Skip to content

Who would have seen this coming?

Joey Barton back in court this time accused of assaulting a woman thought to be his wife.

«1

Comments

  • Just as they are about to launch a documentary on him on the dazn channel which we would probably feature heavily in. But on the surprised question of course not, more criminal records than steps.

  • Classy bloke....

  • @StrongestTeam said:
    Just as they are about to launch a documentary on him on the dazn channel which we would probably feature heavily in. But on the surprised question of course not, more criminal records than steps.

    A crime documentary or a sports one?

  • @ReturnToSenda said:

    @StrongestTeam said:
    Just as they are about to launch a documentary on him on the dazn channel which we would probably feature heavily in. But on the surprised question of course not, more criminal records than steps.

    A crime documentary or a sports one?

    Look up the trailer it includes such thrills as him telling the squad at Fleetwood to do it for the fans as the town is a shithole , no idea why that might not help long term

  • But he wears glasses, quotes, philosophers and Morrissey and is fluent in French…

    He can’t be the a hole we all think he is

  • I knew he was bright but hadn’t heard that he spoke fluent French. I was intrigued and decided to watch the video to see just how fluent he is. You rotter @TheAndyGrahamFanClub ! Reckon I can speak English with a more convincing French accent than that.although more of a caricature (which might make it easier for the French to see the joke).

    Definitely an aerosol.

    French man to pharmacist: I would like a deodorant if you please.
    Pharmacist: aerosol or ball type?
    French man: no, for under my arms.

  • Rovers' official statement is pretty crass, stating this was a "victimless crime" despite the fact he's been charged with assaulting a woman.
    https://www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/2021/july/joey-barton-statement-update/

  • Don't know all the facts but if they are as it seems taking his wife deciding not to press charges and the police feeling the need to do so anyway as a victimless crime that is some stretch and a bit sick. To try and quote about not being able to get involved and then seek to blatantly justify him still being in post is also shameless.
    Mind you they employed him in the first place so you can read a fair bit into that.

  • Most Rovers fans want him gone and seem pretty disgusted with the club stance

  • This is a shameful statement. It is well known that victims of domestic abuse will often not wish to pursue the matter due to fear or misplaced loyalty. That does NOT make it a victimless crime. For now Barton is of course innocent and may or may not have done anything wrong. While he remains as such, he is entitled to retain his job although given the nature of it and the impending separate Stengel case perhaps a suspension while the cases are determined. This statement implying domestic violence is not a big deal is utterly disgusting.

  • Apparently they're quoting the judge misspeaking, the phrase should have been "victimless prosecution" ie the victim doesn't want to press charges for all the reasons above but the CPS still thinks there is cause to proceed. To know this then use the other phrase in his defence in that way in the statement is disgusting.
    The BBC tend to be fairly guarded in what they will say about legal matters but on their website it says "He allegedly grabbed Mrs Barton by the throat and kicked her in the head outside a property where they had been with two friends, the court heard" I guess she fell in a similar way to the Barnsley manager.

  • Regardless of what the judge said using the phrase 'victimless crime' in the context of domestic abuse is pretty sickening.

  • As above. A "victimless crime" - even if such a thing existed and I'd argue it doesn't - isn't the same thing as a crime where the victim doesn't want to press charges, for all sorts of reasons.
    To suggest that they are the same as BR have done, as some kind of justification, is disgusting.

  • I'm not sure there is much wrong with the actual club statement:

    "With regard to Manager Joey Barton’s court appearance by video link this morning, the Club has been informed that the matter is proceeding to trial and is therefore sub judicial.

    Accordingly, the Club is unable to make any further comment other than to quote the Crown Prosecutor this morning who said “this is a victimless crime. No one has made a claim of assault”.

    Following the weekend’s publicity and today’s court appearance Joey is taking a few days personal time to be with his family. Clint Hill will therefore lead the team for tomorrow night’s friendly against Havant and Waterlooville."

    The Club have not stated it is a victimless crime, they have quoted the Crown prosecutor. Have they misquoted the CP or has the CP used the wrong terminology? I cannot find anywhere online what the CP has actually said to verify this. I think BR response is fairly neutral thus far.

    I wholly agree that any form of domestic violence is "disgusting" and I am no way a fan of Joey Barton but I'm not sure BR have done anything wrong thus far with this statement.

    Let's see what happens next...

  • I don't think BR have done anything wrong apart from using the extremely crass sounding phrase 'victimless crime' in the context of domestic abuse. Whoever coined the phrase whether it be CPS or whatever in the context it is use I find it crass personally. I'm a little surprised that the person writing the statement did not think so and simply wrote a statement supporting their manager subject to the law doing its job. Which would be fine.

  • edited July 2021

    It reads to me like they're looking for any excuse/'loophole' to avoid getting rid of - or at least suspending - him. The statement is incredibly tone deaf - but then so was appointing Barton in the first place.

  • It’s appalling and insulting language, regardless of its status as a piece of legalese. They should be ashamed.

  • @floyd said:
    It’s appalling and insulting language, regardless of its status as a piece of legalese. They should be ashamed.

    Nail, head

  • Bloody hell, when you think you've seen it all something like this comes up and shows you can still be taken aback.

    I can't quite believe what I've read there to be honest.

  • Personally I think the Bristol Rovers comment that he's taking a few days off to spend with his family verges on contempt of court.

  • It is quite remarkable how such a statement could have been released. Any competent public facing organisation would have run such a statement through its lawyers and its PR people and such a statement would not have seen the light of day. It is deliberately misleading and downplaying a very serious criminal matter.

    About the only explanation I can see is that the owner decided to override professional advice a bit like the crazy statements the Bury chairman was making towards the end.

    Have to say if I was a Bristol Rovers supporter, I would be considering whether I could continue supporting the club while these people are in charge.

  • Is anyone surprised? This is Bristol Rovers we're talking about.

  • Would this count as "Summary dismissal" and therefore the club could dismiss him for gross misconduct.

    I see in the Bristol Post story the trial date is 16th December and they've omitted the CP statement for "legal reasons"

    Did we sack Gavin Grant before his trial or had to wait until it was finished before "sacking" him?

    You'd hope BR are looking at a way to have him permanently removed that wouldn't allow him to sue for unfair dismissal.

  • @Commoner said:
    Would this count as "Summary dismissal" and therefore the club could dismiss him for gross misconduct.

    I see in the Bristol Post story the trial date is 16th December and they've omitted the CP statement for "legal reasons"

    Did we sack Gavin Grant before his trial or had to wait until it was finished before "sacking" him?

    You'd hope BR are looking at a way to have him permanently removed that wouldn't allow him to sue for unfair dismissal.

    Why would you hope that?

  • The elephant in the room is that he's an utter cnut. IMHO

  • edited July 2021

    I'd be careful if I were an elephant around there; it's probably not that much of a step up from a horse for them.

Sign In or Register to comment.