In the Net

32 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I agree with the decision that the charity made, but equally I agree with the fact the debt to society has been met by the guilty.

It leaves me feeling quite conflicted.

I probably work with people who have been found guilty of drink driving, and in the many thousands of people I work with there is bound to be someone who has been directly impacted by the actions of someone drunk behind the wheel.

I'm not sure where the role you do should be an additional punishment vs the fines and time you might also be (rightfully) given by a court.

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.

11 hours ago, Sturny said:

Wael Al Qadi: “As a club we stand firmly against any form of violence. Any individual that is found guilty of any such offences will be dismissed immediately... However, in line with the basic principles of British law, it is my view that you are innocent until proven guilty”

Stand against any form violence? Is that why you hired a manager who assasults other managers? 

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."

41 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Well they have got more than that in common...

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

7 hours ago, wendyredredrobin said:

And kicks women in the head by all accounts too.  I just can't understand why he has been released on bail again as he is clearly a danger to the public with a criminal conviction and pending two further cases of assault.  It seems that the bloke is never going to learn how to behave.

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?

10 minutes ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

It looks like they’re twisting legal terminology to try and make it seem less serious.

Do they think their own supporters are THAT dumb?

They’ve somehow managed to make an already difficult and embarrassing situation even worse.

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?

1 minute ago, Bar BS3 said:

I was under the impression that his Mrs had phones 999 claiming to have been kicked in the head by JB. 

I think we've all jumped the gun somewhat here and it now appears that JB was just unfortunate that whilst out with his wife, police officers, for no reason, without any claim of such action, decided to go door knocking in the hope of bumping into JB, at which time they were going to accuse him of having kicked his wife in the head. 

It all seems a tad harsh now, as that (according to BRFC) appears to be exactly how it played out..! 

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.

2 minutes ago, TomF said:

 

 

Jeez - who let him lose on the public.  

Just now, GlastonburyRed said:

I can’t imagine that statement will stay in place for long, but at the very least they could have gone for ‘victim not supporting the prosecution’ rather than ‘victimless crime’. That phrase is, understandably, like a red rag to a bull for many involved in domestic abuse campaigning. 

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

6 minutes ago, !james said:

I read it as its a victimless crime as in the wife who was allegedly assaulted won't give evidence or if she did give a statement may withdraw it. So the police and CPS will report it and try to gain a conviction in spite of the 'victim' 

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

4 minutes ago, !james said:

https://www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/2021/july/joey-barton-statement-update/

What a ******* awful statement. Victimless crime?! 

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!)

Just now, phantom said:

Never want to back the blue few but they are quoting someone else 

Hush - you're spoiling their moment of superiority! 

1 hour ago, Red Army 75 said:

With his other court case hanging over him also .Should he be suspended 

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! 

55 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

What do you want to happen ITN. How do you feel about it 

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.

39 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Do you know - good question - I’m not sure but I think everyone would prefer if no one were intoxicated. 

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. 

9 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Without Mrs B giving evidence, here’s my informed opinion of what might make up the prosecution case:

1. The 999 call - we can see from the article that Mrs B called the police and said JB has throttled then kicked her. 
 

2. Upon police arrival they’ll have undoubtedly been wearing body worn video. It’ll be interesting to see at what point Mrs B retracted her accusation. Did she continue it to police upon their arrival? Did the two other people present tell the police what had happened and was this captured on body worn video?

 

3. the injury. Said to be a half golf ball sized lump. 
 

4. previous incidents between the two parties whether prosecuted or not. 
 

5. bad character. Now, we know JB likes the odd assault, but in order to be used as evidence is has to be pretty strikingly similar. You can’t just tell a judge - he’s got convictions for assault - there are proper and quite tough hoops to jump through to allow bad character to be allowed in a trial. 
 

6. CCTV - as someone mentioned above - this took place outside. There might be Cctv. 
 

all in all, cps only charge people if they think there’s a realistic prospect of conviction. So there’s definitely evidence here. Injury plus initial complaint is a good start - I wonder what else there might be… I wonder what JB’s behaviour was like when those officers and their body worn video turned up?!

 

it’ll be interesting that’s for sure.

 

 

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?

27 minutes ago, Shaun Taylor said:

His career is just about to start!

I think you may well be right. 

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

You would think that Social Services would be making a visit to the Barton's to find out where the "children" were during this incident and, given that Mr Barton is either going to be found to be a wife beater or Mrs Barton a liar who phones the Police with greatly exaggerated accounts causing her husband to defend himself in court, whether there potentially is any degree of future harm that could affect them. This sort of stuff gets children living on Council Estates or in Suburbs put on "At Risk Registers" so living in Kew shouldn't make any difference?

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.

34 minutes ago, myol'man said:

Sorry, getting Insta mixed up with Twitter 

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

29 minutes ago, myol'man said:

This twitter account has now been suspended 

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

3 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

I haven’t a clue how the law applies to this, but it seems strange that someone could beat another person without any physical contact. On the other hand, it’s possible to assault a person verbally, or psychologically,  which can be just as bad 

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

3 minutes ago, weepywall said:

But according to various news outlets, all which could be false obviously although I would think if they were false surely Bartons legal team would have been all over this like a rash...the woman concerned did receive an injury but didn't need any treatment.

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.

8 minutes ago, RedRaw said:

Are you purposely ignoring every single media outlet, news broadcaster and internet site out there? 

Are you purposely ignoring the fact he is in court tomorrow charged with assault by beating?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57960977.amp

I’m beginning to think you’re defending the guy

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. 

4 hours ago, Bar BS3 said:

I think everyone deserves a chance to turn their life around after ******* up. 

Barton has continually and repeatedly been involved in crime after crime after alleged crime. 

I don't think the 2 people are really a level comparison. 

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. 

20 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

Here they go again. 
 

A forward they were interested in preferred to go  non-league rather than pull on ‘ da famous quarters ‘ 

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/league-two-record-breaker-paul-5690921

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

3 minutes ago, Dolman Block B said:

Both blackpool FC and Swansea FC have had positive Covid tests over the past few days meaning players have to isolate.

Is this just the start of things for many other clubs as well?

I can see loads of games being cancelled up to 24 hours before hand which is bad enough for home games but imagine paying for trains, coaches and perhaps accomadtion for away matches!!!

Its a big big "piss off" but quite frankly i cant see nothing but a season of disruption

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!