You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So you're saying now that the court has found them innocent that the ECB should hand out another punishment?
Or maybe Duckett blew his first chance and has not proved himself again yet.
The article above tells a very different story to the court case reporting, which should we believe?
It depends how being videoed on CCTV kicking and punching someone sits with codes of conduct his employer sets. I'm not sure I could have a night out with work colleagues like that and have no consequences.
To quote someone else in earlier threads, Paddy Jackson was sacked on being cleared of rape. Clarkson was sacked despite charges not being brought for his punch. Lee Bowyer was fined despite being cleared of affray, etc, etc.
The article above tells a very different story to the court case reporting, which should we believe?
it is completely consistent with the defence case, you obviously only read the reporting of the prosecution case.
it is completely consistent with the defence case, you obviously only read the reporting of the prosecution case.
The Majority of the headlines skipped most of that, the last BBC headline lead with the prosecution allegation as if it was fact.
I bet the ‘handshake’ in the dock was one of those faux red indian warrior-brother hand clasps as well (where is the ‘rolls eyes’ emoji when you need it).
Whatever the outcome legally, they’ve all come out of this looking like right tosspots.
Clarkson was sacked despite charges not being brought for his punch.
He resigned.
Highly unlikely - there are very strict rules on court reporting, you need to observe the quotation marks and be a more critical reader.
I'm a big cricket fan and Ben Stokes is am absolutely brilliant batsman, bowler and fielder.
But that's irrelevant.
I don't understand how he isn't guilty of assault. Video clearly shows him punching someone and knocking them to the floor.
I don’t understand how he isn’t guilty of assault. Video clearly shows him punching someone and knocking them to the floor.
He was not charged with assault as there was no complaint. That is how he was not found guilty of it.
The situation was assessed with all the available information not just the video, the video was only part of what was considered in the trial. To form a judgement based on incomplete evidence would be short sighted.
There is a link on the previous page that says he stepped in to stop something happening to other people too, that sits as part of the judgement.
I don’t understand how he isn’t guilty of assault.
He wasn't on trial for assault - that requires someone to make a complaint, and no-one did.
The charge was affray, which requires the jury to believe that 'he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety'.
The 'path to verdict' guidance issued to the jury in reaching their decision (via 'The Secret Barrister' on twitter) is here
A court has to prove "beyond reasonable doubt". How the hell any jury manages to make a sensible decision when they are subjected to all the lies from all sides (in every case), I've no idea. Unless they just decide that he's a nice looking man and I've heard of him so he can't be guilty.
When did truth become such an endangered species?
His employers will have a lower test. "Balance of probabilities" and will give him a rap on the knuckles and warn him "as to his future behaviour".
I realise he wasn't charged with assault. I'm not saying that the jury reached the wrong decision as the law stands. However, as a normal, law abiding citizen sitting at home watching the news, it doesn't inspire any confidence in our justice system. In my opinion, there is almost always an alternative to punching someone in the way he did.
As I read it both fighting parties wanted to walk away without penalty so did not push for anything against each other.
sure stokes comes off as a thug and could lose his ecb contract for poor conduct. If it was a normal person would there have been all this fuss?
However, as a normal, law abiding citizen sitting at home watching the news, it doesn’t inspire any confidence in our justice system. In my opinion, there is almost always an alternative to punching someone in the way he did.
Then you should choose to understand it more.
In my opinion, there is almost always an alternative to punching someone in the way he did.
So there you have it. There are situations of last resort where there is no alternative.
One such, as laid out in law, is threat or reasonably perceived threat to himself or others.
You can't be sure this wasn't one, therefore you have to find him not guilty.
Not hard.
He resigned.
Not from Top Gear he didn't. He was sacked.
So for those condemning him what is your understanding of what happened?
Stokes will most definitely not lose his ECB contract.
There were representative from the ECB at the trial - if Stokes was coming to the end of his playing career, plagued by injuries, you can be sure he would have been on his ownsome.
