Jump to content
IGNORED

Basement Rovers dustbin thread


42nite

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Wiltshire robin said:

Lots of news outlets have said it’s his wife

Really? I am sure you are correct, but I have only seen the article in The Sun.

Perhaps you would provide a link.

32 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

So if it’s his missus it’s serious, any other woman is a bit of a misunderstanding and not too serious?

1. Look up the meaning of Straw Man Argument.

2. Imagine a scenario where, one evening, following a bit of neighbourly friction, Mr and Mrs JB invite their neighbours over for a drInk in an attempt to rekindle their previously friendly relationship.

Unfortunately, relations remain frosty, too many drinks are consumed and a heated, bordering on violent confrontation ensues between JB and his (male) neighbour.

Mrs neighbour tries to intervene and is pushed away by JB, banging her head on a shelf, resulting in a slight scratch and a drop of blood.

Mr neighbour, outraged at the ‘assault’ on his wife, calls the Police, who arrive and arrest JB, resulting in charges and tomorrow’s Court appearance.

Mrs B, as I am sure you are aware, issues a statement confirming that she has not accused JB of being violent towards her.

OK - this is just a little story concocted on a quiet Sunday afternoon, but in no legal source nor in any reliable media article have I seen it mentioned that JB has assaulted his wife and, moreover and quite clearly, nor would I, nor have I, condoned violence against a woman - or, indeed, against anybody!
 

Edited by PHILINFRANCE
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, In the Net said:

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. 

One has been found guilty, served his time and gone through a period of reform and returned to his previous life, the other has had repeated incidents of violent behaviour in the past, has two ongoing court cases to answer similar behaviour, and seems completely unable to accept the blame for any of it.

But like you say, no moral high ground to be taken...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wiltshire robin said:

OK, so not ‘just’ The Sun; I see The Daily Mirror, The Mag Co., Fan Banter and other, similarly ‘reputable’ sources have also stated that JB has been accused of assaulting his wife.

I remain comfortable with my previous statement that I am not aware of any reputable media source stating that JB assaulted his wife: he may well have done, and I have no doubt all will be revealed in Court, but it just really annoys me when people make frivolous accusations without any justification.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Izza said:

joey barton wife - Google Search

All tabloids but surely they wouldn't print lies 😉

The only ‘fact’ at present is the Police statement, which refers to a charge of ‘Assault by Beating’ whereby an unnamed woman, i.e. by extension, not necessarily JB’s wife, suffered a head injury.

My somewhat nonsensical concoction of the circumstances above was just that, i.e. nonsensical, but, à la Kevin Keegan, I would just love it to transpire in Court tomorrow that the unfortunate woman assaulted was anybody but Mrs B, and for both Mr and Mrs B to sue the above mentioned rags for libel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

The only ‘fact’ at present is the Police statement, which refers to a charge of ‘Assault by Beating’ whereby an unnamed woman, i.e. by extension, not necessarily JB’s wife, suffered a head injury.

My somewhat nonsensical concoction of the circumstances above was just that, i.e. nonsensical, but, à la Kevin Keegan, I would just love it to transpire in Court tomorrow that the unfortunate woman assaulted was anybody but Mrs B, and for both Mr and Mrs B to sue the above mentioned rags for libel. 

Yeh I see what you’re saying I guess only time will tell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

The only ‘fact’ at present is the Police statement, which refers to a charge of ‘Assault by Beating’ whereby an unnamed woman, i.e. by extension, not necessarily JB’s wife, suffered a head injury.

My somewhat nonsensical concoction of the circumstances above was just that, i.e. nonsensical, but, à la Kevin Keegan, I would just love it to transpire in Court tomorrow that the unfortunate woman assaulted was anybody but Mrs B, and for both Mr and Mrs B to sue the above mentioned rags for libel. 

Highly highly unlikely outcome 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

The only ‘fact’ at present is the Police statement, which refers to a charge of ‘Assault by Beating’ whereby an unnamed woman, i.e. by extension, not necessarily JB’s wife, suffered a head injury.

My somewhat nonsensical concoction of the circumstances above was just that, i.e. nonsensical, but, à la Kevin Keegan, I would just love it to transpire in Court tomorrow that the unfortunate woman assaulted was anybody but Mrs B, and for both Mr and Mrs B to sue the above mentioned rags for libel. 

so let me get this straight, you would love it tomorrow if it transpires that he beat another woman but not his wife and then sues media outlets?

sorry mate, absolute bollocks from you. I suppose you think the Asda Spider-Man is admirable because he assaulted a woman that wasn’t his wife 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

The only ‘fact’ at present is the Police statement, which refers to a charge of ‘Assault by Beating’ whereby an unnamed woman, i.e. by extension, not necessarily JB’s wife, suffered a head injury.

