0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Possibly in the time pending charges, the situation was unclear and maybe there could have been charges for a more serious offence? Now there is a charge, it is a known factor that they can deal with??
Quote from: IDM on January 17, 2018, 01:24:48 pmPossibly in the time pending charges, the situation was unclear and maybe there could have been charges for a more serious offence? Now there is a charge, it is a known factor that they can deal with??It isn't a minor charge though as it carries a custodial sentence of up to 3 years. I can accept the position of "innocent until proven guilty" as logical. I can accept a position that says he can play until charges are laid. I find this difficult to understand.
Possibly, but why couldn't he have been charged with the offence has been charged with ages ago? More serious charges could always have been added on later.
What I cant understand is how they decide these charges..Take the Liverpool player a couple of weeks ago.He grabbed his girlfriend by the throat,punched her then kicked her when she was on the ground in the street..He was charged with common assault,a less serious charge than affray..After watching the Stokes video doing the rounds,i know which one I thinks worse but in the eyes of the law I have it the wrong way round...
This could now drag on for a very long time. England cannot afford to hang him out to dry, as he could go an earn far more money playing IPL and other 20/20 tournaments.
Quote from: ctay on January 17, 2018, 04:45:15 pmThis could now drag on for a very long time. England cannot afford to hang him out to dry, as he could go an earn far more money playing IPL and other 20/20 tournaments. It would have made a lot more sense if the ECB had applied the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." We might have even won a Test!