Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => World Cricket => England => Topic started by: FattusCattus on August 06, 2018, 02:16:47 PM
-
Ouch!!! Am I reading this right - http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/24299085/ben-stokes-lost-control-court-hears-trial-begins (http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/24299085/ben-stokes-lost-control-court-hears-trial-begins)
Stokes tries to bribe his way back into the nightclub, he is abusive to the gay couple and he's flicking fag-butts around?
It doesn't make very edifying reading - surely this can;t go well for him?
-
It is the prosecutions job to make it sound terrible....
Let us wait for all the facts to come out prior to passing judgement.
-
I can't believe he wanted to get back into MBargos, it's rubbish!
-
https://news.sky.com/story/england-cricketer-ben-stokes-in-court-for-affray-11462973 (https://news.sky.com/story/england-cricketer-ben-stokes-in-court-for-affray-11462973)
Following it on here
-
It is the prosecutions job to make it sound terrible....
Let us wait for all the facts to come out prior to passing judgement.
True - but people were originally defending his actions on the basis he was defending the gay couple against some other nasty men - the prosecutions case is suggesting it was him who was abusing them. I'm assuming the doorman's testimony may be key here.
-
Its not good reading really... appreciate its just the prosecution view.
-
True - but people were originally defending his actions on the basis he was defending the gay couple against some other nasty men - the prosecutions case is suggesting it was him who was abusing them. I'm assuming the doorman's testimony may be key here.
I was told at the time by a journalist I knew that that was nothing more than a bit of PR dreamt up by the ECB as a way of trying to get public opinion onto his side so that they could get him back into the team. I wasn't certain this journalist was telling me the truth, but it certainly looks like that was indeed the case.
-
True - but people were originally defending his actions on the basis he was defending the gay couple against some other nasty men - the prosecutions case is suggesting it was him who was abusing them. I'm assuming the doorman's testimony may be key here.
Worth remembering that the gay couple the doorman claims he was abusing have already called Stokes a 'real hero'.
-
Im also guessing Hales will be called to give evidence. He allegedly said to Stokes "Stokes Stokes, that’s enough”. Im making a guess that the prosecution will use this he went beyond self defence
-
People say cricketers are different than footballers, but reading some of this evidence doesn’t look much like it
-
Always 2 sides to every story........ just a case of which side (or which lawyer) the jury believe.
-
I’m surprised there’s even a trial, usually someone just pleaded guilty and gets community service and a fine
-
im one of those wanting the prosecution to be painting the worst picture they can you because that's what they do.
sometimes our sports heroes have feet of clay, but there will be a lot of England fans wanting Stokes to have told the truth about why he did what he did.
I suspect if he has deceived people the ECB could step in
-
I’m surprised there’s even a trial, usually someone just pleaded guilty and gets community service and a fine
Stokes is going 'not guilty', isn't he?
-
I can't believe he wanted to get back into MBargos, it's rubbish!
Drink makes people want to go to rubbish clubs. That's why most clubs are rubbish.
-
Stokes is going 'not guilty', isn't he?
Yes that's essentially why there is a trial. I'm no lawyer but independant witnesses will hold the key to the trial presuming they come forward.
The two gay guys maybe hold Stokes's guilt or innocence in their hands. Presuming the jury believe the self defence theory .
Stokes appears to have taken that defence to extremes by flattening everyone in sight.
-
Stokes appears to have taken that defence to extremes by flattening everyone in sight.
If there was genuine reason to perceive a threat, he wouldn't be held responsible for the after effects of adrenaline in his system. I actually think the key is going to be what was not shown in the leaked video.
-
- No good deed goes unpunished.
- Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
-
- No good deed goes unpunished.
- Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I sense you think he will not come out of this well
-
ECB were in a rock and a hard place... don’t play him and you risk looking like you think he is guilty, play him and you risk looking like you sided with a guilty man.
I think principle will be a big part of why he hasn’t pleaded guilty but i don’t believe he would be advised to let it get this far, get a sponsorship deal with GM and maintain his England contract if enough people around him have believe (and have been advised as such) he will be ok.... Getting convicted at this stage is far more damaging in the long run than avoiding court by admitting to some form of liability.
-
I sense you think he will not come out of this well
He needs bigger responsibilities, like captaincy of the Test side. ECB needs to channel his energies constructively.
-
Are we going to add a poll to this thread at some point?!
-
Stokes is going 'not guilty', isn't he?
Yeh otherwise wouldn’t be a trial, but usually they plead guilty before so no trial needed
-
The over riding thing that I can't get past is that Stokes pleaded not guilty and took it to court with a jury. As a professional cricketer, with all the backing he gets if he was even remotely in doubt he would have coped a plea surely. Then tried to get a suspended sentence or something like that.
-
The over riding thing that I can't get past is that Stokes pleaded not guilty and took it to court with a jury. As a professional cricketer, with all the backing he gets if he was even remotely in doubt he would have coped a plea surely. Then tried to get a suspended sentence or something like that.
That was my point exactly. But maybe he truly believes he’s innoncent (don’t know how from the videos I’ve seen)
-
This is good, key point being missed by many is that Stokes is being tried for affray, not assualt.
http://www.keepcalmtalklaw.co.uk/affray-outside-off-stump-explaining-ben-stokes-charges-/ (http://www.keepcalmtalklaw.co.uk/affray-outside-off-stump-explaining-ben-stokes-charges-/)
-
Hence the prosecutions focus on how others perceived his mood! They are trying to show he was a danger to others, not just the “victim”
-
Seems to focus on danger to others yes, not the people fighting. Have to say I thought fighting in the street was affray and not considered the offence that way.
That appears to my untrained eye to be in Stokes favour quite a lot , which may explain why they think he will get off arguing self defence
A bit clearer after that link was posted.
We must have a lawyer on the forum surely they all live in Surrey don't they? :)
-
Don't think you'll find many lawyers passing comment on an active court case!
-
And you certainly won't be getting a poll on this one.
As far as it goes, the press are far more likely to report the prosecution case, because, let's face it, reporting that Ben Stokes is a wonderful guy who stepped in to help out a couple of gay guys, and maybe went a little too far under duress doesn't sell papers. As if you were the jury , wait until you've heard all the statements and testimony before making your mind up.
I hesitate to use the word "facts" because in any trial reliant on witness statements, there are very few hard and fast "Facts". They are people's memories and those are never factual.