My somewhat nonsensical concoction of the circumstances above was just that, i.e. nonsensical, but, à la Kevin Keegan, I would just love it to transpire in Court tomorrow that the unfortunate woman assaulted was anybody but Mrs B, and for both Mr and Mrs B to sue the above mentioned rags for libel. 

Personally I’d be a bit disappointed if someone got convicted for beating a woman and then profited financially. I would prefer a massive fine to the media outlets printing incorrect facts rather than £2m in a thugs bank account. Might be just me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RedRaw said:

so let me get this straight, you would love it tomorrow if it transpires that he beat another woman but not his wife and then sues media outlets?

sorry mate, absolute bollocks from you. I suppose you think the Asda Spider-Man is admirable because he assaulted a woman that wasn’t his wife 

1. Look up the meaning of Straw Man Argument - I suggested this to a previous poster, but it would seem it applies equally to you.

2. Look up the meaning of ‘Assault by Beating’, the offence with which JB has been charged.

There is no suggestion or allegation that JB has beaten a woman, his wife or any other woman - apart from in The Sun and from some ill-informed posters on this thread.

12 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Personally I’d be a bit disappointed if someone got convicted for beating a woman and then profited financially. I would prefer a massive fine to the media outlets printing incorrect facts rather than £2m in a thugs bank account. Might be just me?

So would I, but I don’t think you need to worry.

I consider it unlikely JB will be found guilty of ‘beating a woman’.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

2. Look up the meaning of ‘Assault by Beating’, the offence with which JB has been charged.

There is no suggestion or allegation that JB has beaten a woman, his wife or any other woman - apart from in The Sun and from some ill-informed posters on this thread.

So would I, but I don’t think you need to worry.

I consider it unlikely JB will be found guilty of ‘beating a woman’.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, In the Net said:

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. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, In the Net said:

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. 

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 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 

If it was verbal abuse or even the threat of violence, it would normally be a charge of assault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

1. Look up the meaning of Straw Man Argument - I suggested this to a previous poster, but it would seem it applies equally to you.

2. Look up the meaning of ‘Assault by Beating’, the offence with which JB has been charged.

There is no suggestion or allegation that JB has beaten a woman, his wife or any other woman - apart from in The Sun and from some ill-informed posters on this thread.

So would I, but I don’t think you need to worry.

I consider it unlikely JB will be found guilty of ‘beating a woman’.

The correct offence is one of Battery.

Ultimately she has injuries, and this will be a case based no doubt, on the 999 call to emergency services; and the accounts of the ambulance and Police officers when they turned up. Backed up bybthe Body worn video they wear.

The fact that he was bailed, and subsequently charged means that the CPS by their own guidelines consider this is a case of a "realistic prospect of a conviction".

Given his previous convictions, which will form a part of a bad character application with the details of those offences read out in court. I find it highly likely that JB will in fact be found guilty.

The real question is why is he out on bail at present? He is currently on Crown Court bail for the other trial matter. That is under a surety that he won't commit other offences (thus removing the need for a remand in prison awaiting trial).

It will be interesting what position the Judge takes tomorrow.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

His wife is on social media saying that there has been no accusation from her or anyone else that JB has been physical or violent towards her.

Indeed it will be a treated as a victimless prosecution. As she has decided not to support the investigation by supplying a victim statement.

However the circumstances around the incident, and how the emergency services came to be at the address; allow for these prosecutions to take place.

It's there to protect vulnerable, intimidated victims that form the majority of DA victims.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RedRaw said:

Are you purposely ignoring every single media outlet, news broadcaster and internet site out there? No, just The Sun, Daily Mirror etc. 

Are you purposely ignoring the fact he is in court tomorrow charged with assault by beating? No, of course not.

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 am not sure 'the guy' will have much of a defence: it just annoys me when uninformed or malicious media outlets accuse JB of attacking/beating up his wife when, from the limited evidence I have seen, the unfortunate woman (who may or may not have been his wife) who allegedly suffered injury was not attended to by the ambulance service nor did she wish to press charges, yet she has apparently been attacked/beaten up. I am not trying to trivialise the incident, but if such an event proves to have been simply hyped up for 'click bait' type responses and then turns out to have been 'nothing', then a more serious event in the future might not receive the serious attention it merits. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Wiltshire robin said:

His wife 

BD0EB671-BCE1-4D39-BABD-4F99EB39FD58.png

No accusation? Doesn't say it didn't happen then, just that no accusation has been made by her or anyone else. I would have thought she would have denied it happened rather than this rather strange statement that she hasn't accused him of anything.

He's a very, very silly boy.

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

  • The title was changed to Basement Rovers dustbin thread

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...