ECB to review recreational drugs policy in wake of Alex Hales case
http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/ ... hales-case
"The ECB is set to review the balance between player safeguarding and public disclosure in its policy regarding the use of recreational drugs, after conceding that the existing protocol has "failed its stress test"...
...
Privately, however, the ECB has come to the conclusion that their existing policy, formulated in conjunction with the Professional Cricketers' Association, in fact puts too much emphasis on welfare, and leaves too little room for manoeuvre when the sport is confronted with the sort of high-profile case that is currently dominating the news agenda.
At the nub of the issue is the policy's existing focus on player confidentiality, a well-meaning attempt - in the wake of the death of Tom Maynard in 2012 - to protect the vulnerabilities of those who may be struggling with addiction, rather than risk exacerbating their problems through public exposure.
However, the provisions of this protocol have left the ECB exposed to accusations of a cover-up, given that Hales' situation would not have been made public at all but for the story emerging on The Guardian and ESPNcricinfo on Friday afternoon.
In fact, at the point of his second failed test, and the imposition of the 21-day ban, only Tom Harrison, the chief executive, and Ashley Giles, the managing director, were allowed to be made aware - the levels of secrecy surrounding his case were such that even England's head coach, Trevor Bayliss, had to learn of the situation through the media."
Ben Stokes
Winning back vice-captaincy was logical next step for Ben Stokes, Ashley Giles says
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id ... giles-says
"...the ECB also revealed chairman Colin Graves had approved Stokes' re-appointment on the recommendation of Ashley Giles and chief executive Tom Harrison."
[That really is a complete disgrace. The ECB should be ashamed of themselves. Anti-violence organizations in England should call for a public boycott of their cricket team.]
https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id ... giles-says
"...the ECB also revealed chairman Colin Graves had approved Stokes' re-appointment on the recommendation of Ashley Giles and chief executive Tom Harrison."
[That really is a complete disgrace. The ECB should be ashamed of themselves. Anti-violence organizations in England should call for a public boycott of their cricket team.]
'Buttler also played down the decision to give the vice-captaincy back to Stokes. Buttler had taken on the role last summer ahead of the India series, but said it had always been the plan to relinquish it when Stokes was ready.
"I enjoyed it. They said to me in time they'd like Ben to do the role again when he can, so I was very aware that was the situation, and the natural thing to happen.
"It doesn't really change a lot for me: I'm always willing to offer advice and I'm there if Joe wants to talk to me as are a lot of other players in the team as well who aren't vice-captain. It doesn't change a lot." '
(cricinfo)
[A disgrace. But I don't think Jos's place in the Test team is secure, so it's a bit like M. Marsh being vc. Leadership vacuum all-round, it looks like.]
"I enjoyed it. They said to me in time they'd like Ben to do the role again when he can, so I was very aware that was the situation, and the natural thing to happen.
"It doesn't really change a lot for me: I'm always willing to offer advice and I'm there if Joe wants to talk to me as are a lot of other players in the team as well who aren't vice-captain. It doesn't change a lot." '
(cricinfo)
[A disgrace. But I don't think Jos's place in the Test team is secure, so it's a bit like M. Marsh being vc. Leadership vacuum all-round, it looks like.]
Ben Stokes responds:
https://www.instagram.com/p/B2gfADHAcYx/
"low and despicable"
"I cannot conceive of anything more immoral, heartless or contemptuous"
"utterly disgusting"
BS also claims The Sun sent someone to his parents' NZ home.
https://www.instagram.com/p/B2gfADHAcYx/
"low and despicable"
"I cannot conceive of anything more immoral, heartless or contemptuous"
"utterly disgusting"
BS also claims The Sun sent someone to his parents' NZ home.
'In response a Sun spokesperson said: “The Sun has the utmost sympathy for Ben Stokes and his mother but it is only right to point out the story was told with the co-operation of a family member who supplied details, provided photographs and posed for pictures.