-
Well said, absolutely...
I’m sure there’s a lot of us just hoping his account was the right one
-
I hesitate to use the word "facts" because in any trial reliant on witness statements, there are very few hard and fast "Facts". They are people's memories and those are never factual.
So, I guess, the only facts are two guys with facial injuries and the video of Stokes clobbering them
-
So, I guess, the only facts are two guys with facial injuries and the video of Stokes clobbering them
as well as the video of one of them brandishing a bottle, and the other one using a street sign as a weapon...
*according to reports*
-
the people of Bristol thankful that no entry sign has been removed it's saved a thousand spot fines
*according to reports*
-
Mr Cole quizzes Mr Cunningham on his police statements and asks him why he said he had seen the CCTV at the time of the incident in Sept - but he told the court today it was the first time he had watched it. Mr Cunningham admits he cannot explain it. #BenStokes
Talk about being given a lifeline
-
Ben Stokes was "spiteful and angry" towards a ....*insert cricketer here* bouncer..
That sounds pretty accurate of ben's character :D
-
Anybody any further comments on the trial?
Must admit, I've been waiting for Stokes' lawyer to drop in some very convincing evidence as to why the event all took place but haven't heard anything up to now!
I was expecting the 2 blokes that Stokes' claims to have been defending to give evidence to that effect but to date I don't think I've seen them give any evidence? Have they declined? Can they decline?
Doesn't look good for him at the moment I don't think!
-
Mr Corsellis asks Stokes who he was speaking to as he mouth words and looked up at night sky in front of the club after being refused a handshake and Stokes responds: "God?" #BenStokes
Spat my tea out reading that
-
Spat my tea out reading that
Yeah, not sure that comments would go too much in his favour!
-
Anybody any further comments on the trial?
Must admit, I've been waiting for Stokes' lawyer to drop in some very convincing evidence as to why the event all took place but haven't heard anything up to now!
I was expecting the 2 blokes that Stokes' claims to have been defending to give evidence to that effect but to date I don't think I've seen them give any evidence? Have they declined? Can they decline?
Doesn't look good for him at the moment I don't think!
Very strange they haven't been called to witness. Also is one of them in the video where stokes is arrested? As the person said stokes is innocent and he doesn't wish to press charges.
Not only that but the 2 Ryan blokes were going home with the 2 blokes stokes was sticking up for, before it kicks off. Still there's 4 minutes of something happening that hasn't been videoed or accounted for
-
Very strange they haven't been called to witness. Also is one of them in the video where stokes is arrested? As the person said stokes is innocent and he doesn't wish to press charges.
Not only that but the 2 Ryan blokes were going home with the 2 blokes stokes was sticking up for, before it kicks off. Still there's 4 minutes of something happening that hasn't been videoed or accounted for
What seems to have happened is that after an argument with a bouncer, Stokes has inserted himself into an argument between four lads who had been hanging out together in the nightclub, and has just completely lost his mind and beaten two of them to a pulp.
Now if these two lads were willing to repeat what they said to the Sun in return for a significant portion of money, then they would have presumably been called as witnesses for the defence. So presumably they're unwilling to repeat it whilst under oath.
But this does rather beg the question as to why they are not being called by the prosecution. Maybe they think they have more than enough evidence to convict from the CCTV footage and the testimony of the bouncer and the copper?
-
What seems to have happened is that after an argument with a bouncer, Stokes has inserted himself into an argument between four lads who had been hanging out together in the nightclub, and has just completely lost his mind and beaten two of them to a pulp.
Now if these two lads were willing to repeat what they said to the Sun in return for a significant portion of money, then they would have presumably been called as witnesses for the defence. So presumably they're unwilling to repeat it whilst under oath.
But this does rather beg the question as to why they are not being called by the prosecution. Maybe they think they have more than enough evidence to convict from the CCTV footage and the testimony of the bouncer and the copper?
Impossible to believe the two guys being stuck up for by Stokes(he says) are not called by the defence, you cant exactly turn down a court rwquest...
where are they ? they surely hold the key to the whole thing...
-
Impossible to believe the two guys being stuck up for by Stokes(he says) are not called by the defence, you cant exactly turn down a court rwquest...
where are they ? they surely hold the key to the whole thing...
The defence team will definitely have talked to them, and they clearly didn't like what they heard, otherwise they would have called them as witnesses.
As I was told at the time of the incident, it was the ECB that set up the story with the sun. But reading a script to the sun that they've been provided by the ECB in return for a wad of cash is not the same thing as lying in court.
-
Let’s say a stokes is found guilty of affray and gets suspended sentence with community service- would that be for chance to shine?!
-
The defence team will definitely have talked to them, and they clearly didn't like what they heard, otherwise they would have called them as witnesses.
As I was told at the time of the incident, it was the ECB that set up the story with the sun. But reading a script to the sun that they've been provided by the ECB in return for a wad of cash is not the same thing as lying in court.
"I submit into evidence exhibit 'A', pages 1, 5 and 6 of The Sun newspaper, dated xx/x/xx"
Said no one, ever...
-
Sounds like the defence have landed Alex Hales in the doodoo, basically claiming that injuries to the guy that fractured his eyesocket were likely due to Hales kicking him
-
^ Uh oh! Hales is going to hate Stokes as long as they play together. :D
-
Hales will have to take it on the chin. He lucky he has not been there with Stokes for the last week.
The two main people this event evolved around not called by defence or prosecution. I find that odd.
-
Sounds like the defence have landed Alex Hales in the doodoo, basically claiming that injuries to the guy that fractured his eyesocket were likely due to Hales kicking him
Means nothing really.. the charge is affray so its all about if the threat existed to a bystander....
-
Jury to reconvene to deliberate on what's been said from 10am today
-
Means nothing really.. the charge is affray so its all about if the threat existed to a bystander....
Not strictly true, doesn’t have to have been a direct threat to a bystander, basically all the jury have to believe is that:
1) there was unlawful violence towards another (clearly was)
2) any reasonable person would have feared for their safety if they witnessed what was occurring - that’s the tough one
-
im sceptical as to why neither defence or prosecution brought in the gay couple who seem to be central to it. surely if their version of events backed up either side they would have used it to their advantage?
Only he knows whether he started (and won) the fight or not, but the fact that they brought bottles into it gives him a chance of a defence.
