Illustration: Simon Letch If that is what surpasses all other values, cricket can ride off into disgrace and irrelevance on its own. Since September, I have written that the England and Wales Cricket Board has lost its sense of proportion by not immediately banning Ben Stokes until – if, when – he has been reformed to the extent that he is no longer a person who responds to provocation by beating people to a pulp. I have been asked why I take this issue so much to heart. It's certainly not for patriotic reasons. In covering cricket since 1996, I have never been accused of taking the side of my country, right or wrong. The opposite in fact. Opinions on Stokes have split mostly along national lines, and it's disappointing that among past players, the only bold common sense has come from Australians, such as Ryan Harris and Shane Watson. But there are plenty of English people disgusted at their own cricket authorities for not having already banned Stokes for the Ashes and beyond, just as there are many Australians who want to see him play. Some of them, Australians as much as English, think the Ashes are too important to be clouded by something so extraneous as lethal intoxicated violence. Others believe that for as long Stokes has had no criminal conviction against his name, he should be treated as an innocent man, and that the ECB should treat him like any other employer. I don't object to that point. I do not believe Stokes should be in jail until a court puts him there. Courts have that awesome power, and to exercise it they follow specialised rules of evidence and require proof beyond reasonable doubt. But between Stokes going to jail and representing his country, there is a middle ground. None of us is perfect, and a lot of us lose our temper and do things we regret. I certainly have. But if you were away on a work trip, and you went out drinking and got in an incident where you threw enough punches to break your hand and another man's eye socket, and the fight is propagated on social media so that your actions have dishonoured not only you but those you represent, whatever the provocation, you would expect to be sacked, and you employer would not have to wait to see if you go to jail first.

Heavy baggage: England cricket star Ben Stokes arrives in New Zealand, apparently to visit family, but his luggage added to that story. Credit:AP When it comes to the ECB, something else has always been afoot, since the days immediately following the incident in Bristol, when it was whispered that a two-Test ban and a return in Perth would be punishment enough. So far, this appears to be a conclusion that has been seeking a pretext. Step by step, Stokes' return has been massaged towards inevitability. Even the minor-league silliness involving Jonny Bairstow has been peddled out as an argument for Stokes' return. In any other context, you would call it a fix. And we are meant to believe that the England hierarchy have known nothing of Stokes' plans. The board of the ECB might yet show decency. Stokes, Trevor Bayliss, and anyone on the ECB board thinking cricket is so important might stretch their imaginations a little. It would not take long. Why do I take it to heart? I have friends who have lost a son to an intoxicated man throwing punches on the street. Cricket is only a game, and games end. The effects of extreme violence do not. They last forever and ramify beyond the victims to those who love them. Violence is a cancer. For the victims of drunken street violence, life is sometimes brought to an end, but for their families, the sadness does not lift for one single day. Whoever thinks a mere game is so important – surely they cannot be so blinkered by their own little world that they are incapable of appreciating the smallness of what they are trying to uphold. A CCTV still of the incident in Bristol. The perpetrator, in my friends' case, threw only one punch, unlike the sickening combinations we have all seen Stokes throw, and with a fraction of the force. As fate had it, the way their son hit the ground was what killed him. Irrespective of whether Stokes goes to jail, he should be on his knees every day thanking whatever god he believes in that he does not have a death on his hands. He is very, very lucky. Instead, there is only defiance, victimhood and a sense of entitlement amplified through social media by his legions of apologists. It's the Ashes, and England need him, and ... the Ashes!

Cricketers miss games all the time. Toby Roland-Jones and James Pattinson are out of this series, through no fault of their own, and it is accepted. Stokes is out, entirely through his own actions, and yet here are children, some in high places, stamping their feet and throwing their tantrums at "injustice". Perhaps when Stokes can fully appreciate how lucky he is, and how microscopically unimportant his game is, some kind of accountability will find its place of rest. If you ask cricket, the issue is …The Ashes! Villains and heroes and dirty tricks! Theatre! Excitement! If that is what surpasses all other values, cricket can ride off into disgrace and irrelevance on its own. Loading Zero tolerance can have meaning. Notorious episodes of street violence have led to changes to the criminal law in parts of Australia. A plurality of the Australian public was so affected by the worst of those incidents that their tolerance for drunken violence ended. One punch is now enough to earn a significant prison term. Intoxication is no longer a mitigating factor. Public attitudes have evolved. The game of cricket is blustering along, somewhere in the last century. I was going to say that if you saw the effect of this kind of violence, it would change your views. But you don't need to see it. You only need to stop and think a little.