Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol R*vers dustbin thread


42nite

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Selred said:

Why will he never work in football again? Danny Simpson was found guilty of domestic abuse and plays for us. Football is a sport with no morals.

There’s a huge difference between a squad player and a manager, who is the main man at a club.  The sponsors of any club that tries to sign Joey, if he’s done for wife beating, will disappear quicker than snow off a dyke and make any potential appointment untenable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Malago said:

There’s a huge difference between a squad player and a manager, who is the main man at a club.  The sponsors of any club that tries to sign Joey, if he’s done for wife beating, will disappear quicker than snow off a dyke and make any potential appointment untenable.

There's not many dykes I know that are all that warm !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

So the next witness is the assistant coach to Stendel. He says he found Stendel bloodied and shocked. Defence put it to him that he deliberately antagonised during goal celebrations to put Barnsley 3-1 up. He denied. 

Jury have been told they’ll retire to consider verdicts on Thursday. A lot of Wednesday will be taken up by closing speeches and judge’s summing up.

That doesn’t leave a lot of time for anyone to speak in Barton’s favour and if that’s the case, there really is only one way this is going. 

If found guilty of this assault what potential impact on his job? If you or I was found guilty of assault against a Barnsley fan we’d be banned from attending football games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, daored said:

If found guilty of this assault what potential impact on his job? If you or I was found guilty of assault against a Barnsley fan we’d be banned from attending football games

Really good point. But I’d guess that’s above that law being employed as a manager. Silly, but probably true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, daored said:

If found guilty of this assault what potential impact on his job? If you or I was found guilty of assault against a Barnsley fan we’d be banned from attending football games

When he was charged for the one involving his Mrs, Wael said anyone at the club found guilty of such charges would be dismissed.

Not sure where he stands on assaulting opposition managers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gazred said:

When he was charged for the one involving his Mrs, Wael said anyone at the club found guilty of such charges would be dismissed.

Not sure where he stands on assaulting opposition managers.

You could argue it’s football violence - he’s on trial for attacking another manager. What’s the difference of fan attacking another to a manager attacking another manager?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, daored said:

You could argue it’s football violence - he’s on trial for attacking another manager. What’s the difference of fan attacking another to a manager attacking another manager?

I agree but would add that it didn't happen whilst at Rovers. That would go in his favour imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gazred said:

I agree but would add that it didn't happen whilst at Rovers. That would go in his favour imo.

It could I guess, but I guess the counter argument is it’s violence at a football ground. I guess it’s unlikely to happen, recall Duncan Ferguson being found guilty of assaulting an opposition player when playing for rangers 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Gazred said:

When he was charged for the one involving his Mrs, Wael said anyone at the club found guilty of such charges would be dismissed.

Not sure where he stands on assaulting opposition managers.

He did say they were against any form of violence, if that's the case how the hell did he appoint Barton in the first place? I think if he gets found guilty here Al Quidi will be under pressure to get rid.

"Firstly, I think it is really important to confirm that 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. I understand the concerns expressed by a number of you.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, daored said:

If found guilty of this assault what potential impact on his job? If you or I was found guilty of assault against a Barnsley fan we’d be banned from attending football games

I'm no expert , but does anyone think he'll get anything more than a suspended sentence if found guilty ?
Feels like it would be harsh, one mans word against another. All be it one man with genuine injuries and the other man Barton.
The one with his wife puts an interesting spin on it potentially. But I see that case being dropped if she doesn't want to press charges.
That of course means he would still have a job, and he could finish that job by taking them down and every ones a winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I'm no expert , but does anyone think he'll get anything more than a suspended sentence if found guilty ?
Feels like it would be harsh, one mans word against another. All be it one man with genuine injuries and the other man Barton.
The one with his wife puts an interesting spin on it potentially. But I see that case being dropped if she doesn't want to press charges.
That of course means he would still have a job, and he could finish that job by taking them down and every ones a winner.

This has already been bypassed, there is no need for the partner to press charges.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I'm no expert , but does anyone think he'll get anything more than a suspended sentence if found guilty ?
Feels like it would be harsh, one mans word against another. All be it one man with genuine injuries and the other man Barton.
The one with his wife puts an interesting spin on it potentially. But I see that case being dropped if she doesn't want to press charges.
That of course means he would still have a job, and he could finish that job by taking them down and every ones a winner.