-
Bbc breaking news: stokes found not guilty
-
Bbc breaking news: stokes found not guilty
As was the other guy too
-
So there you go. Don't make judgements until you know all the information. And that's clearly not been reported to the general public.
-
Anti Climactic for the haters!
-
Now it's time for Stokes & Hales to face the Cricket Disciplinary Committee...
http://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12123/11471609/ben-stokes-and-alex-hales-to-face-cricket-disciplinary-committee-cdc-hearing (http://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12123/11471609/ben-stokes-and-alex-hales-to-face-cricket-disciplinary-committee-cdc-hearing)
-
Wouldn't have even gone to trial if he wasn't famous. Glad we can get on with the cricket now.
-
Wouldn't have even gone to trial if he wasn't famous. Glad we can get on with the cricket now.
What a complete and utter waste of time and money.. There has been a verdict given and the ECB or a committee acting on their behalf should adhere to it.. Stokes and his family has been.through enough and I'm sure he has learnt from his actions.
I like a few others have been amazed with what Hales got away with but the CPS saw no reason to prosecute him..
I would rather the ECB used this money and put it into amateur cricket where it would be better used..
Poor again from the ECB....
-
What a complete and utter waste of time and money.. There has been a verdict given and the ECB or a committee acting on their behalf should adhere to it.. Stokes and his family has been.through enough and I'm sure he has learnt from his actions.
I like a few others have been amazed with what Hales got away with but the CPS saw no reason to prosecute him..
I would rather the ECB used this money and put it into amateur cricket where it would be better used..
Poor again from the ECB....
This is somewhat different - it's the Cricket Disciplinary Committee and Hales and Stokes are charged with bringing the game into disrepute.
Given there is footage of the alleged affray all over the web, and it went to trial, I'm fairly sure that's going to be a little more difficult to get out of...
-
Considering he missed practically a whole winter tour I'd be disappointed if he served any further time away, he's done that part of it all.
-
No disrespect Tim, but your missing the point. This was not done on the cricket field or whilst during an ECB function/event. The police didn't believe the evidence available was sufficient to charge him with a more serious crime. He has been found not guilty and therefore in my opinion should not be in front of a committee that in all honesty shouldn't be making itself judge and juror of a non related cricket event.
Does the committee sit when a cricketer commits adultery, spousal abuse etc etc? These are events where players have been proven guilty yet I'm not aware of the committee passing judgement on these players..
Imo Stokes has already paid for his altercation in missing the Ashes and his family I believe have suffered even more directly and indirectly. The last thing they need is an extension of this unsavoury incident.
If Stokes is made to attend this hearing then if I was him I would personally tell them to shove their contract "where the sun doesn't shine" and go and play T20 and country cricket. He won't do that because he loves playing for England..
-
No disrespect Tim, but your missing the point. This was not done on the cricket field or whilst during an ECB function/event. The police didn't believe the evidence available was sufficient to charge him with a more serious crime. He has been found not guilty and therefore in my opinion should not be in front of a committee that in all honesty shouldn't be making itself judge and juror of a non related cricket event.
Does the committee sit when a cricketer commits adultery, spousal abuse etc etc? These are events where players have been proven guilty yet I'm not aware of the committee passing judgement on these players..
Imo Stokes has already paid for his altercation in missing the Ashes and his family I believe have suffered even more directly and indirectly. The last thing they need is an extension of this unsavoury incident.
If Stokes is made to attend this hearing then if I was him I would personally tell them to shove their contract "where the sun doesn't shine" and go and play T20 and country cricket. He won't do that because he loves playing for England..
he has a contract that would ensure there is a certain standard of behaviour while being contracted to the ECB.
Quite whether anyone could make a case exactly what that behaviour should be of whether he was representing England at the time- all a bit subjective and lots of grey areas perhaps
as it is, he has been found not guilty and you would suspect the ECB perhaps have a more supportive role from now on. I would doubt very much they will be heavy handed in light of te cricket he has missed
just my opinion really
-
Regardless of the verdict there were still videos going viral of him knocking someone out. Doesn’t do the imagine of England Cricket any favours. The ECB imo should give him some sanction. As said above it will say in his contract not to be a knob etc... included in the squad though! If he plays who do you drop? Buttler?
-
If i was Stokes having been found not guilty i would be looking at making a claim against the ECB for loss of earning ie match fees etc
That’s one way to find yourself dropped and being the next KP! 😂
-
Stokes added to the third test squad.
-
That’s one way to find yourself dropped and being the next KP! 😂
And then we go back to court on the basis of was it reasonable under the circumstances
-
Regardless of the verdict there were still videos going viral of him knocking someone out. Doesn’t do the imagine of England Cricket any favours. The ECB imo should give him some sanction. As said above it will say in his contract not to be a knob etc... included in the squad though! If he plays who do you drop? Buttler?
It would be pope more than likely and then have to do a little jigging around with batting order
-
theyll drop curran or woakes, the top order is frgile enough unless they bat bairstow at 4 but that wont happen
woakes wont be dropped after the last game so curran is favourite for the chop
who says stokes will even be picked given how we played in the last test?
id personally keep the side them same, why change something that wins unless for injury
-
Well well well Ben Stokes found Not Guilty. And to think I was called a troll amongst other things by a few Australians on here for suggesting they had their blinkers on when calling for him to be beheaded
Meanwhile the man I compared him to to question their blind patriotism, Jarryd Hayne, will stand trial for RAPE in 2020 afer the girl involved refused mediation ( out of court cash settlement) Cheers Aussies!
Lets hope Ben learns from this and concentrates on his cricket as he has the potential to go down as an all-time great and certainly makes England stronger in all formats
-
Bit of a joke really. He got off because he's a famous cricketer.
-
Bit of a joke really. He got off because he's a famous cricketer.
To be fair he only went to court in the first place because he was a famous cricketer
-
Bit of a joke really. He got off because he's a famous cricketer.
I think you'll find actually that sportspeople in the uk are treated more severely in general than joe public. Tony Adams went to prison for drink driving!
So all 3 went to court, all 3 found not guilty. My question is this - who pays the costs of this pointless debacle?
-
I think you'll find actually that sportspeople in the uk are treated more severely in general than joe public. Tony Adams went to prison for drink driving!
So all 3 went to court, all 3 found not guilty. My question is this - who pays the costs of this pointless debacle?
A court case where the accused is found innocent is not a pointless court case.
