Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol R*vers dustbin thread


42nite

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NcnsBcfc said:

@Fordy62 did you read about that clever Qc question in Cross examination?

" So you saw the man you say is Joey Barton from behind?" YES

"Did you ever see his face then?" NO

"So how do you know for sure that is was Joey Barton?" I JUST ASSUMED.

"So you just assumed it was my client, but you can't be sure, as you didn't see his face? YES

"No further questions your honour"

You can imagine how that was spun in the defences closing speech.

" Ladies and Gentleman of the jury how can you be sure, when all the witnesses and the complainant himself isn't?"

Everybody knows it was Barton, but what the case need really was CCTV. Without that a clever Silk would always fancy his chances against a prosecution witness.

Hence why we try to minimise their use nowadays.

 

Do I understand correctly that you try to minimise (avoid) using prosecution witnesses in Court?

If I read your subsequent comments correctly, you (and @Fordy62) are suggesting that the reason is not necessarily that their honesty or credibilty is in question, but, rather, that their evidence is badly presented/substantiated and easily discredited by an experienced QC, at least to the extent that a jury can not be sure beyond reasonable doubt etc.  

Concerning statements, I remember being taught from a very early age that one of the most valuable statements was the very short and brief one that said, effectively, 'I was present, but neither saw nor heard anything'.

Never mind, perhaps JB's next case will yield results as there will be no jury. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever seen such a nervous, twitchy and unconvincing interview with a supposedly lucid and sober person?

The “body language experts” say that whenever you touch your nose you are lying. Whether you believe this or not, look at how many times he touches his nose when answering questions and whether you are a body language believer or not, it’s certainly far from convincing.

And how often does he raise his head and look straight into the eyes of the camera and/or interviewer?

But somehow he convinced a jury of ten; net of two sendings off, that he was innocent!

Hopefully he will keep convincing the wheel of fortune that he is the right man for the job for some time to come, or at least until the next court appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zippycar said:

Have you ever seen such a nervous, twitchy and unconvincing interview with a supposedly lucid and sober person?

The “body language experts” say that whenever you touch your nose you are lying. Whether you believe this or not, look at how many times he touches his nose when answering questions and whether you are a body language believer or not, it’s certainly far from convincing.

And how often does he raise his head and look straight into the eyes of the camera and/or interviewer?

But somehow he convinced a jury of ten; net of two sendings off, that he was innocent!

Hopefully he will keep convincing the wheel of fortune that he is the right man for the job for some time to come, or at least until the next court appearance.

Pointless fact but there’s a small difference. Apparently, it’s less so about actually touching your nose and more so covering your mouth (although usually done by pretending to touch your nose).

Children literally cover their mouth with their hands when they’re lying, and it just becomes more subtle as you age.

Edited by Marcus Aurelius
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eleven dog-fiddlers went to play

For Relegation Rovers,

Eleven men, ten men, nine men

..... and their dog !

 

 

Maybe Darrell's and their warped affinity for dogs is why they're called "Rovers" - (remember the greyhounds? )

That's probably why Darrell was so pleased to go back there last night.

 

 

 

Edited by Bazooka Joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bazooka Joe said:

Eleven dog-fiddlers went to play

For Relegation Rovers,

Eleven men, ten men, nine men

..... and their dog !

Maybe Darrell's and their warped affinity for dogs is why they're called "Rovers" - (remember the greyhounds? )

That's probably why Darrell was so pleased to go back there last night

???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, BCFC11 said:

I'll just leave this here, absolute w4nker that bloke.

 

 

And yet Wael of Fortune feels he has to wait until this man is convicted of something new before he is considered unsuitable as the Manager of his team. ******* dinosaurs the pair of them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BCFC11 said:

I'll just leave this here, absolute w4nker that bloke.

 

 

Yeh just saw this. This is two different payers as well. An anonymous account from the first, and then Ryan Taylor in the second clipping. So JB has been a **** on multiple occasions, to multiple players under his care. Note this sentence as well:

"The Athletic can also reveal he faces the possibility of a disciplinary charge from the FA relating to the Barnsley-Fleetwood game, regardless of the verdict from the court." Presumably would result in little more than a few games touchline ban, but interesting nonetheless.

  • Like 1
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.

×
×
  • Create New...