Ben Stokes Trial
Advertise on CBF

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10

Author Topic: Ben Stokes Trial  (Read 21586 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

tim2000s

  • Administrator
  • International Superstar
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10678
  • Trade Count: (+21)
  • If I only could bat....
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #75 on: August 14, 2018, 03:40:40 PM »

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.
Logged

jamielsn15

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1400
  • Trade Count: (+5)
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #76 on: August 14, 2018, 03:46:18 PM »

^ 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

As may this...

https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/808235
Logged
"The more I practice the luckier I get..."

tate035

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 508
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #77 on: August 14, 2018, 05:19:41 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.

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...
Logged

tate035

Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #78 on: August 14, 2018, 05:25:22 PM »

^ 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

As may this...

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...
Logged

LEACHY48

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2277
  • Trade Count: (+4)
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #79 on: August 14, 2018, 05:42:29 PM »

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.
Logged

Tom

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5607
  • Trade Count: (+33)
    • www.cricketinsight.co.uk
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #80 on: August 14, 2018, 05:58:11 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 05:59:46 PM by Tom »
Logged

richthekeeper

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 950
  • Trade Count: (+2)
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #81 on: August 14, 2018, 06:31:25 PM »

Just because he was found not guilty of this particular charge doesn’t prevent his employer from disciplining him due to his overall conduct.
Logged

Seniorplayer

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6236
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #82 on: August 14, 2018, 06:46:52 PM »

^ 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

As may this...

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
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 06:54:08 PM by Seniorplayer »
Logged

Seniorplayer

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6236
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #83 on: August 14, 2018, 06:52:10 PM »

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
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 07:01:56 PM by Seniorplayer »
Logged

InternalTraining

  • World Cup Winner
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4792
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #84 on: August 14, 2018, 08:05:36 PM »

Give this man the captaincy already!!!
Logged

ppccopener

  • Forum Legend
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7790
  • Trade Count: (+6)
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #85 on: August 14, 2018, 08:26:48 PM »

^ 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

As may this...

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..
Logged

LateBloomer

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 594
  • Trade Count: (-1)
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #86 on: August 14, 2018, 09:02:13 PM »

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
Logged

LEACHY48

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2277
  • Trade Count: (+4)
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #87 on: August 14, 2018, 09:03:42 PM »

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.
Logged

LEACHY48

  • International Captain
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2277
  • Trade Count: (+4)
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #88 on: August 14, 2018, 09:09:08 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

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.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 09:14:29 PM by LEACHY48 »
Logged

LateBloomer

  • County 1st XI
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 594
  • Trade Count: (-1)
Re: Ben Stokes Trial
« Reply #89 on: August 14, 2018, 09:22:00 PM »

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.



Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
 

Advertise on CBF