Joey Barton

[FeedTheArf]

There were no incidents. We just looked the other way at his past.

Completely bizarre when you think of it. He was a d*ck before Burnley and a massive d*ck after Burnley, but whilst he was here he was great!

Unfortunately seems to come to the realisation he can make an easier living as some sort of anti-woke crusader than a lower league manager.

[Rowls]

He’ll be on the next thread soon blaming Darko Churlinov’s bad form for Burnley on his (completely made up) refusal to cook home made food from scratch every night.

The guy is an insincere troll and always has been.

Yeah, sure. As I already said - we can ask ourselves difficult questions. Or we can look the other way.

Because fatherlessness isn't a real problem in the country. Only a "troll" (and an insincere one) would believe all of the evidence we have that fatherless children suffer grossly worse life outcomes.

Who cares about such meaningless things, eh?

[Rowls]

It’s incredible the lengths some people go to defend him.

Imagine is this was someone in your own family or someone you knew. I don’t think you’d be giving them the benefit of the doubt after that record.

Forgive me for being a bit impertinent here, but who's defending him in this instance?

[helmclaret]

Barton was only last week saying Adolescence shouldn’t have been cast with a white kid.

Amazing.

[ksrclaret]

Yeah, sure. As I already said - we can ask ourselves difficult questions. Or we can look the other way.

Because fatherlessness isn't a real problem in the country. Only a "troll" (and an insincere one) would believe all of the evidence we have that fatherless children suffer grossly worse life outcomes.

Who cares about such meaningless things, eh?

Hahaha. I do genuinely love your patter, mate. You absolutely are an insincere troll, I know, you know, everybody knows it, but that doesn't mean to say you're not entertaining. I know sometimes you try to drag threads down by ranting on and on when it's an important subject, but most of the time I reckon you're harmless and funny.

Get out there and make a difference young man. Don't clog this board up with your musings. Get to work and show some action!!

[getbennyon]

I think it's obvious that he's intelligent, just checked and he passed 10 GCSE's which puts him above average and when you consider his upbringing it's even more impressive.

[Rowls]

Hahaha. I do genuinely love your patter, mate. You absolutely are an insincere troll, I know, you know, everybody knows it, but that doesn't mean to say you're not entertaining. I know sometimes you try to drag threads down by ranting on and on when it's an important subject, but most of the time I reckon you're harmless and funny.

Get out there and make a difference young man. Don't clog this board up with your musings. Get to work and show some action!!

"You don't believe what you're saying"

"People like you will be posting {insert opinion I don't hold}"

"You'll be saying {thing I've never said and don't believe]"

"You're an insincere troll"

What do all these have in common? They all mean that you don't have to spend any mental energy considering what I've said. Instead you can just dismiss it, because he clearly doesn't really believe it anyway.

So what is it that is so preposterous and outrageous that I'm saying?

I'm saying that children who grow up without their fathers have disastrously worse life outcomes than those who grow up with their fathers.

That's not even an opinion. It's irrefutable.

[Rowls]

I think it's obvious that he's intelligent, just checked and he passed 10 GCSE's which puts him above average and when you consider his upbringing it's even more impressive.

It's understandable that people perform mental somersaults to tell themselves that Barton is "thick" - understandable because a lot of the time, Barton is a truly despicable person.

But pretending something is true, wanting something to be true is not the same as it actually being true.

Sometimes it's uncomfortable to face up to difficult truths. This thread is a great example.

[Devils_Advocate]

If you were to compare life outcome differences in middle-income fatherless households to middle-income joint parent households it would show the shocking difference and how vital it is for a child's wellbeing and life outcomes to have their father at hand. The same would be visible when comparing fatherless vs joint parent households of lower income families.

My point and argument is that the life outcome difference between families below the poverty line against those middle income families is shockingly far more severe than the outcomes between fatherless and joint parent households.

Poverty and inequality is by far the most reliable indicator of outcomes across the board be it crime, violence, family breakdown, education and it is something as a rich country we could tackle and make a real difference if the political will was there.

The trouble is wealthy people like Fraser Nelson want to protect their millions and so will look to point the finger of blame elsewhere when they should be looking at themselves for the role they have played in decimating the country and ensuring the inequality gap between those at the top and those at the very bottom continues to grow and grow

[Rowls]

Get out there and make a difference young man. Don't clog this board up with your musings. Get to work and show some action!!

