Jump to content
IGNORED

Basement Rovers dustbin thread


42nite

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, phantom said:

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

They are quoting the crown prosecutor. But what the CPS meant by this and what ‘victimless crime’ means in common usage are very different. It’s pretty grim to pull out that quote and base the official club statement on it. 
 

from cps website on domestic abuse:

‘’While victims are rightly at the centre of everything we do, the CPS prosecutes on behalf of the Crown and for the good of the wider public.

That means we can prosecute domestic abusers without the support or direct involvement of victims through ‘evidence-led prosecutions’ - for example relying on witness accounts or CCTV footage.’’

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fordy62 said:

Oh my god. You just cannot make this shit up. 

I might be biased by my job, but take it from me, this is so completely Tin pot and amateurish it’s untrue. 

Incredible stuff. As if they actually wrote that!!!!

138B6487-E27D-4CD2-897E-381E54CF2FF7.jpeg

Yet the Cretins on Slagchat and some of our own belters wonder why this incredibly lengthy thread exists.

Ladies and Gentlemen....Bristol Rovers Football Club in a nutshell.

Absolute clowns.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan said:

I might be missing something here, but didn’t he just get them relegated?

Someone might want to inform this genius.

Come now it was nothing to do with him, he said so. Presumably this genius, and the rest of them, agree with him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Fair play to the post. 

394B6847-E4D7-4FA1-BDFC-8D2A15FB0CB6.jpeg

You, or others in your profession, may be able to elaborate, but I suspect that Bristol Rovers have made a 'slight' mistake in their statement.

Where they refer to a 'victimless crime' - a term more often used in, e.g. illegal sex between consenting adults, I suspect they meant to say a 'victimless prosecution', used typically in cases of domestic violence where the 'victim' does not want to press charges, but the Police suspect intimidation from the perpetrator.

I should not be at all surprised to see an amended statement from Bristol Rovers tomorrow morning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phantom said:

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, In the Net said:

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?

It hasn’t worked.

Yes, there will always be a few like the plank from Twitter who are satisfied with that but it’s gone down like a sack of lead shit on Gaschat and considering how blinkered most of them are, that’s really saying something.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

Fair play to the post. 

394B6847-E4D7-4FA1-BDFC-8D2A15FB0CB6.jpeg

 

 

TBH the Post is being rather hyper-cautious in not reporting remarks made in open court by the prosecutor in a case that is going to be heard before magistrates.

I suppose the justification might be the Rovers' statement reported her words without context and therefore - unless the Post provided its own context - they might fail a "fair and accurate" test. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted the sad emoji to some comments - simply because I cannot believe how desperate his wife must be to accept this behaviour.

 

I can only assume (and I shouldn't) that it's because of the children (keeping the 'family unit' together) or she is so afraid of him, that she dropped the complaint (as there seems to be no doubt a 999 call was made).

I can only feel such deep pity and sadness that a woman has to live like this in 2021 in a 'civilized' country.

 

If it's fear - surely there must be restraining orders - and with the money that is within the family, she should be able to hide safely until the law does its thing.

If it's to keep the family together - I can tell you now from a friend, that seeing your dad beat the living daylights out of your mum has lifelong consequences - she is better with the kids and supervised visits from Dad.

 

If she's dropping it to keep in the 'good life' - I honestly don't know what to think about her. How much money is worth the odd black-eye? A Bloodied nose?

I really hope that's not the case.

If it is - the children are better off away from both of them in all honesty.

 

Hopefully the Police can find CCTV and charge Barton accordingly - and throw the book at him. 

 

I honestly can't think why a woman would stand there covered in her own blood, after calling the Police, and then when they arrive, say she made it up?

It has to be fear of Barton surely?

 

What an awful situation for the children.

 

I'm guessing a whole lot more will come out in due course - I really thought men had moved on from this. Clearly there is much, much more work to be done.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the statement will still be up come the end of play today? There’s a lot of pressure on them now!

One thing I’ll absolutely prepared to give the gas credit for is the reaction of a lot of their fans on Facebook, Twitter and on gaschat. By and large disgusted. Fair play to them. 

Edited by Fordy62
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

I don't pretend to know all the in's and out's with Bartons long list of Court appearances, probably more than Andy Murray recently. But from the bit's I've read, Stendel had facial injuries after a run in with Barton, who denied involvement . His wife had head injuries after a disagreement with Barton, who denies involvement . Could we all be wrong and Joey is just really, really, really unlucky and misunderstood ?

