Topic: Ben Stokes Trial (Read 21528 times)

SD · « **Reply #90 on:** August 14, 2018, 09:24:56 PM »

Quote from: tim2000s on August 14, 2018, 03:40:40 PM

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.

LateBloomer · « **Reply #91 on:** August 14, 2018, 09:25:09 PM »

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

SD · « **Reply #92 on:** August 14, 2018, 09:30:31 PM »

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

LateBloomer · « **Reply #93 on:** August 14, 2018, 09:34:45 PM »

Quote from: SD on August 14, 2018, 09:30:31 PM

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

Tom · « **Reply #94 on:** August 14, 2018, 09:36:54 PM »

Quote from: SD on August 14, 2018, 09:24:56 PM

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.

Tom · « **Reply #95 on:** August 14, 2018, 09:41:13 PM »

Quote from: LateBloomer on August 14, 2018, 09:02:13 PM

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.

LateBloomer · « **Reply #96 on:** August 14, 2018, 09:46:20 PM »

Quote from: Tom on August 14, 2018, 09:41:13 PM

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

tate035 · « **Reply #97 on:** August 14, 2018, 09:50:00 PM »

Quote from: Tom on August 14, 2018, 05:58:11 PM

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...

SD · « **Reply #98 on:** August 14, 2018, 09:50:35 PM »

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

SD · « **Reply #99 on:** August 14, 2018, 09:53:39 PM »

Quote from: Tom on August 14, 2018, 09:41:13 PM

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

Tom · « **Reply #100 on:** August 14, 2018, 09:54:13 PM »

Quote from: LateBloomer on August 14, 2018, 09:46:20 PM

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.

Tom · « **Reply #101 on:** August 14, 2018, 09:55:32 PM »

Quote from: SD on August 14, 2018, 09:53:39 PM

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.

tate035 · « **Reply #102 on:** August 14, 2018, 09:59:48 PM »

Quote from: Tom on August 14, 2018, 09:41:13 PM

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...

Tom · « **Reply #103 on:** August 14, 2018, 10:00:24 PM »

Quote from: SD on August 14, 2018, 09:50:35 PM

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.

Tom · « **Reply #104 on:** August 14, 2018, 10:02:39 PM »

Quote from: tate035 on August 14, 2018, 09:59:48 PM

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.

Author Topic: Ben Stokes Trial (Read 21528 times)

SD

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

LateBloomer

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

SD

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

LateBloomer

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

Tom

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

Tom

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

LateBloomer

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

tate035

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

SD

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

SD

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

Tom

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

Tom

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

tate035

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

Tom

Re: Ben Stokes Trial

Tom

Re: Ben Stokes Trial