“The tragedy is also a matter of public record and was the subject of extensive front page publicity in New Zealand at the time.
“The Sun has huge admiration for Ben Stokes and we were delighted to celebrate his sporting heroics this summer. He was contacted prior to publication and at no stage did he or his representatives ask us not to publish the story.” '
“The tragedy is also a matter of public record and was the subject of extensive front page publicity in New Zealand at the time.
“The Sun has huge admiration for Ben Stokes and we were delighted to celebrate his sporting heroics this summer. He was contacted prior to publication and at no stage did he or his representatives ask us not to publish the story.” '
Other media opinions are split.
e.g. The Independent:
Ben Stokes deserves our sympathy, but The Sun had every right to run their story
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/be ... 11016.html
"That Ben Stokes’ family is deserving of our condolences is not in dispute. But let’s be clear about the content The Sun chose to publish. It was, ultimately, a report of a crime, which had existed as a matter of public record since 1988. Given the nature of the crime itself, the details would have been deeply distressing for Stokes’ family to reread. However, the legitimate right of the media to report on matters of public record, must be balanced against the rights of those who may be impacted by such reporting.
...
Part of the criticism voiced against The Sun was the fact that it had decided to report on an event which took place so long ago, indeed this is something which appears to have caused the Stokes family particular distress. However, the passage of time does not grant confidentiality to a crime. If it did, it would unduly restrict the right of the media to report on public legal proceedings. A crime, and its impact, exists as a matter of public record in perpetuity.
...
Who decides at what point the publication of information heard during the course of legal proceedings becomes “insensitive”? Is it 5, 10, or 15 years later? Does the cut-off point differ depending on the circumstances of a particular death?
...
And what about Jacqui, the daughter of the man found responsible for the children’s murder; her half siblings, too. ... She also has a right to speak about the case, as a person clearly directly affected by it, and be given a platform to do so. It surely would not be reasonable for Jacqui to be prevented from speaking."
Madeline Palacz is The Independent’s editorial compliance manager
e.g. The Independent:
Ben Stokes deserves our sympathy, but The Sun had every right to run their story
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/be ... 11016.html
"That Ben Stokes’ family is deserving of our condolences is not in dispute. But let’s be clear about the content The Sun chose to publish. It was, ultimately, a report of a crime, which had existed as a matter of public record since 1988. Given the nature of the crime itself, the details would have been deeply distressing for Stokes’ family to reread. However, the legitimate right of the media to report on matters of public record, must be balanced against the rights of those who may be impacted by such reporting.
...
Part of the criticism voiced against The Sun was the fact that it had decided to report on an event which took place so long ago, indeed this is something which appears to have caused the Stokes family particular distress. However, the passage of time does not grant confidentiality to a crime. If it did, it would unduly restrict the right of the media to report on public legal proceedings. A crime, and its impact, exists as a matter of public record in perpetuity.
...
Who decides at what point the publication of information heard during the course of legal proceedings becomes “insensitive”? Is it 5, 10, or 15 years later? Does the cut-off point differ depending on the circumstances of a particular death?
...
And what about Jacqui, the daughter of the man found responsible for the children’s murder; her half siblings, too. ... She also has a right to speak about the case, as a person clearly directly affected by it, and be given a platform to do so. It surely would not be reasonable for Jacqui to be prevented from speaking."
Madeline Palacz is The Independent’s editorial compliance manager
New Statesman:
"Should the newspaper have reported it? The story is undoubtedly of interest to the public, given its details and the fact it concerned a leading sportsman. ...
But is digging up his family’s past beneficial to the public interest, defined as the wellbeing of the public?
Unlike the affray charge Stokes faced last year, it has no bearing on his fitness or ability to represent the country. It could, conceivably, tell us a little about the family history that has shaped Stokes. But does that greater understanding really make the public significantly better off?
...
