Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11th October 2017, 09:15   #81
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Indeed there is.

It'd be interesting to see how they justified the decision, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking View Post
That it's in the best interests of the country that Ben is in Australia playing cricket as opposed to being locked up for punching a homophobic thug?
There may be some who don't take rumours as fact and also don't think that Stokes' participation in the Ashes is actually that important to the country (it's only a game, after all).
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 09:16   #82
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Indeed there is.

It'd be interesting to see how they justified the decision, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
At a guess, some of the reasons offered by other posters in this thread.
Can you really see the CPS offering such poor excuses?
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 09:17   #83
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by square leg umpire View Post
Hear though the abused men haven't been located. Is there any hard evidence they ever existed?
Getting softer by the day, it would seem.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 09:42   #84
Summer of '77
World Class
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 7,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
There may be some who don't take rumours as fact
Well this is it. As cricket fans, we should have learned from the fallout from Bob Woolmer's death to avoid relying on rumour and speculation. All we have is the fact that Stokes was arrested on suspicion on ABH and a video of part of the incident. None of us were there, we don't know the full context. I'm personally disappointed at England cricketers putting themselves in such positions of vulnerability, and also at Stokes' May-like propensity to keep landing himself in strife. But, with regards to this specific incident, I'll await the results of the official investigation rather than guessing.
Summer of '77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 11:24   #85
geoff_boycotts_grandmother
Posting God
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer of '77 View Post
Well this is it. As cricket fans, we should have learned from the fallout from Bob Woolmer's death to avoid relying on rumour and speculation. All we have is the fact that Stokes was arrested on suspicion on ABH and a video of part of the incident. None of us were there, we don't know the full context. I'm personally disappointed at England cricketers putting themselves in such positions of vulnerability, and also at Stokes' May-like propensity to keep landing himself in strife. But, with regards to this specific incident, I'll await the results of the official investigation rather than guessing.
Theresa or Peter?

He still hasn't been charged has he?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer
It was a poor innings by Bell with the bat.
geoff_boycotts_grandmother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 12:53   #86
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by square leg umpire View Post
Hear though the abused men haven't been located. Is there any hard evidence they ever existed?
I very much doubt the Avon & Somerset Police will be offering updates on the progress of the case but if the men who allegedly receive homophobic abuse are not openly "out" they would clearly be reluctant to come forward in such a high profile case.
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 14:38   #87
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Can you really see the CPS offering such poor excuses?
Itís not my field, although Iíve met enough people whoíve been involved in similar scuffles to realise that charges are by no means a given.
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 18:16   #88
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,503
Many of those, perhaps, were not captured by CCTV and seen by millions.

The authorities would need to come up with a very good (and credible) explanation for no action in this case.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 21:45   #89
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
I dunno. Most places where these things occur have cctv now. It’s irrelevant that milllions have seen it btw.

The authorities may just come up with the reasons given in here. Obviously you won’t find that credible, but that’s life eh
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th October 2017, 22:11   #90
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psyduck View Post
I very much doubt the Avon & Somerset Police will be offering updates on the progress of the case but if the men who allegedly receive homophobic abuse are not openly "out" they would clearly be reluctant to come forward in such a high profile case.
Or they may not even be gay. I'd imagine most homophobic slurs are directed at people who are not gay.

Anyway, as Rob says, none of us know anything more than the incident as depicted in the video and the facts reported the police. Everything else is speculation and a lot irrelevant.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2017, 09:44   #91
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
I dunno. Most places where these things occur have cctv now. It’s irrelevant that milllions have seen it btw.

The authorities may just come up with the reasons given in here. Obviously you won’t find that credible, but that’s life eh
It should be obvious that the authorities will not see it as irrelevant that any decision they make will be seen in the context of evidence seen by millions. To think otherwise is to deny reality.

None of the reasons given here would stand up in the face of serious questions asked by the media.

I see Stokes has lost a £200k sponsorship deal. New Balance said it "does not condone behaviour that does not match our brand culture and values".
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2017, 09:53   #92
Sir Coolerking
County 2nd Team
 
Sir Coolerking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N Hants
Team(s): England, Sussex, Portsmouth
Posts: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
It should be obvious that the authorities will not see it as irrelevant that any decision they make will be seen in the context of evidence seen by millions. To think otherwise is to deny reality.

None of the reasons given here would stand up in the face of serious questions asked by the media.

I see Stokes has lost a £200k sponsorship deal. New Balance said it "does not condone behaviour that does not match our brand culture and values".
The fact that this has been seen by millions could affect whether Stokes can actually have a fair trial. Finding a jury member without pre-conceived opinions won't be easy.