I think you are right, probably suspended sentence, the wife case is different as she doesn't want to press charges but the police had enough evidence to press charges, body cam footage I believe, interesting to say the least, hope the horrible @@@@ gets locked up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, weepywall said:

the wife case is different as she doesn't want to press charges but the police had enough evidence to press charges, body cam footage I believe,

 

6 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

This has already been bypassed, there is no need for the partner to press charges.

The does make it a bit more interesting

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I'm no expert , but does anyone think he'll get anything more than a suspended sentence if found guilty ?
Feels like it would be harsh, one mans word against another. All be it one man with genuine injuries and the other man Barton.
The one with his wife puts an interesting spin on it potentially. But I see that case being dropped if she doesn't want to press charges.
That of course means he would still have a job, and he could finish that job by taking them down and every ones a winner.

There are two steps to this process: the first is conviction the second is sentencing. The tests are different.

To secure a conviction the prosecution have to prove so that jury are sure the events took place as they allege. That is not easy to do and is the test which has evolved over centuries when there have been no photos or CCTV so invariably one person’s word against another’s. The benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant.

If convicted by a jury, the judge then sentenced on the basis of the conviction. That means the judge takes it as fact that the events took place as found by the jury. 
Sentencing is notoriously complicated with various guidelines to follow. He may well get a suspended sentence but that will be because the guidelines recommend it, it certainly won’t be because the judge thinks it was one person’s word against another. There is no benefit of the doubt at this stage. 

On the domestic violence as others have explained, his wife’s evidence is necessary. That is also in the Magistrates’ Court not the Crown Court so different sentencing provisions apply. 
 

Whatever happens, the reaction from the club, Wally and GasChat will keep this thread going for a while. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I'm no expert , but does anyone think he'll get anything more than a suspended sentence if found guilty ?
Feels like it would be harsh, one mans word against another. All be it one man with genuine injuries and the other man Barton.
The one with his wife puts an interesting spin on it potentially. But I see that case being dropped if she doesn't want to press charges.
That of course means he would still have a job, and he could finish that job by taking them down and every ones a winner.

As we’ve heard in the trial so far, this is a long way from one man’s word against another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I'm sure i've read somewhere that a witness actually saw him swerve into him from begind deliberately, and then Stendal hit the post?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-59465097

Yeh one of the Barnsley backroom team has testified to that effect.

"A witness, Barnsley FC performance analyst intern Nathan Kirby, told the jury he saw Mr Barton shoulder-barge Mr Stendel.

He said: "Mr Barton carried on jogging and angled his run to shoulder-barge Mr Stendel with reasonable force in his back, causing Mr Stendel to fall forward and hit his face on a metal bar.""

There's also a video that shows Stendel go down the tunnel, Barton then goes down the tunnel, and then the tunnel shakes - and that's when Stendel says he fell. To quote the above linked article.

"The jury was shown video footage of the Barnsley manager leaving the pitch after the match and walking into the tunnel at the corner of the ground.

In the clip, Mr Barton can be seen to run into the tunnel moments before the structure starts to shake."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I'm sure i've read somewhere that a witness actually saw him swerve into him from begind deliberately, and then Stendal hit the post?

 

Yes, that's true but from  Barnsley employee.... would he be considered independent? Or just backing up his boss? I don't know how that is viewed by the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CodeRed said:

Yes, that's true but from  Barnsley employee.... would he be considered independent? Or just backing up his boss? I don't know how that is viewed by the court.

The court has decided his testimony is admissible. It's not hearsay as it's his own account. If the Defence want to cast aspersions on his credibility then that's for them to do, and for the jury to interpret as they see fit.

He's under oath remember, if he lies it's contempt of court. He's reliable imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrightCiderLife said:

There are two steps to this process: the first is conviction the second is sentencing. The tests are different.

To secure a conviction the prosecution have to prove so that jury are sure the events took place as they allege. That is not easy to do and is the test which has evolved over centuries when there have been no photos or CCTV so invariably one person’s word against another’s. The benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant.