BTW: Thanks for the "young man" thing. I'm definitely not young BTW. And FWIW, I'm as flawed as many other but I agree with your sentiments and getting out and about. It's actions that make the world better.

[Big Vinny K]

Of course, without subjecting him to an IQ test (which would be undermined as merely evaluating the ability to score well on intelligence tests) we're all of us only second guessing how intelligent Barton is.

I think he is intelligent. So does ClaretTony.

Other people disagree.

But just as those who don't think he is especially bright can say, "Well what on earth makes you think he's intelligent?" we can flip the question and see how it works the other way round:

So why do you think he's "thick"?
Because he has a propensity to abhorrent violence?
Because you disagreed with on Question Time?
Because he didn't come across well on a live audience political question format TV programme which must be nerve wracking?
Because he wears glasses in a way which you've decided is merely an affectation?
Because he didn't finish his degree when holding down full time and stressful high profile managerial jobs?

It works both ways.

He didn’t have a managerial job when he was “studying” philosophy but that’s besides the point. As usual you would try and defend or justify your views with any made up sh-it.

And who said he was ‘thick” ?
It was you who he said he was intelligent - with zero evidence. Why don’t you post one of these insightful pieces that you reference ? At least then we can decide and debate for ourselves whether we agree.

Right now the evidence I see that shows to me that he is not intelligent is the utter shite he posts on Twitter, the crap that comes out of his mouth in every interview, and the fact he is not clever enough to realise that beating up people is going to get him in trouble.

But I’ve been here too many times with you Rowls - so I’ll bow out now.

[ksrclaret]

What do all these have in common? They all mean that you don't have to spend any mental energy considering what I've said. Instead you can just dismiss it, because he clearly doesn't really believe it anyway.

So what is it that is so preposterous and outrageous that I'm saying?

I'm saying that children who grow up without their fathers have disastrously worse life outcomes than those who grow up with their fathers.

That's not even an opinion. It's irrefutable.

Okay, you win the argument Rowls, you've got me there. Here, have a handful of internet points. You can cash them in anytime you want to make a start out there on fixing our paternal relationships in the real world.

Until then, happy trolling.

[chekhov]

I’m determinist, meaning I think there’s no such thing as free will. As a consequence although Joey has to be held accountable for his actions, because they are deemed unacceptable by society, he’s not actually responsible, in the sense he has a choice over the course his life takes.
When you consider we are all the result of our genes, our parents, the way we were raised, the society which we were born into, and many other factors, you realise we don’t actually have free will.
I’ve probably not done a great job explaining, but it’s an interesting subject to dig into, and it can change the way you view a person’s behaviour, this can be particularly useful in developing understanding and compassion for someone who is behaving badly towards you (for example).
I should add, and it’s not something I even considered before I investigated the subject, that many neuroscientists believe that the choices we make from moment to moment we have no control over, so for example, at a neurological level we can’t explain why we would prefer the colour blue over red.
On a criminal justice level it doesn’t necessarily change the way offenders are punished (insofar as they may need to be removed from society), but it can change the way we view them.

[Rileybobs]

What does any of this have to do with children growing up in fatherless households?

[Rowls]

My point and argument is that the life outcome difference between families below the poverty line against those middle income families is shockingly far more severe than the outcomes between fatherless and joint parent households.

But nobody has disagreed with this. Just that you're conflating issues and engaging in what people term 'whataboutery'.

Poverty and inequality is by far the most reliable indicator of outcomes across the board be it crime, violence, family breakdown, education and it is something as a rich country we could tackle and make a real difference if the political will was there.

Hard disagree. This simply isn't true. If it were, then rich people wouldn't commit any crimes and ALL poor people would be committing crime all of the time.

The trouble is wealthy people like Fraser Nelson want to protect their millions and so will look to point the finger of blame elsewhere when they should be looking at themselves for the role they have played in decimating the country and ensuring the inequality gap between those at the top and those at the very bottom continues to grow and grow

I have no idea of how wealthy Fraser Nelson is although it's likely he's well off. But again, you're skirting the issue of fatherlessness here instead of addressing it.