-
This says it all for me, the reason he was found not guilty was that he was charged with Affray, they even tried to add/change the charge to assult because they knew he was going to be found not guilty of affray!
CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE STATEMENT
"The CPS keeps cases under continual review. We selected the charge of affray at the outset in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
“Upon further review we considered that additional assault charges would also be appropriate. The Judge decided not to permit us to add these further charges.
“The original charge of affray adequately reflected the criminality of the case and we proceeded on that."
-
No disrespect Tim, but your missing the point. This was not done on the cricket field or whilst during an ECB function/event. The police didn't believe the evidence available was sufficient to charge him with a more serious crime. He has been found not guilty and therefore in my opinion should not be in front of a committee that in all honesty shouldn't be making itself judge and juror of a non related cricket event.
Does the committee sit when a cricketer commits adultery, spousal abuse etc etc? These are events where players have been proven guilty yet I'm not aware of the committee passing judgement on these players..
Imo Stokes has already paid for his altercation in missing the Ashes and his family I believe have suffered even more directly and indirectly. The last thing they need is an extension of this unsavoury incident.
If Stokes is made to attend this hearing then if I was him I would personally tell them to shove their contract "where the sun doesn't shine" and go and play T20 and country cricket. He won't do that because he loves playing for England..
It's no different to being arrested when you are working for a company. You are subject to the disciplinary procedures of that company. In this case substitute "company" for "ECB". Likewise why "adverse press" is also picked up in background checks these days.
The reality of the situation is that Stokes and Hales were out and about around whichever town, on the piss after winning a game of cricket for England. They got into a fight and got arrested, and as a result are on a disciplinary. Had they not been playing for England, they wouldn't have been there.
It's no different to an offsite followed by a night out with your workmates and doing the same thing. Technically you're not on the premises but as long as it's linked to your work you're representing your company. And if you don't believe that's what most companies with whom you sign a contract would do then you're sorely mistaken.
-
^ completely agree and correct. Try punching somone in public, drink driving and then make public who you work for. You will face further disciplinary actions. It'll be in your employment contract.
This may be of use...
https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1029351464978788353?s=19 (https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1029351464978788353?s=19)
As may this...
https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/808235 (https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/808235)
-
It's no different to being arrested when you are working for a company. You are subject to the disciplinary procedures of that company. In this case substitute "company" for "ECB". Likewise why "adverse press" is also picked up in background checks these days.
The reality of the situation is that Stokes and Hales were out and about around whichever town, on the piss after winning a game of cricket for England. They got into a fight and got arrested, and as a result are on a disciplinary. Had they not been playing for England, they wouldn't have been there.
It's no different to an offsite followed by a night out with your workmates and doing the same thing. Technically you're not on the premises but as long as it's linked to your work you're representing your company. And if you don't believe that's what most companies with whom you sign a contract would do then you're sorely mistaken.
Sorry Tim, but your missing the point again or perhaps I'm not explaining it well enough.. He has been found not guilty.. It's irrelevant what your work contract says if you have been found not guilty because you are sadly mistaken if you believe any major employer would discipline you severely for an out of work altercation where the police have been involved followed by a court case resulting in a not guilty verdict. The bringing your employer into disrepute would be so subjective that no HR department worth its salt would pursue it...
-
^ completely agree and correct. Try punching somone in public, drink driving and then make public who you work for. You will face further disciplinary actions. It'll be in your employment contract.
This may be of use...
https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1029351464978788353?s=19 (https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1029351464978788353?s=19)
As may this...
https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/808235 (https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/808235)
See above mate... Let's see what happens when and if the committee see Stokes. As it stands by employment law and civil rights law Stokes has more reason to have a grievance with the ECB than them with him...
And in the majority of employment contracts with the larger contracts it says " further disciplinary MAY be taken" and NOT will be taken...
-
Have to agree with @tate035 here, at a basic level yes he has bought negative press onto the ECB, however ultimately he has been cleared of any wrong doing under a jurisdiction far higher than that to which the ECB has governance over. For the ECB to subsequently discipline stokes after he has been found innocent and cleared of any wrong doing would be ultimately wrong.
-
Sorry Tim, but your missing the point again or perhaps I'm not explaining it well enough.. He has been found not guilty.. It's irrelevant what your work contract says if you have been found not guilty because you are sadly mistaken if you believe any major employer would discipline you severely for an out of work altercation where the police have been involved followed by a court case resulting in a not guilty verdict. The bringing your employer into disrepute would be so subjective that no HR department worth its salt would pursue it...
Paddy Jackson was sacked, despite being cleared of rape. Clarkson was sacked, despite charges never being brought for his punch. Lee Bowyer was fined £90,000 despite being cleared of affray.
Most public figures will have a code of conduct they'll be expected to adhere to. I wouldn't be surprised if being videoed on CCTV kicking and punching someone broke that.
-
Just because he was found not guilty of this particular charge doesn’t prevent his employer from disciplining him due to his overall conduct.
-
^ completely agree and correct. Try punching somone in public, drink driving and then make public who you work for. You will face further disciplinary actions. It'll be in your employment contract.
This may be of use...
https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1029351464978788353?s=19 (https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1029351464978788353?s=19)
As may this...
https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/808235 (https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/808235)
A drink driving offence would normally only carry disciplinary action from your Employer if your job involved driving
-
Just because he was found not guilty of this particular charge doesn’t prevent his employer from disciplining him due to his overall conduct.
if it's in his contract and then the not guilty has to be taken into consideration
Under UK employment normally it comes down to was it reasonable under the circumstances
-
Give this man the captaincy already!!!
-
^ completely agree and correct. Try punching somone in public, drink driving and then make public who you work for. You will face further disciplinary actions. It'll be in your employment contract.
This may be of use...
https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1029351464978788353?s=19 (https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1029351464978788353?s=19)
As may this...
https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/808235 (https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/808235)
The Twitter part explains more on why the gay couple were not called at least from the prosecution point of view which was a question I couldn't figure out myself. As the charge related to bystanders and no one else said they were in danger other those those fighting you can then see why they not be any use as they had said stokes defended them
whether that was indeed the truth won't matter now as the trial is over and he is not guilty
So thanks for posting that link.
As for the ECB gut feeling is with stokes already losing a contract and missing matches they will work with him rather then a heavy hand
Just my gut feeling on it, a fine maybe..
