• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Third test squad?

Status
Not open for further replies.

hudson88 said:
I think it sends out a canny shite message to the other lads in the team who have come into the side and grabbed their chance with both hands.

Stokes is a superb cricketer, truly fantastic. But I don’t agree with him walking back into the side, it sends out a shit message to everyone else.

Completely understand why people will say he must be in the team, can see that totally. But for me personally, I think it would have been good to leave him out for this test. Give him a chance to clear his head, and also send out a message to all players that you don’t just walk back into the side.

Incredibly harsh on Curran, as it would have been on any player suggested to miss out
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree 100% with you. It would have been tough with stokes in your ear saying that he needed it to sort himself out. We were in a tough place on this call. But I guess we have done the only thing we could have done. The easiest thing. Drop the youngun
 
MrBraithwaite said:
I am sure if he was a bin man instead of a popular cricket player the story would have been different
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have been. The conditions for affray weren't met as there was no danger to the wider public and that would be the same whether it was a famous cricket player or a bin man. What I would say though is if everyone had seen that footage and it was members of the public rather than Ben Stokes there's no way people would have been defending his actions.
 
MrBraithwaite said:
I am sure if he was a bin man instead of a popular cricket player the story would have been different
Click to expand...

If he was a bin man and not a cricketer it would never have got to court :lol:

The whole reason he was prosecuted is because he is Ben Stokes.

rentaghost said:
It wouldn't have been. The conditions for affray weren't met as there was no danger to the wider public and that would be the same whether it was a famous cricket player or a bin man. What I would say though is if everyone had seen that footage and it was members of the public rather than Ben Stokes there's no way people would have been defending his actions.
Click to expand...

Thanks for speaking for me mate, appreciate it
 
rentaghost said:
It wouldn't have been. The conditions for affray weren't met as there was no danger to the wider public and that would be the same whether it was a famous cricket player or a bin man. What I would say though is if everyone had seen that footage and it was members of the public rather than Ben Stokes there's no way people would have been defending his actions.
Click to expand...
Summed up very well
 
The Rat said:
If he was a bin man and not a cricketer it would never have got to court :lol:

The whole reason he was prosecuted is because he is Ben Stokes.
Click to expand...
The Rat said:
If he was a bin man and not a cricketer it would never have got to court :lol:

The whole reason he was prosecuted is because he is Ben Stokes.



Thanks for speaking for me mate, appreciate it
Click to expand...

There might be some truth in that. Knowing now fully what constitutes affray a conviction was never likely. You shouldn't get that confused with Stokes being 'innocent'. His behavior that night from getting pissed up, trying to bribe his way into a night club, flick a tab butt at a member of the public and then carry out a sustained attack on someone was deplorable and a situation the vice captain of a country should have never got himself in. We will never know whether or not he would have been convicted of assault because that charge was never tested. I suspect he would have been.
 
rentaghost said:
There might be some truth in that. Knowing now fully what constitutes affray a conviction was never likely. You shouldn't get that confused with Stokes being 'innocent'. His behavior that night from getting pissed up, trying to bribe his way into a night club, flick a tab butt at a member of the public and then carry out a sustained attack on someone was deplorable and a situation the vice captain of a country should have never got himself in. We will never know whether or not he would have been convicted of assault because that charge was never tested. I suspect he would have been.
Click to expand...

He was charged and found innocent

He didn't break the law

You can spin it as much as you want

He wasn't prosecuted of assault becuse they knew he would never be convicted in a million years, the bloke had a bottle ffs

don't try and pretend you are a bigger legal expert than the CPS, you aren't, so don't pretend to be.
 
The Rat said:
He was charged and found innocent

He didn't break the law

You can spin it as much as you want

He wasn't prosecuted of assault becuse they knew he would never be convicted in a million years, the bloke had a bottle ffs

don't try and pretend you are a bigger legal expert than the CPS, you aren't, so don't pretend to be.
Click to expand...

No - they didn't charge him with assault because there needs to be a complaint from the person who was assaulted. They could only charge him with affray because there was no-one bring charges against Stokes. The CPS would have loved to have charged Stokes with assault or ABH but couldn't because there was no complaint. Ali didn't make the complaint against Stokes because there would have been a counter charge from Stokes. They both knew their best chance of getting off would be affray. In the end Ali gets off scot free for attacking someone with a bottle and Stokes gets off with common assault and going way beyond self defence.

I repeat if it had been David Warner doing what Stokes did your view would be very different.
 
rentaghost said:
No - they didn't charge him with assault because there needs to be a complaint from the person who was assaulted. They could only charge him with affray because there was no-one bring charges against Stokes. The CPS would have loved to have charged Stokes with assault or ABH but couldn't because there was no complaint. Ali didn't make the complaint against Stokes because there would have been a counter charge from Stokes. They both knew their best chance of getting off would be affray. In the end Ali gets off scot free for attacking someone with a bottle and Stokes gets off with common assault and going way beyond self defence.

I repeat if it had been David Warner doing what Stokes did your view would be very different.
Click to expand...

I am always amazed how people on here think they know more than lawyers, CPS, judges, jurors

Amazing really :lol:

What an awful post, based on absolutely fuck all evidence but your own bias
 
The Rat said:
I am always amazed how people on here think they know more than lawyers, CPS, judges, jurors

Amazing really :lol:

What an awful post, based on absolutely fuck all evidence but your own bias
Click to expand...

Just a difference in opinions nothing more, nothing less. However just absorb these two statements:

1) The only reason this was ever brought to court by the CPS was because it was Ben Stokes (The Rat today)

2) Its amazing how many people think they know more than the CPS etc (The Rat today)

Amazing really :lol: ;)

In short it is you that is criticizing the CPS by saying it should never have come to court. I am saying that the CPS couldn't have brought Stokes up on any other charges and that jurors and judges got it spot on because they couldn't have found him guilty of affray.
 
Last edited:
rentaghost said:
Just a difference in opinions nothing more, nothing less. However just absorb these two statements:

1) The only reason this was ever brought to court by the CPS was because it was Ben Stokes (The Rat today)

2) Its amazing how many people think they know more than the CPS etc (The Rat today)

Amazing really :lol: ;)

In short it is you that is criticizing the CPS by saying it should never have come to court. I am saying that the CPS couldn't have brought Stokes up on any other charges and that jurors and judges got it spot on because they couldn't have found him guilty of affray.
Click to expand...

Its not an opinion

Its nonsense, you don't know more than the CPS, you don't know that they wanted to charge him with assault, you dont he would have been found guilty

you don't know any of that, not one bit of it, you just completely made it all up
 
The Rat said:
Its not an opinion

Its nonsense, you don't know more than the CPS, you don't know that they wanted to charge him with assault, you dont he would have been found guilty

you don't know any of that, not one bit of it, you just completely made it all up
Click to expand...

Well I do actually. How would you explain the fact that they tried to add two charges of assault against Stokes on the morning of the trial? And that the Judge told them he would have accepted those charges if they hadn’t been left to the last minute therefore not giving the defence enough time to prepare? Just a reminder that it was you that stated the CPS and the Judge know much more than you or I and I agree totally. They tried to get an assault charge on Stokes and the Judge recognised it would have had good grounds if it had been presented earlier.

So I wasnt just making it up was I? It wasnt just 'bullshit speculation' was it? Any chance of a quick apology?


You must be logged on to see external links
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top