[Rowls]

What does any of this have to do with children growing up in fatherless households?

It was a passing comment that became an issue.

I made the comment in passing but several posters have commented by suggesting fatherlessness isn't really a problem, yet we have a wealth of statistics which all point towards it being a massive societal problem.

So I've taken issue with it.

It seems that people are now either 'dropping out' of the debate or prefer to talk about wealth inequality.

My point is simple: That fatherlessness IS a massive problem, that is is beyond dispute and that because it is a deeply uncomfotable and difficult subject, people would rather look the other way and talk about things that are easier to discuss - things like wealth inequality.

[fidelcastro]

A bad day for right wing grifters all round, with Laurence Fox found guilty too.

Just need Nigel Farage to fall down an open manhole now.

Fox hasn't been found guilty. He's just been charged.

It's still funny though!

[Buxtonclaret]

I’m determinist, meaning I think there’s no such thing as free will. As a consequence although Joey has to be held accountable for his actions, because they are deemed unacceptable by society, he’s not actually responsible, in the sense he has a choice over the course his life takes.
When you consider we are all the result of our genes, our parents, the way we were raised, the society which we were born into, and many other factors, you realise we don’t actually have free will.
I’ve probably not done a great job explaining, but it’s an interesting subject to dig into, and it can change the way you view a person’s behaviour, this can be particularly useful in developing understanding and compassion for someone who is behaving badly towards you (for example).
I should add, and it’s not something I even considered before I investigated the subject, that many neuroscientists believe that the choices we make from moment to moment we have no control over, so for example, at a neurological level we can’t explain why we would prefer the colour blue over red.
On a criminal justice level it doesn’t necessarily change the way offenders are punished (insofar as they may need to be removed from society), but it can change the way we view them.

Blimey.
Wonder what weird & awfful inherent trait makes all those poor Shadsworth folk support Wrovers ...

[ksrclaret]

What has any of this got to do with Katharine Birbalsingh?

Sorry, just had a bit of a premonition there. I'll repost at the appropriate moment when we get to the third page.

[chekhov]

Blimey.
Wonder what weird & awfful inherent trait makes all those poor Shadsworth folk support Wrovers ...

See. You’re already starting to feel more compassionate towards those poor Rover’s fans. They really didn’t have a choice.

[The Shire Claret]

I read his book and was a bit of an odd read

Sounds like he got off easy today

He’s seems the type of person who could sit down with professionals who have dedicated their life to a certain subject and he will feel he knows better

Think it’s called the Dunning Kruger Effect

[Devils_Advocate]

But nobody has disagreed with this. Just that you're conflating issues and engaging in what people term 'whataboutery'.

The point is if you cared about outcomes for children you would care about all the causes and therefore be just as passionate if not more so about addressing poverty as well as addressing the issue of fatherless children.

Hard disagree. This simply isn't true. If it were, then rich people wouldn't commit any crimes and ALL poor people would be committing crime all of the time.

Brilliant, I was actually going to state that you avoid and argue against poverty and inequality being a factor in the things I previously mentioned as it doesn't fit your narrative and before I had chance here you are showing your true colours

What a pathetic argument to state poverty cant be a good indicator of crime as if true rich people wouldn't commit crime. It would be like arguing that single parent families cant be the cause of poor life outcomes for the children because we see the same poor life outcomes for children from two parent families

[aggi]

Hard disagree. This simply isn't true. If it were, then rich people wouldn't commit any crimes and ALL poor people would be committing crime all of the time.

Rowls' Devil Advocate tribute act needs some work.

If you're going to go for ludicrous then it needs some element of comedy.

[warksclaret]

Feel sorry for his kids-I am sure there is a lot what we don't know about, but kids can be very perceptive when the relationship between father and mother gets so bad the police are called to intervene. They also have very long memories about issues such as these

[Greenmile]

Yeah, sure. As I already said - we can ask ourselves difficult questions. Or we can look the other way.

Because fatherlessness isn't a real problem in the country. Only a "troll" (and an insincere one) would believe all of the evidence we have that fatherless children suffer grossly worse life outcomes.

Who cares about such meaningless things, eh?

