This is what I don't get.
It took almost a year, a week of trial and Stokes omission from the Ashes.
Was found not guilty after a morning.
Why did the CPS bother?
Because he is ginger?
This is what I don't get.
It took almost a year, a week of trial and Stokes omission from the Ashes.
Was found not guilty after a morning.
Why did the CPS bother?
And now he's back in the test squad too for Saturday.
Yes, put like that, it is a bit of a disgrace - and a huge waste of tax-payers money. Almost a year's work by the CPS, plus a week in court (have you any idea how much a top barrister gets per hour, never mind a week? Judges don't come cheap either!) and it's kicked out by a jury in two and a half hours!This is what I don't get.
It took almost a year, a week of trial and Stokes omission from the Ashes.
Was found not guilty after a morning.
Why did the CPS bother?
How do you explain the other two blokes being found not guilty then? It's a case that should never have got to court.
Or move YJB up to 4 and drop Pope? Harsh but could happen.Tough selection call.
Woakes can't be left out after last weekend's heroics. Sam Curran has had two excellent Tests and it would send entirely the wrong signal to stand him down, just as he's getting going. Broad bowled brilliantly on Sunday, and is always good on his home pitch at Trent Bridge, and Sir Jimmy is an absolute genius.
Yet Stokes' will to win, was absolutely instrumental in the previous victory.
Leave Adil Rashid out? (along with Moeen and Porter)? Seems most likely IF Stokes is accommodated (he does still face an ECB disciplinary tribunal). Spinners rarely have much of a say at TB anyway.
Or drop Buttler, and retain Rashid? Means the non-specialist batsman start at 6, but when 6-9 are Stokes, Woakes, Curran, Rashid that is still a really strong batting line up.
Or drop Buttler, but replace Rashid with Moeen as the spin option who can bat at 4 or 5.
Will be interesting.
They could just let them fight it out between them?Tough selection call......................
.......................Will be interesting.
As for GBH (or ABH or even common assault), "acting in defence of another" is a perfectly reasonable reason for clumping someone. However, once they no longer represent a threat, then you can be done, so no wading in when they're on the floor.
Indeed. A confusing state for us all.The whole aspect of "would I have felt threatened" does seem to give a large amount of scope for people to be acquitted of affray. I'm not going to feel personally threatened if two or more blokes are knocking seven bells out of each other, because I'm not involved, they're not coming after me or threatening me. They're caught up in their own spat or argument. Sure I'd stay out of the way, but I wouldn't be thinking "oh shit, I hope he doesn't come after me".
Its a bit of a strange way of looking at it, and must lead to a lot of acquittals if thats the way we, as jurors, must frame our way of thinking.
Or move YJB up to 4 and drop Pope? Harsh but could happen.
They were on about keeping and batting 4 being too much so I can't see him opening unless they give the gloves to Buttler (and I'm pretty sure Bairstow won't want to give them up). Anyway, it's a nice headache to have but I'm glad I'm not a selector.It could, but Bairstow is doing fine where he is, and they do seem to be keen to give the newer players a fair crack. Pope looked okay in his one innings too.
They could even ask YJB to open (he's done it for Yorkshire?) and drop Jennings (or even Cook...)
Indeed. A confusing state for us all.
Maybe a legal expert can pop in an educate us further at some point.
Were the bookies really offering odds on the outcome of this? If so, I assume you used your knowledge to clean up.
It could, but Bairstow is doing fine where he is, and they do seem to be keen to give the newer players a fair crack. Pope looked okay in his one innings too.
They could even ask YJB to open (he's done it for Yorkshire?) and drop Jennings (or even Cook...)
They were on about keeping and batting 4 being too much so I can't see him opening unless they give the gloves to Buttler (and I'm pretty sure Bairstow won't want to give them up). Anyway, it's a nice headache to have but I'm glad I'm not a selector.
What about Bairstow opening with Cook problem solved.
Didn't occur to me either, but someone on this thread said he was 1/5 on to be found guilty.I didn't notice a market for it tbh, can they even do that ? Wouldn't have even occurred to me.
Indeed. And the blame lies with the CPS.What a waste of time.
What should have had happened was magistrates court in the autumn, a fine for breach of the peace, banned for first two ashes tests, grovelling public apology, everyone gets on with their lives.
Instead we get this long-winded drawn out saga in which, once the charge of affray has been comfortably explained, its obvious he'd be not guilty. Plus we now have to go through the EBC or MCC or whatever disciplinary hearing.
Yes, put like that, it is a bit of a disgrace - and a huge waste of tax-payers money. Almost a year's work by the CPS, plus a week in court (have you any idea how much a top barrister gets per hour,