I do not, as some do, believe that it should be illegal for the Sun to run this kind of story. Celebrity injunctions may seem innocuous, especially when they are over personal or trivial matters. But they are the thin end of a wedge which ends in the sort of cover-up attempted in the Trafigura case, when a large multinational tried to suppress reports of illegal waste dumping in Ivory Coast.
But I do wonder whether the Sun might have overstepped the mark this time."
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... kes-family
Jasper Jackson is the New Statesman’s digital editor. He was formerly assistant editor of Media Guardian, and editor of TheMediaBriefing.
"Should the newspaper have reported it? The story is undoubtedly of interest to the public, given its details and the fact it concerned a leading sportsman. ...
But is digging up his family’s past beneficial to the public interest, defined as the wellbeing of the public?
Unlike the affray charge Stokes faced last year, it has no bearing on his fitness or ability to represent the country. It could, conceivably, tell us a little about the family history that has shaped Stokes. But does that greater understanding really make the public significantly better off?
...
I do not, as some do, believe that it should be illegal for the Sun to run this kind of story. Celebrity injunctions may seem innocuous, especially when they are over personal or trivial matters. But they are the thin end of a wedge which ends in the sort of cover-up attempted in the Trafigura case, when a large multinational tried to suppress reports of illegal waste dumping in Ivory Coast.
But I do wonder whether the Sun might have overstepped the mark this time."
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... kes-family
Jasper Jackson is the New Statesman’s digital editor. He was formerly assistant editor of Media Guardian, and editor of TheMediaBriefing.
BBC News:
Gareth Thomas: Are celebrity private lives no longer fair game?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49743025
"Lawyers say privacy rights began to change with the passage of the Human Rights Act in 1998, which introduced a right to "respect for private and family life".
The result has been a series of rulings against the media, such as Max Mosley who successfully sued the News of the World for breach of privacy, after it had published pictures of him at an orgy with five sex workers.
Sir Cliff Richard used the same privacy law last year to win his case against the BBC, which had showed helicopter footage of a police raid on his home. He was never arrested or charged and the BBC paid £2m to settle the case.
...
Paul Connew, a former deputy editor of the News of the World and editor of the Sunday Mirror, told BBC Radio 4's PM programme that editors rely on their individual judgement and taste.
...
Mr Connew said press regulator Ipso is unlikely to take action against papers for digging up something that was already in the public domain many years ago.
...
Angela Philips, a professor of journalism at Goldsmiths University in London, who gave evidence to the 2012 Leveson Inquiry into press regulation, said she believed the Ben Stokes story was an "absolutely outrageous breach of simple human ethics" on the part of editors.
...
Mr Lewis said celebrities now expect such a backlash, often led by the media.
"The law is very good now to stop privacy intrusions, but the practice is not good. If you go out and get an injunction, you can stop a story. But more than that, you've made yourself a target," he said.
"Ask Sir Philip Green, does he enjoy having got the injunction?" The retail tycoon gagged the Daily Telegraph from publishing allegations of misconduct, including sexual and racial abuse.
Eventually he was named in Parliament, leaving him with a reported £3m legal bill and the "bulk" of the Telegraph's legal costs.
Mr Lewis said: "He might not be as enthusiastic as he once was." "
Gareth Thomas: Are celebrity private lives no longer fair game?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49743025
"Lawyers say privacy rights began to change with the passage of the Human Rights Act in 1998, which introduced a right to "respect for private and family life".
The result has been a series of rulings against the media, such as Max Mosley who successfully sued the News of the World for breach of privacy, after it had published pictures of him at an orgy with five sex workers.
Sir Cliff Richard used the same privacy law last year to win his case against the BBC, which had showed helicopter footage of a police raid on his home. He was never arrested or charged and the BBC paid £2m to settle the case.
...
Paul Connew, a former deputy editor of the News of the World and editor of the Sunday Mirror, told BBC Radio 4's PM programme that editors rely on their individual judgement and taste.
...