Did she go to hospital? Surely you would if you’d received a kick to the temple? The hospital would have records

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Numero Uno said:

They are selling their house in Kew for £8.5m I believe, mind you the source is a Fewer so based on past experience there is a chance that could be 100% made up off the top of his head, but it would make sense that they are visiting friends in the area if they have lived there and could easily have been staying at their house for the night. It clearly helps that the kids weren't there to see the mayhem of either Mum or Dad or even both making complete fools of themselves obviously but you would be expecting Social Services to start taking an interest after this. My Wife who worked with perpetrators of DV for twenty odd years seems to think there might well be a flag put on that family by Social Services now (Agencies seem to communicate with each other far more effectively than they ever used to following some high profile child deaths like Baby P) on the basis that children are involved (not in the incident obviously).

Ah, I still think of that little chap, and Victoria Climbié. So very sad, I really feel for them, and other little children who have suffered. Terrible. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours 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.

 

 

I find it interesting that one of the witnesses didn’t call 999. Did they actually witness the kicking and do nothing? Or did they not actually witness it? 
His wife waited until she was able to (after the alleged assault).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exAtyeoMax said:

Did she go to hospital? Surely you would if you’d received a kick to the temple? The hospital would have records

As I said, not sure of the details. What I read , and as it was Newspaper stories I can't say 100% true, she received a kick to the temple which left a golfball size lump. Now I would think it would warrant a visit to the Doctor at least. I also read, from early on , that his Wife didn't want to press charges. Not sure how this is going ahead if there is no one to be witness or to press charges as victim. Although I think calling it a victimless crime is a poor phrase to use.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Constant Rabbit said:

I posted the sad emoji to some comments - simply because I cannot believe how desperate his wife must be to accept this behaviour.

 

I can only assume (and I shouldn't) that it's because of the children (keeping the 'family unit' together) or she is so afraid of him, that she dropped the complaint (as there seems to be no doubt a 999 call was made).

I can only feel such deep pity and sadness that a woman has to live like this in 2021 in a 'civilized' country.

 

If it's fear - surely there must be restraining orders - and with the money that is within the family, she should be able to hide safely until the law does its thing.

If it's to keep the family together - I can tell you now from a friend, that seeing your dad beat the living daylights out of your mum has lifelong consequences - she is better with the kids and supervised visits from Dad.

 

If she's dropping it to keep in the 'good life' - I honestly don't know what to think about her. How much money is worth the odd black-eye? A Bloodied nose?

I really hope that's not the case.

If it is - the children are better off away from both of them in all honesty.

 

Hopefully the Police can find CCTV and charge Barton accordingly - and throw the book at him. 

 

I honestly can't think why a woman would stand there covered in her own blood, after calling the Police, and then when they arrive, say she made it up?

It has to be fear of Barton surely?

 

What an awful situation for the children.

 

I'm guessing a whole lot more will come out in due course - I really thought men had moved on from this. Clearly there is much, much more work to be done.

 

 

 

I don’t understand it either. But people are complex beings, relationships are complicated. Emotions often replace logic. A friend of mine always stated she would never accept a bloke raising his hand to her, but when she was actually in a relationship with a guy it did happen and she still went back to him the next day, and for another couple of months. I suppose thinking he wouldn’t do it again (he showed the usual remorse 🙄). She now looks back on it in horror of her accepting behaviour.

some women actively court convicted child murders, serial rapists and murderers while they are incarcerated…some women actively court and marry extremely violent gangsters… Even in the small town I grew up in, there were certain guys who were extremely violent (not necessarily towards women) but lots of girls/women found them attractive. They’d say “he never raises his hand to me!” But it’s ok that he can beat the living daylights out of some bloke down the pub, or a kid down the supermarket. 
 

Another friend was a family solicitor and she left the profession because of the countless times she’d worked for weeks and weeks on a case of domestic abuse and the woman would go back to the guy after the court proceedings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Oh Louie louie said:

All the players hes signed this summer.

Imagine if they do sack him.

The great reset over in a few weeks.

Who would have ever thought that eh?

"Family club" - "Family Values"....the only question...which family?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

I wonder if the statement will still be up come the end of play today? There’s a lot of pressure on them now!

One thing I’ll absolutely prepared to give the gas credit for is the reaction of a lot of their fans on Facebook, Twitter and on gaschat. By and large disgusted. Fair play to them. 

I rarely say anything complimentary about their fans however the majority (on social media at least) seem appalled by that statement. So credit where it’s due.

The club however are clearly intent on supporting him no matter what so it’s going to be interesting to see what spin they come out with in their next statement. Probably some kind of “treat em mean keep em keen” approach.

They'd have been better off just keeping their mouths shut rather than make themselves look utterly stupid...

Remember ladies, if some thug kicks you in the head it’s a ‘victimless crime’ 🤨

  • Like 3
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...