You do know that Barton grew up with his father, right? (and that he was, by all accounts, a bigger scumbag than Joey himself)

I’m pretty sure that’s why people are accusing you of insincerity and being a troll, because you’ve chosen this thread to bang on about fatherlessness, when it’s self-evidently got nothing to do with how Barton turned out.

In fact, I’d venture that JB would probably have turned out much better if he’d grown up in a single parent household.

[Claret86]

I read his autobiography on holiday and the takeaway I had is he couldn't escape his upbringing. He was taught violence is a tool that you use to get what you want.
Hes lived every school boys dream of having a professional football career (although marred by indiscipline/violence etc) and he still can't shake his mindset that violence is the answer. He could have done really well for himself if he reigned things in. Instead he's fell down the far right rabbit hole (like a lot of people) and spends his time spouting a dangerous mix of manipulated truths and lies online.
I doubt this will be the last time he is in court for this type of thing.
BTW, i didn't want him to come to burnley but he was brilliant for us. Dyche seemed to be the strong, decent male in charge that he's never had

[Inchy]

To suggest his upbringing hasn’t affected his behaviour is lunacy. It clearly has.

However, he’s old enough and wise enough to know better now. He doesn’t have youthful naivety as an excuse anymore.


His book is terrible. To summarise it basically goes like this “I made a mistake and there are no excuses………..but here’s a list of several excuses”

[claretonthecoast1882]

Reading what he was convicted of there is no excuse or reason to justify what he did.

Sadly he has become a figure that plays up to the Andrew Tate fanboy audience who seem to lap up this kind of thing. Then decides to use a cowardly scumbag organisation slogan as some sort of war cry after the verdict makes him an even bigger bellend.

[TheOriginalLongsider]

Jesus! Kicking your wife in the head! Drunk or not that is beyond losing your rag and lashing out

[Bordeauxclaret]

Posting pictures of the magistrate who convicted you seems to be the action of an intelligent man.

[NottsClaret]

You do know that Barton grew up with his father, right? (and that he was, by all accounts, a bigger scumbag than Joey himself)

I’m pretty sure that’s why people are accusing you of insincerity and being a troll, because you’ve chosen this thread to bang on about fatherlessness, when it’s self-evidently got nothing to do with how Barton turned out.

In fact, I’d venture that JB would probably have turned out much better if he’d grown up in a single parent household.

I was thinking that. It's a while since I read his book, but I'm sure he mentions his dad loads as he was growing up. That's who got him into football.

I get wanting to derail the thread, as yet another anti-woke warrior turns out to be just a stupid, cowardly danger to women, but this seems a weirdly disconnected route to take.

[Walton]

I get wanting to derail the thread, as yet another anti-woke warrior turns out to be just a stupid, cowardly danger to women

That's no way to talk about Rowls

[Rowls]

That's no way to talk about Rowls

Hello Walton,

Whilst I'm used to personal abuse on this site I do like to offer people the opportunity to justify themselves and explain why they think it is appropriate.

For stating that fatherlessness is a massive societal problem I've already been insulted and abused on this thread by Devil'sAdvocate and Big Vinny K.

Neither of them wanted to publicly agree with me that children being raised without fathers is a massive societal problem. They choose to deflect and talk about anything and everything besides. As I said, it's a difficult thing to confront and talk about. It requires moral courage.

However, the evidence is all there. It's overwhelming. It's irrefutable.

So given as you thought it fun to namedrop me, I'd like to offer you the chance to publicly state what other's have refused to acknowledge: That fatherlessness is a massive societal problem.

[fidelcastro]

Admittedly, I haven't read through all of the thread, but what has fatherlessness got to do with Barton kicking his wife in the head?

[Rowls]

Admittedly, I haven't read through all of the thread, but what has fatherlessness got to do with Barton kicking his wife in the head?

It was a small tangential remark about it being one of the root causes of crime.

[fidelcastro]

It was a small tangential remark about it being one of the root causes of crime.

It may or may not be, but I thought the thread was about Barton.

[Greenmile]

Admittedly, I haven't read through all of the thread, but what has fatherlessness got to do with Barton kicking his wife in the head?

Nothing at all - it’s just another example of Rowls derailing a thread with one of his inexplicable hobby-horses.