-
A court case where the accused is found innocent is not a pointless court case.
This particular court case was very pointless. Two drunk idiots fighting each other in the street. Both were up for the fight, neither were hurt other than their egos. On the spot fine and caution for both would have saved a whole load of nonsense and money. It was fairly obvious from the outset that the ECB weren't going to let Stokes get into any serious strife. Can anyone explain the two gay lads not appearing in court? Rumour is they were paid to keep out of court to give evidence
I would like to see how much this case cost the CPS and whether the money could have been better used redirected towards stopping more serious crime. But of course when its not your money you are throwing around and you have a glimmer of convicting an England international you would go for it. Would look good on the CV that
-
The Twitter part explains more on why the gay couple were not called at least from the prosecution point of view which was a question I couldn't figure out myself. As the charge related to bystanders and no one else said they were in danger other those those fighting you can then see why they not be any use as they had said stokes defended them
Technically for a charge of affect to stand the ‘person of reasonable firmness’ can be either imaginary or present at the scene, just because some people wouldn’t have been fearful, doesn’t mean an imaginary ‘person of reasonable firmness’ would not have been. Generally the CPS use a charging threshold relating to your average ‘mrs. Miggins’ who is doddering down the street and witnessed the event. It is different from the other public order offences in the regard as all other sections of the public order act require there to be other people involved. Generally, affray is just a way to charge multiple people of assault, as it can be amalgamated into one charge rather ham X counts of assault being heard in court.
-
This particular court case was very pointless. Two drunk idiots fighting each other in the street. Both were up for the fight, neither were hurt other than their egos. On the spot fine and caution for both would have saved a whole load of nonsense and money. It was fairly obvious from the outset that the ECB weren't going to let Stokes get into any serious strife. Can anyone explain the two gay lads not appearing in court? Rumour is they were paid to keep out of court to give evidence
I would like to see how much this case cost the CPS and whether the money could have been better used redirected towards stopping more serious crime. But of course when its not your money you are throwing around and you have a glimmer of convicting an England international you would go for it. Would look good on the CV that
I think this is a particularly cynical view, and clearly there was injury as Hale suffered a fractured eye socket which in itself would amount to a charge of ABH. Ultimately the charge of affray is a section 3 public order offence which carries a maximum sentence of 3 years, that to me is a pretty serious offence. However, it is furthered by the fact stokes has previous convictions, and there were weapons involved. If it was a child of yours being beaten up in a ‘drunken fight’ I think you would probably want justice. Also, affray is too serious an offence for it to be dealt with disposal methods other than court. Also the main, and often undisclosed reason that stokes entered a not guilty plea was because of the previous convictions that he had, and a friend of mine (a barrister) said that on the balance of probability he would have gone down if he entered a guilty plea. This in turn clearly shows that a trial was necessary, you can’t somplynlet someone go cause the said’ sorry your honour but I didn’t do it’.
In answer to why the two gay chaps weren’t called as witnesses: they have gone on record saying they were scared. That is why the defence did not call them. However they have also gone on record saying stokes was sticking up for them, that is why the prosecution did not call them.
-
I think this is a particularly cynical view, and clearly there was injury as Hale suffered a fractured eye socket which in itself would amount to a charge of ABH. Ultimately the charge of affray is a section 3 public order offence which carries a maximum sentence of 3 years, that to me is a pretty serious offence. However, it is furthered by the fact stokes has previous convictions, and there were weapons involved. If it was a child of yours being beaten up in a ‘drunken fight’ I think you would probably want justice. Also, affray is too serious an offence for it to be dealt with disposal methods other than court. Also the main, and often undisclosed reason that stokes entered a not guilty plea was because of the previous convictions that he had, and a friend of mine (a barrister) said that on the balance of probability he would have gone down if he entered a guilty plea. This in turn clearly shows that a trial was necessary, you can’t somplynlet someone go cause the said’ sorry your honour but I didn’t do it’.
If a child of mine went to Mbargo for a night out I'd slap him myself. (I dont have children, attempted humour)
Cynical maybe but Realistic definitely. The police love a big name conviction. You are obviously more in the know with regard to criminal law than me but my point is this - Ben Stokes was never ever going to be found guilty, that to me means it was a pointless case. If anyone thinks im saying that after the verdict you can check my posts shortly after the incident last September, I said the same thing then.
-
It's no different to being arrested when you are working for a company. You are subject to the disciplinary procedures of that company. In this case substitute "company" for "ECB". Likewise why "adverse press" is also picked up in background checks these days.
The reality of the situation is that Stokes and Hales were out and about around whichever town, on the piss after winning a game of cricket for England. They got into a fight and got arrested, and as a result are on a disciplinary. Had they not been playing for England, they wouldn't have been there.
It's no different to an offsite followed by a night out with your workmates and doing the same thing. Technically you're not on the premises but as long as it's linked to your work you're representing your company. And if you don't believe that's what most companies with whom you sign a contract would do then you're sorely mistaken.
I meet the costs of playing cricket by undertaking the rather less important occupation of an employment lawyer and this isn't a relevant analogy. An employer may suspend pending the outcome of criminal proceedings but you would be on a sticky wicket if you tried to take it further after they had been acquitted.
What is normal on the other hand is for endorsement deals to make express contractual provision for a deal to be terminated in the event of some form if reputation damage. Hence in this case New Balance were free to terminate their agreement with Stokes even before the matter had been bought to trial.
-
Just seen your edit @LEACHY48 . I think the gay guys were scared. Scared that they would be found out that they had lied in their original statement to the police! And if they then told a different story in court (the whole truth) they woyld be liable to criminal convictions themself
-
It would be a complete farce if the ECB were to even consider disciplinary action against Stoked and potentially Hales. The whole thing as been been a distraction which should have a line drawn under it now.
The only further action should be against the CPS who have made themselves a laughing stock over this. They took 4 months to make a decision to charge the 3 lads involved even though the Police saw no merit in taking it further. One defendant was acquired before the trial started, the CPS unsuccessfully tried to add new charges having had a year to do so and the final 2 defendants were cleared. It is depressing yo think how much tax payers money has been wasted on.this whole think
-
It would be a complete farce if the ECB were to even consider disciplinary action against Stoked and potentially Hales. The whole thing as been been a distraction which should have a line drawn under it now.
