Has Danny Cipriani been let off alleged drink driving..

... as per the heading.. As Danny Cipriani alleged drink driving been quashed, found not guilty or has Stuart Lancaster lost the backbone he seemed to have, by still considering him for the England squad.

Decision by the police whether to charge him has been put back to after the wc.

His hearing has been postponed. Does seem to be a grey area, but surely its up to Lancaster as to what he sees as problematic behaviour that needs to be made an example of and what he doesn't.

For what its worth the reasons for dropping Hartley are clear - as in him not being available at the start of the RWC could leave us too exposed (but I could see him returning if there is an injury to another hooker). And Tuilagi's offense was greater, and irrelevant, as he won't be fit anyway.

I'd been out of the country for the last two months, and although there was internet where I was , been so busy I haven't had chance to "surf" the net...

Back to the to the subject though... convenient the decision to delay proceedings eh!!!

IMO, still doesn't defer from the decision. Cips has already tarnished the Eng rep., and should be given his marching orders.

No9 wrote:I'd been out of the country for the last two months, and although there was internet where I was , been so busy I haven't had chance to "surf" the net...

Back to the to the subject though... convenient the decision to delay proceedings eh!!!

IMO, still doesn't defer from the decision. Cips has already tarnished the Eng rep., and should be given his marching orders.

Are you suggesting the RFU has some pull with the Met Police? What's your proof?

As for dropping him, Lancaster obviously believes (with the rest of the civilised world) in the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Would hardly be fair on Cipriani if his case was heard and he was found not guilty. He'd miss a world cup for nothing.

It is convenient to a point as hes a good player and itt akes away a late ish decision. Probably dents Slades chances a touch. Disagree with your last point, touch harsh to string someone up until guilty.

spaynter wrote:

No9 wrote:I'd been out of the country for the last two months, and although there was internet where I was , been so busy I haven't had chance to "surf" the net...

Back to the to the subject though... convenient the decision to delay proceedings eh!!!

IMO, still doesn't defer from the decision. Cips has already tarnished the Eng rep., and should be given his marching orders.

Are you suggesting the RFU has some pull with the Met Police? What's your proof?

As for dropping him, Lancaster obviously believes (with the rest of the civilised world) in the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Would hardly be fair on Cipriani if his case was heard and he was found not guilty. He'd miss a world cup for nothing.

Nope never said that, I said it was convenient... How you tie that back to me suggesting the RFU and Met Police arranged it is in your head not mine...

As for point 2.... Slightly different drink driving to other crimes. The police have the evidence, they would have taken a blood/urine sample at the time proving his guilt. The only question remaining for the courts in drink driving is the punishment depending on the severity (ie how much over he was). So stating "innocent until proven guilty" in this case doesn't really wash... He has already been proven guilty as he would have a positive sample, if it had been negative he would not have been charged.

Not been charged yet so not guilty yet.

No9 wrote:

spaynter wrote:

No9 wrote:I'd been out of the country for the last two months, and although there was internet where I was , been so busy I haven't had chance to "surf" the net...

Back to the to the subject though... convenient the decision to delay proceedings eh!!!

IMO, still doesn't defer from the decision. Cips has already tarnished the Eng rep., and should be given his marching orders.

Are you suggesting the RFU has some pull with the Met Police? What's your proof?

As for dropping him, Lancaster obviously believes (with the rest of the civilised world) in the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Would hardly be fair on Cipriani if his case was heard and he was found not guilty. He'd miss a world cup for nothing.

Nope never said that, I said it was convenient... How you tie that back to me suggesting the RFU and Met Police arranged it is in your head not mine...

As for point 2.... Slightly different drink driving to other crimes. The police have the evidence, they would have taken a blood/urine sample at the time proving his guilt. The only question remaining for the courts in drink driving is the punishment depending on the severity (ie how much over he was). So stating "innocent until proven guilty" in this case doesn't really wash... He has already been proven guilty as he would have a positive sample, if it had been negative he would not have been charged.

You wrote "convenient the decision to delay proceedings eh!!!". I'll leave it to others to decide whether it was reasonable of me to take that as conspiratorial.

We have something called due process, which goes along with the aforementioned principle. That Lancaster respects both of these principles isn't something I'd criticise him for.

course he hasn't but it makes no sense that his bail has been extended again…all the evidence required was available on the night it happened. clearly some bright spark has decided they need to delay proceedings until post roc but i bet my best leeks he gets charged when he answers

No9 wrote:

spaynter wrote:

No9 wrote:I'd been out of the country for the last two months, and although there was internet where I was , been so busy I haven't had chance to "surf" the net...

