cricketfieldclarets wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 1:33 pm

Never had you down as a man of the cloth.

Not normally pedantic, but isn’t a man of the cloth normally a priest, vicar or some such, i.e. the person wearing ‘the cloth’ (eg. dog collar).
A normal church goer would be a Christian devotee, a man of faith, or a bible basher.

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:24 pm

The fact the police want to continue to press charges when the alleged victim is denying it is a little worrying especially as a lot of victims of domestic violence will deny it and will defend their abuser

Maybe his wife isn't the alleged victim. I've seen the story reported in a few places and none mention his wife.

Poor Joey - always the misunderstood innocent…
https://www.goal.com/en/news/joey-barto ... x7opyy8m1d

chekhov wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:31 pm

Not normally pedantic, but isn’t a man of the cloth normally a priest, vicar or some such, i.e. the person wearing ‘the cloth’ (eg. dog collar).
A normal church goer would be a Christian devotee, a man of faith, or a bible basher.

You are being pedantic... touching cloth was more apt.

Was brilliant for us but can't stand him. Always playing the victim. A scummy man who will never change.

This could genuinely finish JB in football and rightly so if the allegations ( wife/woman beating ) are proven . The devil has always ridden on Joeys shoulder sadly and detracts from an intelligent man . While he’s not to my knowledge got any previous in this sphere ( unlike a certain welsh wing wizard) there’s only so far goodwill can spread .

TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:32 pm

Maybe his wife isn't the alleged victim. I've seen the story reported in a few places and none mention his wife.

Possibly but the fact that some reports have mentioned she is the victim and the fact she has made a statement emphasising she is fine does point to her being the victim

My comment was in response to someone using his wifes statement as an indication he hasnt done anything so I was basing it on their assumption

tim_noone wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:37 pm

You are being pedantic... touching cloth was more apt.

You are one to speak!

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:44 pm

Possibly but the fact that some reports have mentioned she is the victim and the fact she has made a statement emphasising she is fine does point to her being the victim

My comment was in response to someone using his wifes statement as an indication he hasnt done anything so I was basing it on their assumption

Emphasising she is fine?

I don't know how much clearer she could make it for you......it wasn't her.
Have you read her statement which jdrobo posted halfway down page 1 of this thread?

2 Bee Holed wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 5:45 pm

Emphasising she is fine?

I don't know how much clearer she could make it for you......it wasn't her.
Have you read her statement which jdrobo posted halfway down page 1 of this thread?

You do realise that it is common for people who have been attacked by their partners to then deny it and support them. If a husband/wife assaults the other as part of a drunken bust up and then they make up the next day then neither would not want it to be dragged through the media and the courts, especially if they have children involved.

I am not the one on this thread who suggested she is involved but by the same token her statement does not by any means mean it wasnt her he assaulted

2 Bee Holed wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 5:45 pm

Emphasising she is fine?

I don't know how much clearer she could make it for you......it wasn't her.
Have you read her statement which jdrobo posted halfway down page 1 of this thread?

Oh its her alright. She will not be bringing charges she says and will.keep.it a within the family.

chekhov wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:31 pm

Not normally pedantic, but isn’t a man of the cloth normally a priest, vicar or some such, i.e. the person wearing ‘the cloth’ (eg. dog collar).
A normal church goer would be a Christian devotee, a man of faith, or a bible basher.

No idea. I’m Jewish.

What happened to be kind eh

tarkys_ears wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 1:49 pm

He's been charged with assaulting his wife

Yet his wife has put out a statement saying that no one (not her or the police) are accusing him of being violent or physical towards her, so she’s either lying, or the charge relates to somebody else.

oh my god this thread has turned into a sketch involving les dawson and roy barraclough.

yTib wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 6:47 pm

oh my god this thread has turned into a sketch involving les dawson and roy barraclough.

Now then Cissie no memoing!!!

Who's Cissie and who's Ada then

2 Bee Holed wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:31 pm

Wow.

I wasn't comparing the case involving Barnes to this case. We really should read what is written and not comment upon what you think you have read.
I said it will be interesting to compare our comments on these 2 cases....as they are both pre- court case. That's all.

You are comparing the comments. How can you compare comments on two totally different cases of this nature?

IF it is a domestic incident, and the wife is the alleged victim, then I wouldn’t read too much into her Instagram ‘statement’.

It’s extremely common for victims to withdraw support in a domestic after their partner has been arrested.

It may be that the CPS are pursuing a ‘victimless prosecution’, if they have deemed it in the public interest.

Anyway, best to wait for the case to sit first.

Sweet and Tender Hooligan indeed

bf2k wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 25, 2021 10:18 pm

You are comparing the comments. How can you compare comments on two totally different cases of this nature?

According to comments on here.

Barnes was guilty even before his court appearance. Throw away the key. As good as murder.

Barton doesn't appear to be getting as much stick.

It's just interesting to me. That's all.

2 Bee Holed wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 26, 2021 10:53 am

According to comments on here.

Barnes was guilty even before his court appearance. Throw away the key. As good as murder.

Barton doesn't appear to be getting as much stick.

It's just interesting to me. That's all.

I think the difference is the evidence, or at least the implied evidence relating to each case.

With Barnes, there was an educated assumption that a excess alcohol test result must have been produced, otherwise there would be no story.

With Barton, it very much needs to come out in court, and it could well end up dropped due to evidence or lack of, although as others have said, you would expect certain evidential/public interest thresholds to have been met for it to proceed this far.

The case is underway and Mr Barton has pleaded not guilty.

I have also received advice that some posts on this thread are unacceptable. Some have been removed and to ensure no further comments land us in trouble, the thread is being locked.