The only further action should be against the CPS who have made themselves a laughing stock over this. They took 4 months to make a decision to charge the 3 lads involved even though the Police saw no merit in taking it further. One defendant was acquired before the trial started, the CPS unsuccessfully tried to add new charges having had a year to do so and the final 2 defendants were cleared. It is depressing yo think how much tax payers money has been wasted on.this whole think
Merci :)
-
I meet the costs of playing cricket by undertaking the rather less important occupation of an employment lawyer and this isn't a relevant analogy. An employer may suspend pending the outcome of criminal proceedings but you would be on a sticky wicket if you tried to take it further after they had been acquitted.
So how come in previous cases of Lee Bowyer and Paddy Jackson have they been acquitted by trial but fined or sacked by their clubs? The disciplinary isn't regarding the particular criminal charges, hence why Hales is up for it too, it's about bringing the game into disrepute.
-
This particular court case was very pointless. Two drunk idiots fighting each other in the street. Both were up for the fight, neither were hurt other than their egos. On the spot fine and caution for both would have saved a whole load of nonsense and money. It was fairly obvious from the outset that the ECB weren't going to let Stokes get into any serious strife. Can anyone explain the two gay lads not appearing in court? Rumour is they were paid to keep out of court to give evidence.
A caution would have required some admission of guilt. Stokes would have never admitted it because he has previous convictions. So because Stokes didn't admit it, it goes to trial - a fine/caution was never an option. The CCTV being leaked also put the CPS in a very tricky spot, they had to take some action.
-
A caution would have required some admission of guilt. Stokes would have never admitted it because he has previous convictions. So because Stokes didn't admit it, it goes to trial - a fine/caution was never an option. The CCTV being leaked also put the CPS in a very tricky spot, they had to take some action.
So the CPS had to flog 3 dead horses all the way to not guilty verdicts at trial. Sensible
-
Paddy Jackson was sacked, despite being cleared of rape. Clarkson was sacked, despite charges never being brought for his punch. Lee Bowyer was fined £90,000 despite being cleared of affray.
Most public figures will have a code of conduct they'll be expected to adhere to. I wouldn't be surprised if being videoed on CCTV kicking and punching someone broke that.
Clarkson lost his job for more than that one punch... Lee Bowyer was also fined for breaching club rules behaviour... The Paddy Jackson i can't comment on as I'm not aware of it..
I think you will find that Paddy may have had other things taken into account. If he didn't then any solicitor would get him sizable compensation but like I said I'm not aware of the case.
Of course most people have a code of conduct within their places of employment but you will find self defense is a good reason to break that code and ultimately a good reason why people won't lose their jobs...
Amazing how you only mentioned the kicking and fighting and not the reason behind it... Would be interesting to see how people would have reacted if it been them attacked with a bottle or the guy had blinded Stokes with the bottle...
-
Bowyer refused to pay the fine and the Club transfer listed him as a result. Both parties eventually came to a fudge whereby Bowyer made a contribution to the club's charitable foundation. The club had no contractual right to fine the player on those circumstances.
Jackson had his contract terminated after a review of messages that were sent between a number of players which came out during the trial
-
A caution would have required some admission of guilt. Stokes would have never admitted it because he has previous convictions. So because Stokes didn't admit it, it goes to trial - a fine/caution was never an option. The CCTV being leaked also put the CPS in a very tricky spot, they had to take some action.
He also may have made no admission of guilt if he had no guilt to admit to. The CPS are not obliged to bring a case to court simply because a person is arrested but denies having done anything wrong
-
So the CPS had to flog 3 dead horses all the way to not guilty verdicts at trial. Sensible
Oh, believe me, I too hate the CPS but in this instance, I believe they were put in a very difficult spot with the CCTV coming out. They had to take some action and perhaps thought it easier to bundle them together as affray.
I'll never moan about people being brought to court though after knocking people unconscious and fracturing bones, though.
-
He also may have made no admission of guilt if he had no guilt to admit to. The CPS are not obliged to bring a case to court simply because a person is arrested but denies having done anything wrong
Of course. But as I've said, the CCTV evidence cropping up put them in a very very tricky position and they must have believed they had a realistic chance of conviction.
-
A caution would have required some admission of guilt. Stokes would have never admitted it because he has previous convictions. So because Stokes didn't admit it, it goes to trial - a fine/caution was never an option. The CCTV being leaked also put the CPS in a very tricky spot, they had to take some action.
Don't know where to start on this statement... But what a load of bullocks!!!
Previous convictions don't get mentioned in a criminal trial.. A fine or a caution is an option for any police officer. And if more than one MP didn't get prosecuted for fiddling their expenses then why wouldn't CPS not let stokes off for something a lot less..
Finally, I would hope CPS don't prosecute people just because they are in a tricky spot...
-
Bowyer refused to pay the fine and the Club transfer listed him as a result. Both parties eventually came to a fudge whereby Bowyer made a contribution to the club's charitable foundation. The club had no contractual right to fine the player on those circumstances.
Jackson had his contract terminated after a review of messages that were sent between a number of players which came out during the trial
Bowyer made a contribution equal to the fine. So by all accounts, he got fined.
Jackson you're 100% right on, he was sacked despite being found not guilty because his text messages (whilst legal) broke the code of conduct. As I said above, England players will have a code of conduct and it's entirely possible that this is what the disciplinary action revolves around.
-
Don't know where to start on this statement... But what a load of bullocks!!!
Previous convictions don't get mentioned in a criminal trial.. A fine or a caution is an option for any police officer. And if more than one MP didn't get prosecuted for fiddling their expenses then why wouldn't CPS not let stokes off for something a lot less..
Finally, I would hope CPS don't prosecute people just because they are in a tricky spot...
Previous convictions are taken into account when issuing a caution for minor offences. Cautions require admission of guilt. What was (No Swearing Please) about the statement?
"A fine or a caution is an option for any police officer."
Also not true. Affray is an indictable offence.
Edit: Just reading your post back, I think you're confusing the trial part with the method of how an offence is dealt with. You are correct in saying previous convictions aren't mentioned in criminal trials, however, they most certainly are taken into account when deciding how a suspect is dealt with. It forms a core part of the CPS's public interest test.
-
Of course. But as I've said, the CCTV evidence cropping up put them in a very very tricky position and they must have believed they had a realistic chance of conviction.
