges.
Stokes raised a defence of self-defence of another.
Stokes was acquitted because the jury found that he acted in self-defence of another. It was the same defence regardless of affray or assault abh charges.
The reason the prosecutor sought to amend the indictment was because the facts meant that Stokes had arguably been undercharged owing to the fact that he knocked two men unconscious. Convictions for all three offences would have increased any potential sentence than had he simply have been convicted solely of affray.
The thing that saved him was the test of 'would a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene have been in fear for their personal safety'.
The answer was no, as this was a private fight.
Affray is usually used when groups of people are throwing chairs at each other and random Joe then starts to worry a chair will land on their head. Or maybe in a private fight where tables are getting knocked and glasses smashed
Re: Not a good look for Liam Smith
Posted: 21 Oct 2026, 10:49
I am aware of the elements of affray and what needs to be established.
But again, the issue in this case was self-defence... This might assist you:
https://vhsfletchers.co.uk/ben-stokes-not-guilty/
Edit: after posting my response above, I just had a little search on the Internet and the secret barrister comments:
Would a charge of assault have resulted in a conviction?
We don’t know. The newspapers have largely assumed this as a given, but if the tenor of the defence to the affray was self-defence, then my educated guess would be that a similar defence would have been run in relation to any assault charge. And while we don’t know how and why the jury acquitted, there’s a reasonable inference that if they couldn’t be sure that the prosecution had disproved self-defence on the affray, there would be no difference to the verdict on an assault charge.
But again, the issue in this case was self-defence... This might assist you:
https://vhsfletchers.co.uk/ben-stokes-not-guilty/
Edit: after posting my response above, I just had a little search on the Internet and the secret barrister comments:
Would a charge of assault have resulted in a conviction?
We don’t know. The newspapers have largely assumed this as a given, but if the tenor of the defence to the affray was self-defence, then my educated guess would be that a similar defence would have been run in relation to any assault charge. And while we don’t know how and why the jury acquitted, there’s a reasonable inference that if they couldn’t be sure that the prosecution had disproved self-defence on the affray, there would be no difference to the verdict on an assault charge.