Just a matter of time before he suggests that JB only beat his wife because of the actions taken by the govt during the pandemic to protect the elderly and vulnerable, or because we didn’t follow Liz Truss’s economic plans closely enough, or something.

[Row x]

Anyone know where I can get a yawning emoji?

[Big Vinny K]

Hello Walton,

Whilst I'm used to personal abuse on this site I do like to offer people the opportunity to justify themselves and explain why they think it is appropriate.

For stating that fatherlessness is a massive societal problem I've already been insulted and abused on this thread by Devil'sAdvocate and Big Vinny K.

Neither of them wanted to publicly agree with me that children being raised without fathers is a massive societal problem. They choose to deflect and talk about anything and everything besides. As I said, it's a difficult thing to confront and talk about. It requires moral courage.

However, the evidence is all there. It's overwhelming. It's irrefutable.

So given as you thought it fun to namedrop me, I'd like to offer you the chance to publicly state what other's have refused to acknowledge: That fatherlessness is a massive societal problem.

Suggesting that you could possible share a few things in common with Barton is hardly abuse. I mean you were pretty gushing about him and you referenced enjoying his insightful and intellectual prose - though you couldn’t actually provide a link for one.

As for entering into a debate about fatherless societal debate the reason that few people have engaged with you on this (it’s actually one of many reasons) is because it’s got nothing to do with Joey Barton or this thread. Even when people point it out to you that he actually went to live with his dad when his parents split up you still persist in derailing the thread - just like you do on pretty much every other thread you post on.

I did hope to just bow out of any debate with you as I just think you are a disingenuous bigoted idiot with zero self awareness -and for the record I think that probably does classify as personal abuse !!

[Plissken]

Hard disagree. This simply isn't true. If it were, then rich people wouldn't commit any crimes and ALL poor people would be committing crime all of the time.

A strawman so big that Edward Woodward is screaming at the top of it.

[martin_p]

Hard disagree. This simply isn't true. If it were, then rich people wouldn't commit any crimes and ALL poor people would be committing crime all of the time.

This is ‘all elephants are grey therefore everything that is grey is an elephant’ levels of logic.

[Rowls]

Nothing at all - it’s just another example of Rowls derailing a thread with one of his inexplicable hobby-horses.

Don't forget how I "don't really believe it anyway".

It's a "hobbyhorse" that I'm very passionate about as well as being "trolling" that I "don't even believe anyway". And somehow it's both these things at the same time.

It's "inexplicable" how somebody like me would care about children growing up without their fathers and suffering vastly reduced life outcomes as a result. Who'd care about such frivolities, eh?

Best to look the other way and not rock the boat.

[Greenmile]

Don't forget how I "don't really believe it anyway".

It's a "hobbyhorse" that I'm very passionate about as well as being "trolling" that I "don't even believe anyway". And somehow it's both these things at the same time.

It's "inexplicable" how somebody like me would care about children growing up without their fathers and suffering vastly reduced life outcomes as a result. Who'd care about such frivolities, eh?

Best to look the other way and not rock the boat.

It inexplicable that you’ve hijacked this thread to bang on about it. A thread about a man who grew up with his father. I can’t see how you’re failing to realise this, so I can only presume you’re deliberately pretending not to, just to be obtuse, which is obvious troll behaviour.

Go and start a thread about fatherlessness if you’re so desperate to talk about it, just stop trying to insinuate that Barton battered his wife because some other people grow up without their fathers.

[Rowls]

It inexplicable that you’ve hijacked this thread to bang on about it. A thread about a man who grew up with his father. I can’t see how you’re failing to realise this, so I can only presume you’re deliberately pretending not to, just to be obtuse, which is obvious troll behaviour.

Go and start a thread about fatherlessness if you’re so desperate to talk about it, just stop trying to insinuate that Barton battered his wife because some other people grow up without their fathers.

At no point and I suggested Barton did what he did because he wasn't in contact with his father. In Barton's case the opposite is more likely.

And throughout I've stressed what a difficult subject it is to address. However, addressing it is a moral imperative for society. It's one of those things that if we fail to confront it, we tacitly approve of it.

Devil'sAdvocate brought up wealth / class. He's right in much of what he said. What I'm not sure he added is that fatherlessness is extremely class based. The middle classes and upper classes do not divorce, separate or raise children in single parent households to anywhere near the extent that the working class and people on low incomes do.