I find the New Balance decision odd given how they sponsor the England shirt. Are they going to have a special one made for Stokes?
Sir Coolerking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2017, 10:00   #93
Summer of '77
World Class
 
Summer of '77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London-Essex
Team(s): Kent, Essex, Surrey Stars
Posts: 7,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking View Post

I find the New Balance decision odd given how they sponsor the England shirt. Are they going to have a special one made for Stokes?
He'll have to rummage around the box of old kit in the games teacher's office.
Summer of '77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2017, 10:25   #94
Ali TT
Posting God
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking View Post
The fact that this has been seen by millions could affect whether Stokes can actually have a fair trial. Finding a jury member without pre-conceived opinions won't be easy.

I find the New Balance decision odd given how they sponsor the England shirt. Are they going to have a special one made for Stokes?
DL seems to be arguing himself down an odd cul-de-sac, possibly just because he feels the need to be contrarian. If there is any truth to the speculations on this board then the police will likely find it, making the speculation more robust in face of media scrutiny. Either way, I'm not sure any of us need to face media scrutiny for our musings on here. I also expect most jurors won't have heard of Ben Stokes, given the low public profile of cricket in England, so I'm sure his trial, if it comes, will be fair. Probably not go beyond magistrates anyway.
__________________
WARNING
Reading the above post may cause bouts of nausea.
Ali TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2017, 10:25   #95
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
It should be obvious that the authorities will not see it as irrelevant that any decision they make will be seen in the context of evidence seen by millions. To think otherwise is to deny reality.

None of the reasons given here would stand up in the face of serious questions asked by the media.

I see Stokes has lost a £200k sponsorship deal. New Balance said it "does not condone behaviour that does not match our brand culture and values".
This is a legal matter and what millions of others, the media, and you think about it mean bugger all.
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2017, 10:35   #96
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking View Post
The fact that this has been seen by millions could affect whether Stokes can actually have a fair trial. Finding a jury member without pre-conceived opinions won't be easy. ...?
A trial may be prejudiced by what people have said, but unlikely to be by producing evidence already seen.

If that were the case, the "Sun", or anyone else, may find themselves in trouble by showing video of any incident that may lead to a prosecution.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2017, 10:38   #97
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
DL seems to be arguing himself down an odd cul-de-sac, possibly just because he feels the need to be contrarian. If there is any truth to the speculations on this board then the police will likely find it, making the speculation more robust in face of media scrutiny. Either way, I'm not sure any of us need to face media scrutiny for our musings on here. I also expect most jurors won't have heard of Ben Stokes, given the low public profile of cricket in England, so I'm sure his trial, if it comes, will be fair. Probably not go beyond magistrates anyway.
Ali seems to have once again misunderstood what he has read but I won't speculate upon the reason. Who said anything about our facing media scrutiny?
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2017, 10:40   #98
D/L
World Class
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Yorkshire CCC & England, Wakefield Trinity RLFC, Leeds Carnegie RUFC
Posts: 6,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
It should be obvious that the authorities will not see it as irrelevant that any decision they make will be seen in the context of evidence seen by millions. To think otherwise is to deny reality.

None of the reasons given here would stand up in the face of serious questions asked by the media.

I see Stokes has lost a £200k sponsorship deal. New Balance said it "does not condone behaviour that does not match our brand culture and values".
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyluke View Post
This is a legal matter and what millions of others, the media, and you think about it mean bugger all.
Still denying reality then? Stokes' sponsors, at least, seem to think public opinion is important.
D/L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2017, 11:01   #99
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ali TT View Post
D/L seems to be arguing himself down an odd cul-de-sac, possibly just because he feels the need to be contrarian. ...
I long since gave up trying to work out what D/L's point of view is. I daresay such a thing may exist, but it's so deeply hidden (under the weight of his tedious need to put down all others and present himself as the only person on the planet with a brain) that no one could be expected to look for it. I think he once made a good joke, but of course I can't remember what it was.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2017, 11:04   #100
luckyluke
Established International
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by D/L View Post
Still denying reality then? Stokes' sponsors, at least, seem to think public opinion is important.
Sportswear companies have a bit less due process compared to the courts, I think.
__________________
Most heartless decision:

In a women's league match in Denmark, a heavily pregnant woman arrived at the crease, and asked for a runner. Her request was denied, on the grounds that her incapacity had not occured during the course of the match.
luckyluke is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:50.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Cricket247.org