The day when the CPS make decisions as to whether or not to charge an individual based on what information the Sun choices to release to its readers is the day that we all need to find a new country to live in. It is to the significant discredit of the ECB that they have given the time of day to this complete nonsense
-
Oh, believe me, I too hate the CPS but in this instance, I believe they were put in a very difficult spot with the CCTV coming out. They had to take some action and perhaps thought it easier to bundle them together as affray.
I'll never moan about people being brought to court though after knocking people unconscious and fracturing bones, though.
Fair call.
-
Don't know where to start on this statement... But what a load of bullocks!!!
Previous convictions don't get mentioned in a criminal trial.. A fine or a caution is an option for any police officer. And if more than one MP didn't get prosecuted for fiddling their expenses then why wouldn't CPS not let stokes off for something a lot less..
Finally, I would hope CPS don't prosecute people just because they are in a tricky spot...
I’m afraid you are severely misinformed. Tom is right. Furthermore, previous criminal convictions are 9/10 times inadmissible in trials due to being outside the scope. As somebody that has been through the majority (not all, and I am not a warranted officer, however) of training to become a special constable, I can say with 100% certainty and confidence that the statement ‘a fine or caution is an option for any police officer’ is categorically untrue and again misinformed. Also you appear to be confusing the role of the CPS and the police in this matter. Ultimately, the police are nothing but evidence gatherers. They make the necessary arrests, conduct interviews, and obtain all the evidence that is both relevant and necessary to the case, they then present all this evidence to the CPS at which point, the case is out of their hands. A police officer cannot simply not arrest someone for such a serious offence as an affray, and therefore in the stokes incident, there was no other path this could have followed.
Also the CPS are accountable to the public, in this instance, they had public outcry that stokes had got himself involved, they had a wealth of evidence that an offence had occurred and so it would be stupid to not charge, I agree they should not have charged for affray, but they had to do something
-
He will be offered counselling for anger management and put on performance management as most companies would due to not guilty but bringing negative attention to organisation. It’s a way to look like doing something without doing something
Depending on level of employee most companies have clauses for disciplinary action for bringing company into disrepute and even a not guilty of a crime can still bring company into disrepute so they could progress it, it depends entirely on the contract which none of us have seen.
-
I meet the costs of playing cricket by undertaking the rather less important occupation of an employment lawyer and this isn't a relevant analogy. An employer may suspend pending the outcome of criminal proceedings but you would be on a sticky wicket if you tried to take it further after they had been acquitted.
Yet again this misses the point. It's not the trial that's the issue in my example or the Stokes/Hale case. That's a separate issues in relation to HR and employment law.
It's that the incident happened in relation to "company business", and having been involved in internal disciplinary procedures linked to other's behaviour in an evening linked to "company business", I can assure you that disciplinary procedures are undertaken, even if at the end of them there is limited punishment.
However much we may like to ignore it, as a representative of England cricket celebrating the win, he is no different to an employee of Large Corporation celebrating a big sale. In both cases, if you get into a massive fight in the street, get arrested for it and it goes to trial, and is videoed and sold to the Sun and you and your company identified in the process, especially if it's identified that you were out celebrating something to do with your company, you will end up with a disciplinary investigation.
It doesn't matter about the outcome of the trial - it's that you've brought poor publicity onto your employer, and that anyone doing a search for the company is going to see this in google at the top of the search listings for weeks at a time.
Most employee contracts have a statement such as:
You are expected to conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times, including when not at work, with proper consideration for your colleagues and the standing of the company. This extends to any social events you may attend arranged [...] or any action you take outside of work which may bring the company into disrepute.
This will be what the conduct commission is looking at.
-
He will be offered counselling for anger management and put on performance management as most companies would due to not guilty but bringing negative attention to organisation. It’s a way to look like doing something without doing something
In all honesty, I hope they do ensure both BS and AH do this.
I know it seems like they are doing nothing but I reckon he needs Anger Management treatment! Just hope he doesn't lose his on-field aggression when he plays cricket.
-
Possibly booze management training too.
-
In all honesty, I hope they do ensure both BS and AH do this.
I know it seems like they are doing nothing but I reckon he needs Anger Management treatment! Just hope he doesn't lose his on-field aggression when he plays cricket.
Having had anger management therapy when younger it doesn’t take it away from you so should be ok it teaches you when to let it out and when not too , I had sport and martial arts as outlets.
-
I'm not sure you can be described as being on company business in a ropey nightclub in Bristol? I'd argue that it's different when touring, as you sort of represent the nation in that case (as do us all when we travel) but in his home country it's hardly official business, not a great idea to go on the blitzer during or inbetween games mind.
-
I'm not sure you can be described as being on company business in a ropey nightclub in Bristol? I'd argue that it's different when touring, as you sort of represent the nation in that case (as do us all when we travel) but in his home country it's hardly official business, not a great idea to go on the blitzer during or inbetween games mind.
With colleagues right after a game though.
-
I'm not sure you can be described as being on company business in a ropey nightclub in Bristol? I'd argue that it's different when touring, as you sort of represent the nation in that case (as do us all when we travel) but in his home country it's hardly official business, not a great idea to go on the blitzer during or inbetween games mind.
It doesn't really matter. What everyone's forgetting is that when you are employed, most employment contracts have terms that stop you doing stupid stuff outside work that if linked to your company can bring the company into disrepute. This case exposes just that. And if it also highlights to people that they have clauses such as this in employment contracts, it's probably not a bad thing.
-
It doesn't really matter. What everyone's forgetting is that when you are employed, most employment contracts have terms that stop you doing stupid stuff outside work that if linked to your company can bring the company into disrepute. This case exposes just that. And if it also highlights to people that they have clauses such as this in employment contracts, it's probably not a bad thing.
You know what that they say about contracts of Employment if it's not written it does count I should know having written hundreds
-
You know what that they say about contracts of Employment if it's not written it does count I should know having written hundreds
Exactly as I said above
It will completely depend on what’s in his contract so people saying you can’t do xyz are talking crap. If he has clauses about bad press from his own actions which you would assume is in a high profile public figures contract he can be disciplined
If apple ceo was out brawling not matter the verdict I doubt he would be ceo for much longer
-
Whilst I am firmly in the 'didn't like what Stokes did' camp, and think he's been a total pr*ck for being out drinking that late....
Michael Vaughan really does say the things that don;t need to be said doesn't he? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/45203186 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/45203186)
-
Whilst I am firmly in the 'didn't like what Stokes did' camp, and think he's been a total pr*ck for being out drinking that late....