Mr Connew said press regulator Ipso is unlikely to take action against papers for digging up something that was already in the public domain many years ago.
...
Angela Philips, a professor of journalism at Goldsmiths University in London, who gave evidence to the 2012 Leveson Inquiry into press regulation, said she believed the Ben Stokes story was an "absolutely outrageous breach of simple human ethics" on the part of editors.
...
Mr Lewis said celebrities now expect such a backlash, often led by the media.
"The law is very good now to stop privacy intrusions, but the practice is not good. If you go out and get an injunction, you can stop a story. But more than that, you've made yourself a target," he said.
"Ask Sir Philip Green, does he enjoy having got the injunction?" The retail tycoon gagged the Daily Telegraph from publishing allegations of misconduct, including sexual and racial abuse.
Eventually he was named in Parliament, leaving him with a reported £3m legal bill and the "bulk" of the Telegraph's legal costs.
Mr Lewis said: "He might not be as enthusiastic as he once was." "
The hypocrisy of those outraged on behalf of Ben Stokes
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/t ... en-stokes/
"I can understand why Ben Stokes and his mother would rather not be reminded... But it isn’t his reaction which bothers me, but that of those who have decided to be outraged on his behalf.
Alongside the army of Tweeters expressing their hatred of the Sun, the campaign group Hacked Off swiftly released a statement saying: ‘It is abundantly clear that nothing has changed. Some newspapers are just as incapable of abiding by principles of human decency and basic journalistic ethics as they were during the phone-hacking scandal.’
The pressure group is, not for the first time, being ridiculous. Hacking phones is illegal. Reporting on murders is not. On the contrary, it is a public service. Is Hacked Off really saying that murders should be hushed up in order to protect the families of perpetrators and victims? ... Alternatively, does it only want past murders to be reported with the blessing of family members? If so, what is its objection in this case, given that the story has clearly been put together with the help of someone who was even closer to the crime than Ben Stokes: the murderer’s other daughter?
...
Moreover, if it is so outrageous to mention the fact ..., then where is the outrage against the Guardian for repeating that detail? The Mirror, too, followed up the Sun story, before deleting that version from its website and running a story about the outrage instead."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/t ... en-stokes/
"I can understand why Ben Stokes and his mother would rather not be reminded... But it isn’t his reaction which bothers me, but that of those who have decided to be outraged on his behalf.
Alongside the army of Tweeters expressing their hatred of the Sun, the campaign group Hacked Off swiftly released a statement saying: ‘It is abundantly clear that nothing has changed. Some newspapers are just as incapable of abiding by principles of human decency and basic journalistic ethics as they were during the phone-hacking scandal.’
The pressure group is, not for the first time, being ridiculous. Hacking phones is illegal. Reporting on murders is not. On the contrary, it is a public service. Is Hacked Off really saying that murders should be hushed up in order to protect the families of perpetrators and victims? ... Alternatively, does it only want past murders to be reported with the blessing of family members? If so, what is its objection in this case, given that the story has clearly been put together with the help of someone who was even closer to the crime than Ben Stokes: the murderer’s other daughter?
...
Moreover, if it is so outrageous to mention the fact ..., then where is the outrage against the Guardian for repeating that detail? The Mirror, too, followed up the Sun story, before deleting that version from its website and running a story about the outrage instead."
Ben's publishers are now flogging his book, no doubt ghost-written, with the media focusing on him potting Warner. The title is On Fire. Sports radio suggested it should be called On Bail. I have to agree. When you get away with something so serious so recently, you should at least lie low and keep quiet for a few years, if not a decade or two.
"Asked whether the passage about Warner in Stokes’ book was a cheap shot, the Test captain replied: “Oh, absolutely. I was obviously standing next to David the whole time and you are allowed to talk on the cricket field. But by no means was he abusing him or sledging him. It just seems to be a common trend in England that they like to use Davey’s name to spike book sales. So good luck to them.”"
(SMH)
(SMH)