Ben stokes | Vital Football

Ben stokes

Good on him. Cleared in the eyes of the law and more than served his suspension from the ECB (he missed the Ashes FFS). Time to draw a line under it and let him get on with his cricket. A big bonus for England to have one of their(arguably the) best player back - not that we need him v India, but he'll be key next year with a home Ashes and home world cup. There should be lots of apologies and humble pie from those slating him, but for some reason, all I can see on social media are sour grapes, denial and insistence that he's still guilty - don't get why people aren't backing an England cricketer who is key to our national team?
 
It hasn’t been proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. This is not the same as finding beyond reasonable doubt that he was innocent so I wouldn’t go overboard.
 
I guess most people have seen the video footage and formed their own judgements without knowing the full circumstances. Reminds me of when Steven Gerrard was found not guilty when caught on video punching a guy at a bar, as it was “self-defence.”
 
Another star struck jury? Don't see why he should be afforded extra grace because he's an England player. Should make no difference either way.

Anyway, he has the right to move on and resume his life/playing career.
 
Lark said:
I guess most people have seen the video footage and formed their own judgements without knowing the full circumstances. Reminds me of when Steven Gerrard was found not guilty when caught on video punching a guy at a bar, as it was “self-defence.”
Click to expand...
Yep too many people seeing a few clips or reading an article written by a journalist with an agenda and making judgements without knowing all the facts the jury heard. A jury found him not guilty. They had all the facts, not us. The arrogance of some that they still feel they can argue with the jury based on what little they've heard about it in press thats out to get an England player. Not only did they find him not guilty, but they took only 3 hours to do so. Correct he's not proven 100% innocent, but in the same respect we have a innocent until proven guilty concept in this country and rightly so. In fact you could even take the view that he should be lauded for standing up for two gay men. The jury clearly accepted this line of reasoning.

A few apologies in order, I think. Yes he's a bit of a nob saying certain things to the bouncer, but then most of us will have been there, let's bare in mind he was only 26, more importantly he's stood up against homophobia. He's served his punishment for being a nob and getting caught up with it in the first place and so deserves to be in the team.

Yes he will face ecb disciplinary action. I expect him to receive a x month ban, with x being the number of games he's missed already, so it turns out he's already served the ban through missing the ashes, thereby making him eligible for games going forward.

Our best player that we should be celebrating. I think India will be better in the subsequent tests and we'll need him, not that that should make any difference to the ECB, but to he fans we should celebrate him, rather than judge like the media wants us to. That said, you can't leave woakes out after his last performance.
 
AK, I know very little about this case so my comment here is more general.

Obviously, in one sense you're right about the jury having had more info and people shouldn't just be making snap judgements based on media reports etc....

But, I think you should be careful about regarding a jury's decision as being infallible. There are many instances when a guilty person cannot be proven to be guilty, and, worse than this I reckon, many cases where innocent people get wrongly convicted.

Just saying....
 
Didn't it happen with sime other sportsman fairly recently? Can't remember the details but whoever it was hot found not guilty by the courts but still faced a charge of bringing the game into disrepute.

For a conviction it needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt but for a disrepute charge it doesn't...
 
wxgill said:
If he is not guilty then how can the end charge him with anything?
Click to expand...
Assuming you mean the ecb, like many bodies they are likely to rule on the balance of probabilities rather than having to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

John Terry was found ‘not guilty’ by a court of law but was still later charged by the FA for the same incident. In some cases a player may not be guilty of a criminal offence but may still break a code of conduct at the same time if their actions bring the game into disrepute.
 
nibbles said:
Assuming you mean the ecb, like many bodies they are likely to rule on the balance of probabilities rather than having to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

John Terry was found ‘not guilty’ by a court of law but was still later charged by the FA for the same incident. In some cases a player may not be guilty of a criminal offence but may still break a code of conduct at the same time if their actions bring the game into disrepute.
Click to expand...

John Terry, that's who i was thinking of. Not that recent after all!
 
A conviction needs to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" but an internal investigation only needs to be proven against a "balance of probabilities" which has a much lower threshold.

Edit. Sorry, posted at the same time as Nibbles
 
I see what you're saying but two outcomes from one scenario seems to contradict the legal system!
 
But an internal investigation isn't governed by the legal system, just employed law which is civil, not criminal.
An example I know of is where a PC was charged with assault after dealing with a suspect. He was found not guilty but lost his job when investigated for "using excessive force". Not a criminal offence but goes against the ethics of the police service. He was "tried" using the balance of probabilities threshold.
 
The way I see it if a higher court clears you the lower authority should be forced to accept the verdict regardless. Court as opposed to the e c b
 
Several troubling things about this case in my book.

I don't know how many of you have ever thrown a serious punch at anyone (as Stokes is shown doing not once but several times on film) let alone knocked them out. I never have.

Self defence which was his claim would suggest someone was advancing on him, not the other way round. The film only shows him going forward. Never retreating. If that is not aggression I don't know what is.

There is obviously some legal loophole or grey area in the law that the judge explained to the jury which got him off. Maybe it is the term affray which I do not 100% understand.

I also do not understand why the gay couple were not required to give evidence as that would surely have backed up or contradicted Stokes' story.

AK's statement that "The arrogance of some that they still feel they can argue with the jury based on what little they've heard about it in press thats out to get an England player" is correct if they are blaming the jury, as they are often directed by the judge.

However, being an apologist for someone who our eyes tells us used his sporting torso to beat up men clearly not as well built as him, having earlier imitated an insulting mincing pose in front of his gay "friends", makes me draw my own conclusions about the character of the man.

Finally, I wonder how much the case cost? I suspect we will all pick up the tab for a case that it now appears stood no chance of achieving a conviction, even with the benefit of clear video footage.
 
wxgill said:
If he is not guilty then how can the end charge him with anything?
Click to expand...
I assume you meant ECB. Their charge would be bringing the game into disrepute, which is not the same as a criminal or civil charge brought before a court. The fact that he was involved in a scuffle and has appeared in court is hardly the behaviour of someone who is seen as a role model for the game.
 
GillsBluenose said:
Several troubling things about this case in my book.

I don't know how many of you have ever thrown a serious punch at anyone (as Stokes is shown doing not once but several times on film) let alone knocked them out. I never have.

Self defence which was his claim would suggest someone was advancing on him, not the other way round. The film only shows him going forward. Never retreating. If that is not aggression I don't know what is.

There is obviously some legal loophole or grey area in the law that the judge explained to the jury which got him off. Maybe it is the term affray which I do not 100% understand.

I also do not understand why the gay couple were not required to give evidence as that would surely have backed up or contradicted Stokes' story.

AK's statement that "The arrogance of some that they still feel they can argue with the jury based on what little they've heard about it in press thats out to get an England player" is correct if they are blaming the jury, as they are often directed by the judge.

However, being an apologist for someone who our eyes tells us used his sporting torso to beat up men clearly not as well built as him, having earlier imitated an insulting mincing pose in front of his gay "friends", makes me draw my own conclusions about the character of the man.

Finally, I wonder how much the case cost? I suspect we will all pick up the tab for a case that it now appears stood no chance of achieving a conviction, even with the benefit of clear video footage.
Click to expand...
Affray Definition: A fight between two or more persons in a public place so as to cause terror to the public. Related Terms: Mayhem, Duel, Chance Medley. A common law criminal offence comprised of the public fighting of two or more persons to the terror of the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.