If convicted by a jury, the judge then sentenced on the basis of the conviction. That means the judge takes it as fact that the events took place as found by the jury. 
Sentencing is notoriously complicated with various guidelines to follow. He may well get a suspended sentence but that will be because the guidelines recommend it, it certainly won’t be because the judge thinks it was one person’s word against another. There is no benefit of the doubt at this stage. 

On the domestic violence as others have explained, his wife’s evidence is necessary. That is also in the Magistrates’ Court not the Crown Court so different sentencing provisions apply. 
 

Whatever happens, the reaction from the club, Wally and GasChat will keep this thread going for a while. 

I kind of agree to a point. However the maximum sentence for a S47 ABH is the same as a S20 GBH (5 years max).

Any sentence over 2 years can't be suspended. Barton has already done two custodial sentences for violent offences. Within the sentencing you have categories A,B,C and then 1,2,3 within each subset. The fact that Barton hasn't pleaded to it, despite the evidence we have heard so far, means that he will get no credit.

His previous convictions will be an aggravating factor, as well as the premeditation in the assault (Swerving to hit a man from behind, plus the stuff going on in the match itself). He is also a public figure, and the Judge will come down heavily on him i reckon. Possibly just under the 2 years. 

This is where having a privately funded defence makes a huge difference (QC for an ABH trial, probably on no less than £5k per day in court, plus previous hearings; it would be interesting to know who is paying his bills). In the event of a guilty verdict, they will go the extra mile to keep him out of prison.

As for the domestic. It's a victimless crime. Unless his wife had supplied evidence in written or video form to the court, she won't be giving testimony; and and  court won't be expecting it.

They will play the 999 call, and the BWV. Which will probably include disclosures by her, the other people present; and Barton being allegedly drunk, and aggressive (hence the call to the Police in the first place).

A decent District Judge will see exactly what has happened, and hopefully come to the right conclusions.

These victimless crimes do not get to Court unless their is overwhelming evidence, as the CPS are notoriously risk averse of prosecuting such crimes. Before BWV, it was a very rare prosecution.

I'm still amazed hiw such a violent individual (as well as 2 x custody, there are various other convictions) be allowed to manage a club?

He would never pass a CRB check to work with children or young adults in any other form of life.

Astounding the message being given out to the world at large by the Gas, not to have him on at least gardening leave (like Giggs). Particulary after the domestic that was allegedly committed whilst on Crown Court Bail for the first offence.

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The court has decided his testimony is admissible. It's not hearsay as it's his own account. If the Defence want to cast aspersions on his credibility then that's for them to do, and for the jury to interpret as they see fit.

He's under oath remember, if he lies it's contempt of court. He's reliable imo.

100%, it would be the duty of Barton's Qc under cross examination to undermine his evidence.

He will try to make that point of course in his closing speech, that all the Barnsley employees are against poor old Joey; and that Stendal probably tripped.

Edited by NcnsBcfc
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NcnsBcfc said:

100%, it would be the duty of Barton's Qc under cross examination to undermine his evidence.

He will try to make that point of course in his closing speech, that all the Barnsley employees are against poor old Joey; and that Stendal probably tripped.

I can't believe he's hired a QC for this. What a waste of money. A junior would be more than capable of defending him.

From Csoka's web page on his chambers' site:

"He exclusively defends in serious and complex crime. His practice encompasses murder, gross negligence manslaughter, evasion of duty, MTIC and serious fraud, terrorism, complex multi-handed drugs cases and corruption."

Yep, sign him on for a perfunctory ABH case.

Jesus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The court has decided his testimony is admissible. It's not hearsay as it's his own account. If the Defence want to cast aspersions on his credibility then that's for them to do, and for the jury to interpret as they see fit.

He's under oath remember, if he lies it's contempt of court. He's reliable imo.

And Joey’s team aren’t allowed to say he’s lying… well, they are actually, but if he calls into question the character of a witness then the court become able to inform the jury of Barton’s previous bad character (they’re otherwise not allowed to know!) and his defence team really wouldn’t want to be calling the witness a liar for that exact reason. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...