Ben Stokes has today issued the following statement via social media:


Today the Sun has seen fit to publish extremely painful, sensitive and personal details concerning events in the private lives of my family, going back more than 31 years.

It is hard to find words that adequately describe such low and despicable behaviour, disguised as journalism. I cannot conceive of anything more immoral, heartless or contemptuous to the feelings and circumstances of my family.

For more than three decades, my family has worked hard to deal with the private trauma inevitably associated with these events and has taken great care to keep private what were deeply personal and traumatic events. On Saturday, the Sun sent a 'reporter' to my parents' home in New Zealand to question them, out of the blue, on this incredibly upsetting topic. If that wasn't bad enough, the Sun think it is acceptable to sensationalise our personal tragedy for their front page.

To use my name as an excuse to shatter the privacy and private lives of - in particular - my parents, is utterly disgusting. I am aware that my public profile bring with it consequences for me that I accept entirely. But I will not allow my public profile to be used as an excuse to invade the rights of my parents, my wife, my children or other family members. They are entitled to a private life of their own. The decision to publish these details has grave and lifelong consequences for my mum in particular.

This is the lowest form of journalism, focussed only on chasing sales with absolutely no regard for the devastation caused to lives as a consequence. It is totally out of order.

The article also contains serious inaccuracies which has compounded the damage caused. We need to take a serious look at how we allow our press to behave.

Despite the fact that this has now been made public, I do please ask all concerned to respect my family's privacy and right to home life.

A newspaper which still knows no boundaries. Low life Journalists.

Wouldn't expect anything else from that rag.

Don't buy the Sun.

I should be able to post that words fail me but they don't, not with this dreadful publication. What sort of people work for them and do these things?

They worked hard to shut down the Leveson Enquiry, insisting they had changed, only to carry on as they were.

A truly awful newspaper.

The Sun have edited the title, as this morning when I logged on, it said something very similar to:
"Ashes hero Ben Stokes’ brother and sister killed by his mum’s jealous ex" - trying to fool people into thinking it had only just happened.

Dreadful.

The mirror posted it online as well but it’s disappeared since this statement, I can’t understand the cruel way any human being can think that’s acceptable and anybody in the UK needed to know it.

Absolutely disgusted

ClaretTony wrote:I should be able to post that words fail me but they don't, not with this dreadful publication. What sort of people work for them and do these things?

Equally, what sort of person buys it?

The Sun, along with the other rags gives its readers what they want to read. Sad state of affairs that people think it's somehow in their interests, or have a right to know about things like this.

TheFamilyCat wrote:The Sun, along with the other rags gives its readers what they want to read. Sad state of affairs that people think it's somehow in their interests, or have a right to know about things like this.

The crazy thing is, there can’t be anybody in the world that wanted to know that, I actually felt guilty after reading it in the Mirror, like I’d been reading someones personal diary

You would think they had gone low enough with their hillsborough stuff. When you’re in a hole keep on digging seems to be the mantra for that paper.

Is the article true?

Grumps wrote:Is the article true?

Not really the point. It's hardly in the public interest, is it?

Cant believe I clicked on the story and gave them some traffic.
I should of taken everyones word for how grim this story was, and ignored it

I saw the headline "Stokes hits back at newspaper" earlier

Without knowing the details I knew which paper it was going to be

Grumps wrote:Is the article true?

And your point is????

fidelcastro wrote:Not really the point. It's hardly in the public interest, is it?

How do you define... Public interest? Is everything printed in every newspaper in the public interest?
I would have more concern with the article if it was untrue.

Diabolical b* stards! Despicable, odious bottom-feeders. And that’s just people who buy and read these rags. The people that write for them are just parasites; and beneath contempt.

It’s the murderers daughter who has sold the story

AlargeClaret wrote:It’s the murderers daughter who has sold the story

Yep some people need to read the facts first

Also something about twitter uses gushing condolences etc etc . The Sun really should have told the money grubber to feck right off . The Sun can just say it’s in the public domain anyway , horrible article

ClaretDiver wrote:And your point is????

Is it a made up story, or is it true

Grumps wrote:How do you define... Public interest? Is everything printed in every newspaper in the public interest?
I would have more concern with the article if it was untrue.

I hardly think a tragedy in his own family, which occurred before he was born is anyone elses' business.

fidelcastro wrote:I hardly think a tragedy in his own family, which occurred before he was born is anyone elses' business.

There have been many similar stories printed in newspapers about other people over the years.
There were no posts on here until Stokes tweeted about it, was nobody outraged until his comments?

AlargeClaret wrote:It’s the murderers daughter who has sold the story

And that makes it right to publish it? When the guy with the public profile they use as justification wasn't even born until 3 years after the crime?

Grumps wrote:There have been many similar stories printed in newspapers about other people over the years.
There were no posts on here until Stokes tweeted about it, was nobody outraged until his comments?