Stokes knew this all along, and so did his lawyer; he never looked panicked. He is formally not guilty of affray; but the jury is still out on whether he is an arrogant ginger thug with a temper problem.
Not from Top Gear he didn’t. He was sacked.
Try again.
Go on then.
He was suspended and his contract wasn't renewed. He didn't resign. He was kicked out.
Clarkson was sacked despite charges not being brought for his punch.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">What do you think would happen if you punched one of your team?</span>
There you got there in the end.
What do you think would happen if you punched one of your team?
Medal, pay rise, few beers, sack
really depends on which job and which team member
There you got there in the end.
Eh?
He was sacked. His employment was terminated by the BBC.
He didn't resign, as you stated incorrectly.
He was not terminated.
In my opinion, there is almost always an alternative to punching someone in the way he did.
And in my experience, quite often there isn't. Would you turn your back on a man with a weapon? A bottle? My younger years as a soldier I'd usually drink around these sorts; first time I turned my back to ignore one of these idiots, found myself in A&E with a head wound and a slight concussion.
Never did that again. Surprised the lad laying the boot in to the fella on the floor walked, that's normally a no-no. Even with adjusted Queensbury rules.
Yes he was, on the 25th or March after being suspended on the 10th.
He did not resign. Even he doesn't claim he did!
I have no idea where you're going with this but I'm happy to go along for the ride. 🙂
Jeremy Clarkson's contract will not be renewed after an "unprovoked physical attack" on a Top Gear producer, the BBC's director general has confirmed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32052736
Not terminated, Ok he didn’t resign either but he wasn’t sacked.
So he didn't resign then? Not even a little bit?
His contract wasn't renewed. He was sacked.
Dismissal (referred to informally as firing or sacking) is the termination of employment by an employer against the will of the employee.
From your link:
Announcing his decision, Lord Hall said Clarkson's dismissal was unavoidable.
And again, from your link:
But this sacking has nothing to do with style, opinions, popularity - or even his language on the show.
No way he’ll loose his ECB contract. Maybe a fine or something but with England 2-0 up he’ll be straight back in the team.
As pointed out above for a ecb disciplinary on " bringing the game in disrepute" they only need use the "balance of probabilities" level of proof
I very much doubt they will however use this for any significant sanction given the general nastiness in the team the last decade or so and the spineless way the ECB have behaved
Not sure if the ECB rules I looked at are up to date, but the maximum ECB fine for disrepute charge is £500.
Predicted press release in a few weeks:
“The ECB discipliniary committee have found Ben Stoke and Alex Hale guilty of bringng the game into disrepute and have fined them the maximum amount permissible under ECB rules”
Not to condone it, but fights happen every Friday and Saturday night outside bars – few of them result in a high-profile court case
Agree. However, if the whole cricket team (or any other like team of any other sport) were getting into fights every weekend they would need to do something about it.
TJ - what is this nastiness within the England team? Not something I was aware of, or have seen reported?
TJ – what is this nastiness within the England team?
Say something enough and people think its true.
In any team / squad of players there will be some people who don't get on with each other, and inevitably factions or cliques form. I don't think previous coach(es) dealt with some of that particularly well, but one player in mind was on his day the best batsman of his generation and difficult therefore to leave out.
Doesn't mean there is a general nastiness, although I'm not going to pretend that Stokes doesn't have an anger problem too. But then so did several other stars...Botham was a bully when it suited him. Lovely old Michael Holding had a meltdown on the pitch. They're pretty much all alpha males, in their own way, they have to be to get where they are and sparks will sometimes fly.
Jeez, more than once my opening partner offered to use me as a bat sheath after I called him for a short single, and that was Thames Valley League, not a test match!!
On the other argument, I reckon not having your contract renewed is equivalent to being fired, even if that view does bring me into potential conflict with a Forum Elder.
Well Stokes is in but no sign of Clarkson.
Interesting new angle on the case:
<h1>Gay couple say Ben Stokes did not deserve to face trial</h1>
(Don't know what happened to the text there........)
