Joey B

[warksclaret]

Joey must be a solicitor's dream

[Darnhill Claret]

Could 'hate crime' be involved here. I'm not sure of the criteria that would be required.

[TsarBomba]

I always find it amusing when I read and/or hear people say the Police have pursued this or that matter.

The Police are impartial.

An allegation has evidently been made, and the Police are duty bound to investigate.

All evidence has been put forward to a decision maker, be it Police/CPS, and the threshold has been met for charges to be brought.

I can see Barton has said- ‘haven’t the Police got better things to do?’. Yeah, probably.

The evidence will be provided in court.

I get sent ‘mal comms’ crimes to investigate quite regularly.
90% of them are garbage, and are closed pretty much straight away. Generally, it’s neighbours or ex-partners involved in a slanging match, which is not what the act is for. I say to people all the time just because you disagree with something someone has said doesn’t make it a crime.

As has been mentioned, it’s for communications that are ‘grossly offensive’. If you’re going to send someone a message comparing them to one of the most repulsive persons in British criminal history, then in my professional opinion you’re asking for trouble.

[ŽižkovClaret]

Has he started a new gofundme or is he tacking it onto the last one? It's hard to keep up

Has anyone tried giving the gobshite an omelette?

[ClaretTony]

I think we probably didn't read between the lines at times to be fair. There were numerous times where the players mentioned Barton going mad at half time. It sounds like they and Dyche had to accommodate that side of him, it hadn't disappeared.
It could quite easily have gone the other way, not many would come in and acting like that. He probably tried the same and Rangers and found a less accommodating environment.

Think you misinterpreted it. It was MK & Charlton, both away, when he had words to say at half time. They were encouraged and far from anyone accommodating him.

[IanMcL]

If you post a letter to someone comparing them to Rose West, then I guess it would be viewed as a malicious act should the recipient go to the police. Like I said, the act is wide-reaching.

His comment related to folk we would like or not, to see on the box.

[ŽižkovClaret]

His comment related to folk we would like or not, to see on the box.

Irony being, i'd much prefer Aluko to Barton on my tellybox.

He's a violent criminal chav

[Devils_Advocate]

This is where we vear apart. I agree with your first sentence. However, what you're talking about here would be "incitement to violence". Not only is Barton not being charged with this, his tweets clearly do not meet the criteria for incitement.

If his words have emboldened others into some kind of "pile on" then these messages need looking at. Are these other messages threatening violence or breaking any laws? If they are then the sender needs to be held to account. Not Joey Bartgon.

You misunderstand my point on this. I am not saying Joey should be held accountable for what other people do but that the outcome of this particular breech of the law resulted in some severe consequences for the victim so in my opinion it is rightly going to be less likely to be ignored and brushed under the carpet. To give an example a police officer might catch someone doing 38 in a 30 zone and just have a word with them but if they catch them doing 38 in a 30 zone as they crash their car into a hedge then they are much more likely to charge them for speeding.

Yes, there are grave problems with online abuse.

However, we should not be treating famous people differently under the law. This works both ways. They don't get a free pass but neither are they held to a different standard to us plebs. Private organisations might well have rules binding their members to higher standards than the general public but that is not something befitting of the law.

Crimes can be considered aggravated but people cannot.

Again im not saying they should be treated differently but when someone breaks the law at the expense of a victim and its well publicised and becomes a topic of interest then there is going to be more pressure on the CPS and Police to do something about it (especially when it is a problem and part of that problem is anonymity)

[claretskeith]

Irony being, i'd much prefer Aluko to Barton on my tellybox.

He's a violent criminal chav

Barton would be more likely to say it how it is.

I think it would be entertaining and would get the viewers in.

[ŽižkovClaret]

The only logical explanation for Barton's diatribes, must be that he somehow thinks he is better placed and qualified to be a pundit on Tv or Radio.

This is, and always has been, utterly ludicrous. He can wear specs and quote Nietzsche and Wim Hof all he likes, his true nature is clear for all to see. I wouldn't want him delivering my Uber Eats order, nevermind on any form of broadcast i choose to watch or listen to.

[ŽižkovClaret]

Barton would be more likely to say it how it is.

I think it would be entertaining and would get the viewers in.

"Say it how it is" is a ludicrous phrase it really is. At most he would say it how he sees it, assuming he would even be honest about his true reading of a situation. He's not the first to confuse his perspective and perception for reality, mind. You only need to read this board to see that

[Rowls]

You misunderstand my point on this. I am not saying Joey should be held accountable for what other people do but that the outcome of this particular breech of the law resulted in some severe consequences for the victim so in my opinion it is rightly going to be less likely to be ignored and brushed under the carpet. To give an example a police officer might catch someone doing 38 in a 30 zone and just have a word with them but if they catch them doing 38 in a 30 zone as they crash their car into a hedge then they are much more likely to charge them for speeding.