Back to the to the subject though... convenient the decision to delay proceedings eh!!!

IMO, still doesn't defer from the decision. Cips has already tarnished the Eng rep., and should be given his marching orders.

Are you suggesting the RFU has some pull with the Met Police? What's your proof?

As for dropping him, Lancaster obviously believes (with the rest of the civilised world) in the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Would hardly be fair on Cipriani if his case was heard and he was found not guilty. He'd miss a world cup for nothing.

Nope never said that, I said it was convenient... How you tie that back to me suggesting the RFU and Met Police arranged it is in your head not mine...

As for point 2.... Slightly different drink driving to other crimes. The police have the evidence, they would have taken a blood/urine sample at the time proving his guilt. The only question remaining for the courts in drink driving is the punishment depending on the severity (ie how much over he was). So stating "innocent until proven guilty" in this case doesn't really wash... He has already been proven guilty as he would have a positive sample, if it had been negative he would not have been charged.

If the police had such clear cut evidence proving his guilt the hearing would be a simple affair and wouldn't of been postponed

nathan wrote:

No9 wrote:

spaynter wrote:

No9 wrote:I'd been out of the country for the last two months, and although there was internet where I was , been so busy I haven't had chance to "surf" the net...

Back to the to the subject though... convenient the decision to delay proceedings eh!!!

IMO, still doesn't defer from the decision. Cips has already tarnished the Eng rep., and should be given his marching orders.

Are you suggesting the RFU has some pull with the Met Police? What's your proof?

As for dropping him, Lancaster obviously believes (with the rest of the civilised world) in the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Would hardly be fair on Cipriani if his case was heard and he was found not guilty. He'd miss a world cup for nothing.

Nope never said that, I said it was convenient... How you tie that back to me suggesting the RFU and Met Police arranged it is in your head not mine...

As for point 2.... Slightly different drink driving to other crimes. The police have the evidence, they would have taken a blood/urine sample at the time proving his guilt. The only question remaining for the courts in drink driving is the punishment depending on the severity (ie how much over he was). So stating "innocent until proven guilty" in this case doesn't really wash... He has already been proven guilty as he would have a positive sample, if it had been negative he would not have been charged.

If the police had such clear cut evidence proving his guilt the hearing would be a simple affair and wouldn't of been postponed

there is no 'hearing' yet. a new bail date indicates outstanding evidence to be gathered or a case file is gathering cobwebs waiting for charging advice.

There is a grey area in drink driving when you blow over at the roadside but have a blood test in the police station and that shows under the limit - but if the blood test was delayed they have to extrapolate back to find the estimated true reading at the time of the arrest. This has to be tested in court to find guilt. Often there is a intermediate step where the evidential breath test machine in the station shows them only to be slightly over and a blood test is done to ensure accuracy.

It appears Cipriani is in this grey area

Sounds like common sense has broken out. That's a nice change.

TJ wrote:There is a grey area in drink driving when you blow over at the roadside but have a blood test in the police station and that shows under the limit - but if the blood test was delayed they have to extrapolate back to find the estimated true reading at the time of the arrest.  This has to be tested in court to find guilt.  Often there is a intermediate step where the evidential breath test machine in the station shows them only to be slightly over and a blood test is done to ensure accuracy.

It appears Cipriani is in this grey area

TJ ….were you guilty or not guilty?

Can't believe england are leaving him out of the world cup squard such a boring back line their going have with out him

welshboii15 wrote:Can't believe england are leaving him out of the world cup squard such a boring back line their going have with out him

Didn't need him to score the most tries in the 6 Nations with our boring backline. Cheers

Im not being funny your back line on saturday was most likely the strongest you got for the world cup apart from watson and it had no spart till him amd care come on

Im not being funny your back line on saturday was most likely the strongest you got for the world cup apart from watson and it had no spartk till him and care come on

You're judging the whole backline on a performance where they weren't given the ball? When the game was over it was easier for those guys to make an impact.

He is one of the most exciting and creative english players available

Wales have the dullest backs in world rugby, not to mention the dullest game plan

I totally agree with what your saying Wales are poor but in their defense their backs and game plan has won them championships

Whats boring about Englands backline?