Read about this trial patchily from abroad whilst on hols. Could not understand why the gay couple were not called as witnesses by either the prosecution or the defence. Stoke's lawyers could have used them to corroborate his version and the prosecution could have used it as evidence against the other lad (Ali?).
All very messy. A hard drinking (and smoking) sportsman up into the small hours and getting involved in fights - not exactly the perfect model for a 21st century sportsman. But then again bothering to go to a nightclub at all beyond the age of 23/24 is pretty much the preserve of the dribblers, the knuckle draggers and the desperate of society so I guess conforming to type. Regardless of verdict for the specific charge he has been revealed as a tool. Lets not forget his impressions of Katie Price's son for a full impression of what the guy is like.
But then again bothering to go to a nightclub at all beyond the age of 23/24 is pretty much the preserve of the dribblers, the knuckle draggers and the desperate of society so I guess conforming to type.
How charming of you
How charming of you
You don't still go to clubs do you?
I do, some DJ mates still have get togethers in clubs.. an even though we’re older now we still throw shapes and enjoy the vibes dude 👌🖖
Been to plenty since I was 24,some cracking nights in awesome places.
Could not understand why the gay couple were not called as witnesses by either the prosecution or the defence.
Me too. IANAL and can only speculate but given it was affray, which takes two parties both being prosecuted by the same case, but they had 2 defence teams..... the prosecutors I might wonder didn't want to call them because it corroborates the Stokes case. If the facts are as are being reported, then Ali's team equally might not want to call them because a/ it undermines his case / statement in the first instance and 2/ opens up the chance for Stokes' actions to be seen as reasonable to protect others, and Ali's as being potentially the one with more intent.
So why didn't Stokes' team call them on that basis. Again i can only wonder whether between them they though their best chance of aquittal or it being considered handbags and a small fine / community service was if both admitted to that being the case and muddying the waters with the couple remaining as hearsay / conflicting opinions from each side.
But in the end I still wonder what time and money has been spent and if should ever have been tried in the first place (and would it if it had just been Joe Public)
As an alternative though...... here's a different (whatiffery, maybe) newspaper story of the events:
Cricketer hailed as hero following nightclub brawl.
BS was today praised for his intervention in a nightclub incident that saw two men injured by the all-rounder.
BS was celebrating with England team mates after a win last summer, when he became embroiled in an altercation between two men and a gay couple outside a Bristol night club. It is alleged that homophobic comments were made and at least one of the couple was threatened with a beer bottle. Fearing for their safety BS intervened and in the ensuing scuffle was approached by the bottle wielding thug, at which point he punched the man causing him to fall to the floor. He was then approached by the second man, who had armed himself with a metal bar from a road sign, whereupon BS also punched this man and disarmed him.
The police arrived shortly afterwards and arrested all three, but after reviewing accounts and CCTV evidence later released BS without charge. The two assailants are currently being held on suspicion of attempted GBH, threatening behaviour, and homophobic hate crimes.
The couple later said they were grateful to the cricketer.
Barry said: “When I realised who he was, I thought, fair play. He’s obviously put his career at risk for someone that he never knew. Thank you for being there. Sorry about all the drama we landed you in, but a lot of appreciation.”
O’Connor said they were thankful for Stokes’ actions “because Kai could have been left with a scar”. He said the cricketer had approached when he saw “how homophobic [the people] were and how nasty they came across”
#metoostillgotooclubs with people of the same age for a night of irresponsibility.
They can take money from the Sun to tell a story that was a much needed lifeline for Stokes at the time of the media attention but could not tell the same story under oath... or is that too cynical?
Been to plenty since I was 24,some cracking fights in awesome places.
BS!
I was also puzzled by the non-appearance of the gay couple but now I reckon the defence must have thought they had a watertight case without needing to bring in the risk of an outside witness (who eg might admit to fearing for their personal safety).
You don't volunteer to be a witness somebody needs to ask you.
So that Cipriani,
Not guilty?
Fine?
Prison?