No, I'm saying that it's stretching beyond meaning to claim his words incite violence. They clearly don't. The law he's been charged with doesn't cover as you describe it, "some severe consequences for the victim". That kind of thing is covered under incitement to violence which he hasn't been charged with because the words clearly do not meet that criteria.

Again im not saying they should be treated differently but when someone breaks the law at the expense of a victim and its well publicised and becomes a topic of interest then there is going to be more pressure on the CPS and Police to do something about it (especially when it is a problem and part of that problem is anonymity)

You're acknowledging he is being held to a different standard here and that would appear to be yet another problem with this law. I've seen worse statements on here and had them directed at me a couple of times. I don't consider it a matter for the law and I'm appalled that Barton has been charged here for what amounts to a playground insult.

[Goliath]

Think you misinterpreted it. It was MK & Charlton, both away, when he had words to say at half time. They were encouraged and far from anyone accommodating him.

I interpreted it the same as everyone. But looking back, he was relatively new to the club, he wasn't the captain and he was clearly making his presence felt significantly at half time. They are the 2 we heard about, I think it's more than likely there were others.
Again look at this spell at Rangers when he started ruffling feathers. I think he was lucky that he had such a good dressing room at Burnley that were willing to put up with these antics.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Irony being, i'd much prefer Aluko to Barton on my tellybox.

He's a violent criminal chav

Let’s be honest, if Barton was in the studio next to her he wouldn’t have a problem.
His rage is because he isn’t there.

[Devils_Advocate]

No, I'm saying that it's stretching beyond meaning to claim his words incite violence. They clearly don't. The law he's been charged with doesn't cover as you describe it, "some severe consequences for the victim". That kind of thing is covered under incitement to violence which he hasn't been charged with because the words clearly do not meet that criteria.

Again you are missing my point. He hasn't been charged with inciting violence, he's been charged with malicious communications which by the definition of the law it looks like he has breeched it and the CPS certainly think so.

Im happy to leave it at that and say if he has broken that law then he should face the legal consequences. It is you that are trying to put up an argument that the law is wrong and shouldnt be used for something like this which you seem to find not too serious.

My point was that whether intended or not his malicious communications did lead to serious consequences to the victim and thus I have no problem with him being taken to court and find your excuses for him very weak.

[Plissken]

I don't consider it a matter for the law and I'm appalled that Barton has been charged here for what amounts to a playground insult.

I'm appalled that you have an opinion that it is OK for someone to be publicly abused and compared to a mass murderer and two serial killers and you think that the correct response is that they should sit there and take it.

Well. To be honest, I'm not appalled. Or surprised, either.

[ClaretTony]

I interpreted it the same as everyone. But looking back, he was relatively new to the club, he wasn't the captain and he was clearly making his presence felt significantly at half time. They are the 2 we heard about, I think it's more than likely there were others.
Again look at this spell at Rangers when he started ruffling feathers. I think he was lucky that he had such a good dressing room at Burnley that were willing to put up with these antics.

There were two as I’ve outlined and both were encouraged. You either believe me or you don’t.

[claretskeith]

"Say it how it is" is a ludicrous phrase it really is. At most he would say it how he sees it, assuming he would even be honest about his true reading of a situation. He's not the first to confuse his perspective and perception for reality, mind. You only need to read this board to see that

"Say it how it is" is a ludicrous phrase it really is.

Depends if you see it how it is. How someone says it is how they see it.

[Plissken]

"Say it how it is" is a ludicrous phrase it really is.

Depends if you see it how it is. How someone says it is how they see it.

Always uttered by someone who mistakes fact for opinion.

[Goliath]

There were two as I’ve outlined and both were encouraged. You either believe me or you don’t.

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with anything, I'm suggesting that looking at the rest of his career, he was lucky that he had such a patient group when he was here.

That's the main difference between his time here and elsewhere.

I'd wager that Dyche had meetings with Mee/Heaton etc about Barton and the best way to handle him. Unfortunately it gave him an extra level of self belief/arrogance which he took to Rangers and ended up having to come back with his tail between his legs.

[Rowls]

Again you are missing my point. He hasn't been charged with inciting violence, he's been charged with malicious communications which by the definition of the law it looks like he has breeched it and the CPS certainly think so.

Im happy to leave it at that and say if he has broken that law then he should face the legal consequences. It is you that are trying to put up an argument that the law is wrong and shouldnt be used for something like this which you seem to find not too serious.

My point was that whether intended or not his malicious communications did lead to serious consequences to the victim and thus I have no problem with him being taken to court and find your excuses for him very weak.

It looks to me like the point either of us is trying to make here is wafer thin.

We agree that under the definition of the law, there's enough to charge him with. You seem to believe that this hinges on the actions of others who read his tweets but I'm saying that it can't because that isn't stipulated under the law?

Either way, seems like splitting hairs right now.

I'm appalled that you have an opinion that it is OK for someone to be publicly abused and compared to a mass murderer and two serial killers and you think that the correct response is that they should sit there and take it.

Well. To be honest, I'm not appalled. Or surprised, either.

I think it's wrong, or if you prefer, I think it is "not OK".