I'm truly very sorry it's an emotive and difficult subject but we need to address this as a society. That's my "hobbyhorse". No more, no less.

[Greenmile]

At no point and I suggested Barton did what he did because he wasn't in contact with his father.

This is your very first post on this thread (emphasis added)

He IS a very bright individual.

We'd be well served as a society to ask ourselves some frank questions about why young men like Joey Barton end up the way they do.

There are clear and consistent indicators in childhood lives that lead people down paths. The key one being a lack of a father.

It's tragic because with Joey, we can see he talent, his intelligence and his ability to articulate. And yet he also has a long history of violent aggression.

I wholeheartedly welcome his conviction and I believe violence like this should have resulted in a custodial sentence. At the same time, and I don't give two hoots if this makes me sound like a bleeding heart lefty, society is failing people like Joey Barton when nobody values or promotes the role of fathers in society.

[Greenmile]

I’m sure next you will point to the word “like” in order to claim you weren’t actually talking about Joey Barton, just people “like” him, because you’re a predictable sophist, at which point I’ll have to remind you again of the title of this thread (and maybe explain to you what “insinuate” means).

[Devils_Advocate]

The middle classes and upper classes do not divorce, separate or raise children in single parent households to anywhere near the extent that the working class and people on low incomes do.

You're so close

[NottsClaret]

"society is failing people like Joey Barton < who grew up with his father playing a leading role in his young life > when nobody values or promotes the role of fathers in society."

The way 'society' is failing, is we let violent, hateful cowards like him abuse women - online and in the real world - without calling it out for what it is, let alone going into long deflective pseudo-intellectual rambles to avoid facing up to that.

[Row x]

It was a small tangential remark about it being one of the root causes of crime.

Most criminals don't have dads?

I can assure you that's not the case.

[sleeperclaret]

I don't agree with Rowls on this, or many other things on the political spectrum, but suggesting he's just trolling, or doesn't believe what he's saying is just an attempt to trivialize the poster, rather than argue the post itself. That in turn undermines the reverse arguments because they can be dismissed as unfair, attacking etc. This behaviour does nothing but polarize opinions based on which poster you agree with most. Argue in good faith - you'll find it less frustrating and find the reciprocal arguments less divisive, hopefully.

FWIW, I don't think Joey is psychologically "typical". His responses to situations, particularly where under pressure or emotional stress, or he's trying to impress or assert authority over others, seem to default to violence. The causes of that could be traced back to his childhood but it's rarely a one-issue thing. There is no one element of someone's life that entirely determines the way they are or continue to be. The fact that he had a few years where he was able to control his actions aligns with the comments around external factors influencing his behaviour, be they Sean Dyche's influence or something else. Were they a mask, a temporary fix, or did something happen after to force him to return to his old ways and undo the control he had? Regardless, what he did was definitely wrong and I think he was only spared jail time because his wife changed her story.

But I am curious, Rowls, about the use of the word "father."
Is it a gender-specific thing or a numerical thing? So if there are 2 mothers in a family, does the child have worse life chances than a mother/father combination?
What if the father works away for 10 months of the year? Does that affect life chances, compared to those who spend every day and night together?
Are their children's life chances worse if there are 2 mothers, compared to a single father raising a child for example?
Is a two-father household superior to other cohabiting family units because you get twice the fathers?

Bringing other elements in that have been discussed: are the life chances of a below-the-poverty-line mother/father household worse than a very rich two mothers household?
Are the life chances better where the father is at home, but is a criminal, or an abuser, than one where the mother has escaped the domestic violence and safeguards the child from that lifestyle but lives alone?

If not, is that because of the exposure to domestic violence at a young age and the effects of PTSD, the hours the single parent has to work to make ends meet, that they fell in with the wrong crowd? Which is those is the biggest factor on life chances?

I think there is a whole venn diagram of scenarios here that made Joey what he was and is, and another about general families and lifestyles. Simplifying it in such a way is really unhelpful when trying to resolve complex social issues. I also care about providing the best life chances possible for children, but I very much worry about any one-dimensional silver bullet that will solve the problem of giving kids the best life possible.