How many times are you going to miss the point?

Does the story have to make this forum before it becomes unacceptable journalism?

Some people's lack of empathy is borderline psychopathic and they just can't see it.

A good thread to reaffirm my foes list, all the whoppers were already present and correct.

Poor man's Daily Mirror.

bfcmik wrote:And that makes it right to publish it? When the guy with the public profile they use as justification wasn't even born until 3 years after the crime?

It’s not about it being “ right” but legally they are on ultra solid ground . It’s unbelievable they should choose to print this in light of Stokes heroics this summer though , it’s just 100% poor taste and I’m amazed the Sun green lighted this

Quickenthetempo wrote:Don't buy the Sun.

Where I live, they don't.

Appalling article.
I'd always have to be aware of anything the sun printed via another source.
Sadly, it's just what that cess put of a publication thrives on.
It doesn't have a morals whatsoever when composing this dross either.
Its pointed out above, but how this can be remotely in the public interest?

please dont ever read this trash even if given to you free at the airport

The daft thing is, if Stokes hadn't had his rant about it, nobody on here would have read the article

scouseclaret wrote:Where I live, they don't.

I know, quite funny working on building sites where all the scousers set fire to the **** paper left in the brew cabins.

The Sun is available free at Manchester Airport along with the Times. What a contrast. Who would read the Times!!!

Grumps wrote:The daft thing is, if Stokes hadn't had his rant about it, nobody on here would have read the article

In fairness mate it’s Stokes solicitors who released it but you can’t blame him for being mightily ****** off and trying to get the story pulled ASAP ( which I think it has) I’ve genuinely no idea but I’m presuming this is a story from down under that the Sun stupidly paid to distribute it.

fidelcastro wrote:I hardly think a tragedy in his own family, which occurred before he was born is anyone elses' business.

It doesn't matter what you or I think it is 'sensational - cheap - news' and will atteact many people. Sadly it reflects much of our society today.

Stayingup wrote:It doesn't matter what you or I think it is 'sensational - cheap - news' and will atteact many people. Sadly it reflects much of our society today.

That doesn't make it right though.

Grumps wrote:The daft thing is, if Stokes hadn't had his rant about it, nobody on here would have read the article

Yes they would. There are plenty on here who read it.

Why they do so, I've no idea.

Grumps wrote:The daft thing is, if Stokes hadn't had his rant about it, nobody on here would have read the article

So nobody on here would read an article on the front page of a newspaper with a circulation of 1.3m? Or read it online? I think the daft thing here is you.

I do wonder though, given Stokes' current status whether the Sun might have misjudged this one in terms of how people (specifically their regular readers) will react to it.

AlargeClaret wrote:....it’s just 100% poor taste and I’m amazed the Sun green lighted this

Considering first part of that sentence and the paper involved you shouldn’t really be amazed

Hardly surprising when it comes to the Sun. Don't think there'll be many tears shed across the world when Murdoch finally snuffs it. The phrase only the good die young couldn't be more apt.

Bacchus wrote:So nobody on here would read an article on the front page of a newspaper with a circulation of 1.3m? Or read it online? I think the daft thing here is you.

I do wonder though, given Stokes' current status whether the Sun might have misjudged this one in terms of how people (specifically their regular readers) will react to it.

If you look at the quotes on here, they only read the article, either when they saw Stokes comment on line, or the opening post on this thread, so perhaps iam not the daft one

sadly, whether its the newspaper format or online, there are millions of mindless idiots that like to read the dross that paper prints.
12 million used to buy it when it was just the paper before any online material was available.
There is still a huge market for the crap they publish, and i dare say critics of this tabloid junk are a small minority.
I lump it all in with the stuff that ITV loves to cover.
Daily sport used to do the same thing given half a chance. The staff on these rags are sub human, I detest them.

Grumps wrote:If you look at the quotes on here, they only read the article, either when they saw Stokes comment on line, or the opening post on this thread, so perhaps iam not the daft one

Thats because the bit that is capturing everyone's attention is not what happened to Stokes family but the level of intrusiveness, callousness and the pain inflicted on Stokes mum just so they can use Stokes name to sell some papers.

The damage has been done for Stokes and his family so he has rightly called out the Suns actions and made everyone aware of what they have done and the only positive part is the amount of negative public opinion against the Sun for this story.

To your last point you most certainly are the daft one

Burnley1989 wrote:The crazy thing is, there can’t be anybody in the world that wanted to know that, I actually felt guilty after reading it in the Mirror, like I’d been reading someones personal diary

I felt the same. How he deals with it is his business and not for the public.
Very, very low way to sell papers

I don't know what the contractual obligation is between the ECB and the Sun or Stokes and the Sun but I'd issue an outright ban on any Sun reporter attending press conferences or official functions.
Absolute bastards.