Michael Vaughan really does say the things that don;t need to be said doesn't he? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/45203186 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/45203186)
Vaughan winds me up more and more each day! Still haven’t forgiven him for beating Bangladesh I think it was a day early in 2005 so he could go to the League 1 Play Off final against my team!
-
Whilst I am firmly in the 'didn't like what Stokes did' camp, and think he's been a total pr*ck for being out drinking that late....
Michael Vaughan really does say the things that don;t need to be said doesn't he? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/45203186 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/45203186)
Michael Vaughan in "Intentionally controversial and abrasive comment" shocker.
-
Trouble is, he's actually becoming boring by always trying to poke a reaction.
-
the two gays guys are in the press now thanking Stokes for getting involved
whatever the truth of it the case is over and how the ECB go now will be interesting
I suspect stokes and hales will face some sort of sanction as mentioned regarding their contracts. with stokes I reckon the ECB will also offer some sort of help
he is a player that is right on the edge, he clearly is combustable but their are responsibilities that go with being an England player
I don't like Vaughan either but I do agree with part of what he said ''hope Stokes doesn't say I told you so and looks at his behaviour''
Vaughan is right about that in my opinion
-
You know what that they say about contracts of Employment if it's not written it does count I should know having written hundreds
What software do you use when you write these contracts? Does it have auto-correct for punctuation?
-
I'll ask my secretary
-
Meanwhile, Cipriani gets charged with 5 counts (including resisting arrest and assault on a police officer) and entered a guilty plea when he appeared in court this morning.
£2000 fine & £250 compensation - case closed.
Funny old world isn't it
-
Meanwhile, Cipriani gets charged with 5 counts (including resisting arrest and assault on a police officer) and entered a guilty plea when he appeared in court this morning.
£2000 fine & £250 compensation - case closed.
Funny old world isn't it
I wonder if CustomBalls forum is debating it as much as we are :D
-
don't recall another cricketer in recent memory getting in a scrape that's probably why so many of us are interested in the case
interesting from Bayliss just now who will encourage Ben to make a public apology...
you would hope Stokes has learnt something from the last few weeks. innocent yes....but you don't want to be appearing in Court very often for anything.
-
I wonder if CustomBalls forum is debating it as much as we are :D
Did you hear what Cips said when he was arrested?
"These wrists are gold, loosen these cuffs"
I sh*it you not. Glad he's gone to Gloucester and not our problem anymore
-
You know what that they say about contracts of Employment if it's not written it does count I should know having written hundreds
Not strictly true @Seniorplayer there are 'express' and 'implied' terms of the employment contract. The implied term in the case is that as a England Cricketer you won't behave in such a manner as to bring the game into disrepute by behaving like a burk and getting drunk and being caught on camera. Implied being so bleeding obvious you don't need to express it in an individuals terms and conditions of service.
#DowhatWoakseywoulddo ;)
-
Not strictly true @Seniorplayer there are 'express' and 'implied' terms of the employment contract. The implied term in the case is that as a England Cricketer you won't behave in such a manner as to bring the game into disrepute by behaving like a burk and getting drunk and being caught on camera. Implied being so bleeding obvious you don't need to express it in an individuals terms and conditions of service.
#DowhatWoakseywoulddo ;)
I don't disagree but if it's written it reduces the argument prefer things written rather than an assumption.
-
Dunno about some of you lot, but I reckon the ECB might have access to some quite good employment and contract lawyers... seems fairly safe to say that if the ECB are taking them to a disciplinary committee for bringing the game into disrepute then there's probably a clause in there about bringing the game into disrepute!
-
Dunno about some of you lot, but I reckon the ECB might have access to some quite good employment and contract lawyers... seems fairly safe to say that if the ECB are taking them to a disciplinary committee for bringing the game into disrepute then there's probably a clause in there about bringing the game into disrepute!
Yes no doubt...it's how the ecb deal with it from here. Bayliss saying today Stokes will make a public apology....I don't think he would of said that unless one is forthcoming soon.
Stokes has lost a 200 grand or something contract and missed the Ashes. Personally I think he will have to undergo some behaviour management led by the ecb and get a fine
I could be completely wrong but I can't see any ban from playing-he has already served that -so what's left?
If he lost his central contract he could still be selected for England...that would seem harsh but might be possible....but would the ecb do that? I can't see it
He has been found innocent after all, very different from being found guilty
-
If the ECB were going to do anything significant they wouldn’t have allowed him to be called up to the squad as soon as the verdict was announced
-
don't recall another cricketer in recent memory getting in a scrape that's probably why so many of us are interested in the case
interesting from Bayliss just now who will encourage Ben to make a public apology...
you would hope Stokes has learnt something from the last few weeks. innocent yes....but you don't want to be appearing in Court very often for anything.
It would be interesting to see how some of Beefy's antics would be reported in today's media
-
If the ECB were going to do anything significant they wouldn’t have allowed him to be called up to the squad as soon as the verdict was announced
Not necessarily true - the disciplinary committee is an 'independent' body so wasn't involved in selection
-
It would be interesting to see how some of Beefy's antics would be reported in today's media
Very true. The difference is there would not of been any mobile video footage and the press back in those days mostly drunk in the same bars. Beefy and the main guy from the sun were good mates, he was on the walks for charity with Botham.
Plenty went unreported you would suspect back then.
-
Not necessarily true - the disciplinary committee is an 'independent' body so wasn't involved in selection
Yes they subbed it out to an independant group one of which is a lawyer, which can only be the right structure for an organisation like the ecb.
So in effect Strauss and co probably are bound by the Decision of this independant group.
That does not mean that they cannot put something in place similar to anger management for him.thats what I think they will do, along probably with a fine....
It might get more difficult if he did break his code of conduct as far as he contract goes. That would still not be too bad as he could be picked without a contract.
Stokes is a prize asset to England and the teams success on the field.
You would think there is a tricky path for any diciplinary action, compromise maybe we're both parties accept what is decided?
-
Yes no doubt...it's how the ecb deal with it from here. Bayliss saying today Stokes will make a public apology....I don't think he would of said that unless one is forthcoming soon.
Stokes has lost a 200 grand or something contract and missed the Ashes. Personally I think he will have to undergo some behaviour management led by the ecb and get a fine
A good ashes series to miss, think the guys playing had more of a punishment than stokes