In the Net

I'm not totally happy with the idea of somebody losing their employment, or the opportunity of future employment - I would imagine it could exacerbate the issues they have. Also, would a milkman or Tesco delivery driver lose their job for the same offence? I think that footballers do have some "role model" status on the pitch, as kids who play football will try and copy what their heroes do. Off the field, parents and family should be the role models, and, anyway, I'm not sure the majority of kids would decide to commit a crime because a footballer has done so. Great to see fans of both teams donating money for the refuge appeal.

Pot and kettle springs to mind - there are probably a lot of clubs who don't always practice what they preach, which is unfortunate. Women's Aid swiftly announced it would be removing City from all materials related to the Football United campaign, expressing its concern that Simpson will "be a role model for young fans and team-mates", adding: "In 2014 Bristol City signed our Football United pledge to say ‘We will send a clear message in our club that violence against women and children is completely unacceptable’, it sadly seems that in 2021 that this is not the case."

You're getting confused - that's Danny Simpson's modus operandi

If they have enough evidence to bring a prosecution without his wife's involvement, I presume they also had enough evidence to decide whether any sort of restraining order needed to be issued at the time. The police do not take domestic violence lightly - maybe @Fordy62 could advise on procedures?

I agree, I think that they do know what it means, but are hoping that people who read the statement will interpret it differently. Not a good look is it?

I believe that she phoned and asked the police to come and remove her intoxicated husband from the house. I am guessing that when they got there, they saw evidence that all was not well.

Jeez - who let him lose on the public.

Post have removed the victimless crime line on the advice of their lawyers.

Ah - that makes sense. So nobody is actually saying that there wasn't a victim.

Seems a strange thing for the Crown Prosecutor to say, but I guess he knows the law better than most of us (you'd hope so anyway!) Hush - you're spoiling their moment of superiority!

I'm sort of 50/50 on this one. There doesn't appear to have been any sort of Court Order preventing him from being at the family home. Regardless of what did or didn't happen, there's bound to be stress within the family - a bit left field, but I think it's healthier for all concerned for him to be occupied in Bristol for the majority of the week at the moment. If he's suspended, how would that affect his relationship with the Board if an "innocent" verdict was the outcome? I also don't know enough about employment law in these situations. Would be just Rovers' luck to suspend him and then find themselves up before an employment tribunal - it's the sort of the thing we do!

My stance is that you're a bit of a knob to quote a post about domestic violence in order that that you can ask such an infantile question.

A bit shell shocked really. If he'd taken a swing at a bloke in a social situation, to be honest, I wouldn't have been that surprised - although I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to being a reformed character (sort of). This is a whole different level for me - I am trying to remain open minded until everything is out in the public arena, and both sides have been heard. Obviously something happened, but, with alcohol involved, either account could be a bit inacurate. I want justice to be served correctly, whichever way the hammer falls. If our manager is found guilty of this, then of course he's out of the door straight away.

Absolutely! Must be difficult if you get called to a situation and both parties are four sheets to the wind. Couldn't do your job for even one day.

Thanks for that summary - very informative. It seems that both parties were intoxicated - would have that any bearing on the validity of what either one of them said at the time?

I think you may well be right.

I believe that Mr and Mrs B had gone to their London home for a short break - sounds like the children weren't there. I think that Social Services can have quite high thresholds before they will get involved - sometimes with awful consequences.

It was much simpler when people just discussed things down the pub!

She doesn't have a Twitter account with that username, only Instagram.

Psychological damage falls under the same charge - and I agree, it can be just as bad, or in some cases have longer lasting damage.

Sorry, I wasn't saying that the reports were false. I just meant that the wording of the charge tends to conjour up images of somebody actually getting a beating, black eyes, whatever, when in reality the minor injury may not have been caused by any physical contact. Violence is in no way acceptable.

I would never defend somebody for attacking another person, but there does not have to have been any physical contact for the charge of assault by beating to be applied. The wording of the law is very strange and confusing.

Indeed they aren't - one has been found guilty of assaulting his wife, and, to date, one hasn't. I don't honestly think there is any higher moral ground to be claimed by either side in situations like this.

To be fair, who's gonna turn down an invite from Rob McElhenney?

Swansea friendly in Bristol cancelled today due to the number of Covid cases they have. I saw on Twitter that one fan travelled up from Cornwall last night, so has incurred travel and accommodation expenses - bit keen for a friendly!