Toast
Player Valuation: £80m
How can that newspaper get away with purchasing the footage off the student filming it and then get away with publishing it for all to see before the trial btw ?
Cricket
- Thread starter summerisle
- Start date
Chris O'Connor
Player Valuation: £35m
There's been a clear sign of the ecb's intention to take no further action
As Ben Stokes has now been added to the England squad for the next test starting at Trent Bridge on Saturday.
As Ben Stokes has now been added to the England squad for the next test starting at Trent Bridge on Saturday.
Last edited:
Chris O'Connor
Player Valuation: £35m
I'm not sure when exactly this was first published, but wasn't it last Winter? There really would be no embargo on doing so then, and a year later it's so widely spread by social media, it would be absolutely impossible to take down effectively.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
The witnesses whose evidence sounds as if it would be key to this didn't give evidence, but did give an exclusive to a certain paper.
Chris O'Connor
Player Valuation: £35m
The judge in his summing up kept stressing 'you have to be sure'.
The judge then guided the jury with four points where every answer had to be guilty to convict
(Paraphrasing)
1. Was violence used? - (the video clearly shows this and indeed the defendant had no choice but to admit it)
2. Was it justified? (This includes was it an act of self defence?)
3. Was there provocation or aggravating circumstances?
4. Did the affray make 'others' in danger - (where 'others' means other people if they had been there close by)
All 4 of those tests had to return a guilty verdict if one didn't comply then 'not guilty' had to be the verdict.
For me it's easy to see violence and assault but quite easy to also not see all the other tests being passed. They have to be 'absolutely sure' and the judge emphasised that point more than once.
As I said previously the verdict was as expected for me after the judge had clearly directed the jury on how to decide.
The judge then guided the jury with four points where every answer had to be guilty to convict
(Paraphrasing)
1. Was violence used? - (the video clearly shows this and indeed the defendant had no choice but to admit it)
2. Was it justified? (This includes was it an act of self defence?)
3. Was there provocation or aggravating circumstances?
4. Did the affray make 'others' in danger - (where 'others' means other people if they had been there close by)
All 4 of those tests had to return a guilty verdict if one didn't comply then 'not guilty' had to be the verdict.
For me it's easy to see violence and assault but quite easy to also not see all the other tests being passed. They have to be 'absolutely sure' and the judge emphasised that point more than once.
As I said previously the verdict was as expected for me after the judge had clearly directed the jury on how to decide.
Their supporting him again in the media today I think , so I’d suggest them not being called was a defence strategy. In that being in the witness box presented more of a risk than it brought in potential benefits , the defence can’t control where a cross examination will take them .
gonetomorrow
Player Valuation: £80m
This should have been dealt with by the Magistrates like other cases involving scrapping drunks. Celebrity has its advantages.
Brendan Janus
Player Valuation: £40m
He was as guilty as sin !!
Not for affray , he could have got years if found guilty and it’s triable either way I think . If they want to do him for being drunk and disorderly they should have charged him with it and not with something that put him before a judge and jury .
Luckily for him those 12 jurors who sat through the trial disagreed with you .
Chris O'Connor
Player Valuation: £35m
Stokes has to take this whole episode as a severe lesson to be learnt, as it will always be hung on him despite the verdict. No England cricketer can be seen to be fighting in the street, no matter what the provocation may or may not have been.
(the fact the prosecution didn't even know how it all started, for me just killed the case, it was never going to be guilty, a glaring ommision).
(those who still think he's guilty havent followed the case or seem to think the judge doesn't know the law, the directions he gave were very clear indeed).
For the ECB or their funded 'independent' CDC committee to then try to pretend that somehow he hasn't been seriously punished in cricketing terms already, or to construct an incredibly transparent legal loophole of non selection not suspension, so they can just ignore it, would be to bring the board into disrepute too, if the whole world knows he's been punished they have to recognise it too.
Selection for me should therefore be on the premise that you pick your strongest eleven available, and Stokes is still a world class all-rounder and one of the first names on the teamsheet. Recently he's been far more effective with the ball, but prior to the court case he can't not have been affected mentally, the pressure on him must have been absolutely enormous, batting does perhaps take a more intense concentration and he is a quality performer.
There really is no question for me that someone has to miss this match, in my view it has to be a bowler as per my last post, so that really means Rashid or Curran. The weather forecast does indicate sufficient cloud cover on days 2 to 4 to not really require a spinner. Five seamers is usually not needed but there is plenty of variety within those five seamers and personally I see Curran at Trent Bridge as a more potent threat than Rashid.
As its Trent Bridge, Rashid can miss a test for me
(the fact the prosecution didn't even know how it all started, for me just killed the case, it was never going to be guilty, a glaring ommision).
(those who still think he's guilty havent followed the case or seem to think the judge doesn't know the law, the directions he gave were very clear indeed).
For the ECB or their funded 'independent' CDC committee to then try to pretend that somehow he hasn't been seriously punished in cricketing terms already, or to construct an incredibly transparent legal loophole of non selection not suspension, so they can just ignore it, would be to bring the board into disrepute too, if the whole world knows he's been punished they have to recognise it too.
Selection for me should therefore be on the premise that you pick your strongest eleven available, and Stokes is still a world class all-rounder and one of the first names on the teamsheet. Recently he's been far more effective with the ball, but prior to the court case he can't not have been affected mentally, the pressure on him must have been absolutely enormous, batting does perhaps take a more intense concentration and he is a quality performer.
There really is no question for me that someone has to miss this match, in my view it has to be a bowler as per my last post, so that really means Rashid or Curran. The weather forecast does indicate sufficient cloud cover on days 2 to 4 to not really require a spinner. Five seamers is usually not needed but there is plenty of variety within those five seamers and personally I see Curran at Trent Bridge as a more potent threat than Rashid.
As its Trent Bridge, Rashid can miss a test for me
Looking forward to putting my feet up this evening and watching the Birmingham v Lancs T20 match.
We've already qualified for the quarter finals but win for us tonight will guarantee the match will be at Old Trafford so come on Lanky!
We've already qualified for the quarter finals but win for us tonight will guarantee the match will be at Old Trafford so come on Lanky!
Are Sky going to run with Stokes as the headline story until they get him sacked or something? The media in this country are a pathetic little rabble who get a kick out of ending people's livelihoods.
This is just like the 2 irish rugby lads who were cleared of all charges, and left court as innocent men. But that wasn't enough for the media. They persisted until they got the lads sacked and sent to play abroad.
We either live in a country where we support the judiciary and the rule of the law or we have mob rule.
This is just like the 2 irish rugby lads who were cleared of all charges, and left court as innocent men. But that wasn't enough for the media. They persisted until they got the lads sacked and sent to play abroad.
We either live in a country where we support the judiciary and the rule of the law or we have mob rule.
Getting spanked! Do we have loads of injuries? Side looks totally different to what I remember earlier in the season
