Mbargogate

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

Originally Posted by WeAreKent

Not really.

The Times has two pieces about Stokes on its website, one a news story and the other an opinion piece by the chief sports writer saying Stokes should not be perrmitted to play for his country until the trial has taken its course. Both are open for comment and more than 100 readers have expressed a variety of strongly-held opinions today without censorship.

Nobody is going to get "into trouble", either at The Times or still less on here.

Discussing the case is of course different to discussing his selection.

[D/L]

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

...I don't see the need to discuss the case now whilst the proceedings are active and would suggest people heed Chin's warning.

With a degree of care, the case can still be discussed.

Any road up, many other things sub judice have been discussed on here.

[Jock McTuffnel v3]

Originally Posted by Rebelstar

Would like to think he'd have a better than average lawyer, although whether he listens to him or not is another matter....



Totally agree, although has it been six months? Thought BBC piece/timeline suggested it was something like 25th September which would make it coming up four months not six.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/41798404

Remembered the date exactly, wow. How long it takes to come to a conclusion dog only knows.

4 months until now - and is the first court date when it will be resolved or will it to be to set a date for trial ? Could easily be 6-9 months from offence to verdict.

[Rebelstar]

Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3

4 months until now - and is the first court date when it will be resolved or will it to be to set a date for trial ? Could easily be 6-9 months from offence to verdict.

How long's a piece of string when the owner is taking four months to unravel the first bit.................?

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by WeAreKent

Not really.

The Times has two pieces about Stokes on its website, one a news story and the other an opinion piece by the chief sports writer saying Stokes should not be perrmitted to play for his country until the trial has taken its course. Both are open for comment and more than 100 readers have expressed a variety of strongly-held opinions today without censorship.

Nobody is going to get "into trouble", either at The Times or still less on here.

The only way people can get into trouble is by quoting verbatim from the article, The Times being behind a pay wall. I speak from experience since I and this forum were told off when I copied and pasted part of an Atherton article.

[Summer of '77]

Chin's right. A break should be taken from the discussion. Not because of any legal ramifications but because the whole issue is now very very boring. We have a Brexit thread set up specifically for tedium.

[Jock McTuffnel v3]

Wow wow wow.

ECB say Stokes available lor selection.

[gmdf]

Stokes is now 'available for selection' for the Tour of NZ:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/42718484

[Psyduck]

BREAKING NEWS: Ben Stokes has been cleared to resume his England career and he will join the England squad for the T20 tri-series.

Great news for England fans but it does rather make a mockery of the fact he was effectively suspended when he was under investigation and cleared to play when he has been charged of a criminal offence. #shambles

[WeAreKent]

Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3

Wow wow wow.

ECB say Stokes available lor selection.

Yes. Astonishing decision and makes the ECB look utterly stupid.

It was deemed inappropriate to select himfor the Ashes when there was no charge against him.

Now he's been charged and is going to trial, it's appropriate to select him.

I freely confess that I'm not the brightest but the 'logic' of the ECB's position over this escapes me entirely....

[WeAreKent]

Just been told the 'logic' is that if the ECB had known four months ago he was going to trial for affray, he would have been suspended for a certain number of matches - and that suspension is now deemed to have been served.

But what happens if is he found guilty (or pleads guilty, which would be by far the most pragmatic thing for him to do)? Does he then get a second suspension by the ECB? Or will it be deemed that the punishment he has already served covers all outcomes at his trial?

What a shambles.

[Summer of '77]

Originally Posted by WeAreKent

Yes. Astonishing decision and makes the ECB look utterly stupid.

It was deemed inappropriate to select himfor the Ashes when there was no charge against him.

Now he's been charged and is going to trial, it's appropriate to select him.

I freely confess that I'm not the brightest but the 'logic' of the ECB's position over this escapes me entirely....

Unless, the ECB was simply denying Stokes his peak-time Ashes as a punishment for getting himself embroiled in such an ugly situation, regardless of the legal issues. Having been sent home from a Lions tour of Aus for past misdemeanours, I guess the next step in some minds would be to deny him a senior one.

[Sir Coolerking]

That's just a bizarre decision. I presume the Court appearance won't be until after the NZ series then?

Perhaps the fact he's not being charged with a bodily harm offence has counted for him.

[luckyluke]

“Given the CPS decision to charge him and two others with affray, confirmation of his intention to contest the charge and the potential length of time to trial, the board agreed that it would not be fair, reasonable or proportionate for Ben Stokes to remain unavailable for a further indeterminate period.”

Sounds reasonable to me. I’m guessing they didn’t want him to play whilst a conviction for ABH/GBH was on the cards. He (and England) have suffered enough for the lesser crime of affray that he is, until proven otherwise, innocent of.

[WeAreKent]

Originally Posted by luckyluke

“Given the CPS decision to charge him and two others with affray, confirmation of his intention to contest the charge and the potential length of time to trial, the board agreed that it would not be fair, reasonable or proportionate for Ben Stokes to remain unavailable for a further indeterminate period.”

If he denies the charge and is then found guilty, that really is going to put the ECB in an even trickier position - which is one of several reasons why if I was his barrister I'd be recommending he swallows hard and enters a pragmatic plea of guilty, coupled with a fulsome apology.

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

The change of position is a nonsense but I suppose is necessary given how Strauss mishandled it in the first place.

[Jock McTuffnel v3]

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

The change of position is a nonsense but I suppose is necessary given how Strauss mishandled it in the first place.

Strauss position becoming very shaky on a few fronts.

[Jock McTuffnel v3]

Ben Stokes allowed to resume cricket career as ECB feared being sued for restraint of trade | @NHoultCricket

[1000yardstare]

Originally Posted by Jock McTuffnel v3

Ben Stokes allowed to resume cricket career as ECB feared being sued for restraint of trade | @NHoultCricket

Just saw that headline. So why did he not play in the Ashes then?

The way I see this is

a) Out late and fighting
b) Disclipinary hearing (it wasn't as if he was going to be banned for 6 months or more. Whatever the outcome (guilty or not, it was always going to be a couple of matches).
c) Allowed to play while waiting for police and CPS due to the business of restraint of trade.

[luckyluke]

Originally Posted by WeAreKent

If he denies the charge and is then found guilty, that really is going to put the ECB in an even trickier position - which is one of several reasons why if I was his barrister I'd be recommending he swallows hard and enters a pragmatic plea of guilty, coupled with a fulsome apology.

How?