I don't think it should be a matter for the law is where we differ. I also think that enacting a law like this, in this manner, sets a very dangerous precedent.

[claretskeith]

Always uttered by someone who mistakes fact for opinion.

In your opinion.

[ClaretInLeeds]

Let’s be honest, if Barton was in the studio next to her he wouldn’t have a problem.
His rage is because he isn’t there.

His rage isn’t fully misdirected, Aluko is only there to tick boxes. She is absolutely thick as mince and makes so many fundamental errors on tv that it’s beyond laughable now.

I have no doubt that Joey Barton would make a better pundit than Aluko ever would, given the chance.

[claretskeith]

His rage isn’t fully misdirected, Aluko is only there to tick boxes. She is absolutely thick as mince and makes so many fundamental errors on tv that it’s beyond laughable now.

I have no doubt that Joey Barton would make a better pundit than Aluko ever would, given the chance.

I don't think she's actually that bad. Rachel Brown is the most clueless I've ever heard on TV.

[ClaretInLeeds]

I don't think she's actually that bad. Rachel Brown is the most clueless I've ever heard on TV.

She regularly forgets players names, speaks about phantom formations within games, has very little tactical knowledge of the game despite the fact she played over 100 times for England Ladies - about the same standard as U13 boys. She shows herself up almost every time she is on live TV.

Let’s also not forget she falsely accused an international manager of being racist, ruining his career and life in the process.

I’m sure she is an intelligent woman - but one thing is for sure, she’s not on tv because of her footballing knowledge.

[Devils_Advocate]

We agree that under the definition of the law, there's enough to charge him with. You seem to believe that this hinges on the actions of others who read his tweets but I'm saying that it can't because that isn't stipulated under the law?

Nope I don't believe that at all. I think he should just be charged because he broke the law regardless of anything else. The other bit is in countenance to your attack on the relevance of the law and the view of Barton's actions as something and nothing.

There is a reason why online abuse or any form of malicious communications can be dangerous and showing what it led to in the case of the victim in this case highlights why we need the law and why in my opinion we should prosecute people under the law.

[claretskeith]

She regularly forgets players names, speaks about phantom formations within games, has very little tactical knowledge of the game despite the fact she played over 100 times for England Ladies - about the same standard as U13 boys. She shows herself up almost every time she is on live TV.

Let’s also not forget she falsely accused an international manager of being racist, ruining his career and life in the process.

I’m sure she is an intelligent woman - but one thing is for sure, she’s not on tv because of her footballing knowledge.

And what about Aluko?

[Rileybobs]

I’m sure she is an intelligent woman - but one thing is for sure, she’s not on tv because of her footballing knowledge.

She is absolutely thick as mince and you’re sure she’s an intelligent woman? Interesting juxtaposition you have got going on there.

[ClaretTony]

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with anything, I'm suggesting that looking at the rest of his career, he was lucky that he had such a patient group when he was here.

That's the main difference between his time here and elsewhere.

I'd wager that Dyche had meetings with Mee/Heaton etc about Barton and the best way to handle him. Unfortunately it gave him an extra level of self belief/arrogance which he took to Rangers and ended up having to come back with his tail between his legs.

Keep making stuff up.

[ŽižkovClaret]

His rage isn’t fully misdirected, Aluko is only there to tick boxes. She is absolutely thick as mince and makes so many fundamental errors on tv that it’s beyond laughable now.

I have no doubt that Joey Barton would make a better pundit than Aluko ever would, given the chance.

That would be the same Eni Aluko MBE with several A-Levels, a 1st class law Degree, yes?

"Thick as mince" yes?

[aggi]

She is absolutely thick as mince and you’re sure she’s an intelligent woman? Interesting juxtaposition you have got going on there.

Given that she qualified as a lawyer and was working at Slaughter's at one point it seems unlikely she is as thick as mince (or as thick as some of the other pundits we have gracing our screens).

[HahaYeah]

Eni Aluko interviewed by Andrew Gold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7UmG7MR6p4&t=1138s

[ClaretInLeeds]

She is absolutely thick as mince and you’re sure she’s an intelligent woman? Interesting juxtaposition you have got going on there.

When she speaks live, she can’t string a coherent sentence together - however, given her qualifications, she’s obviously intelligent. Further backing up my claim that she shouldn’t be anywhere near live tv.

[IanMcL]

Irony being, i'd much prefer Aluko to Barton on my tellybox.

He's a violent criminal chav

He did not portray that with us and we owe him a Championship win, through his drive.

No need for such an insult.

In terms of the woman or Josrph, I would take Joseph every time and never the woman.

[ŽižkovClaret]

He did not portray that with us and we owe him a Championship win, through his drive.

No need for such an insult.

In terms of the woman or Josrph, I would take Joseph every time and never the woman.

Insult or accurate description based on his actions, civil cases, and criminal convictions?

[roperclaret]

Insult or accurate description based on his actions, civil cases, and criminal convictions?

You’re both right. He is a chav and a violent one at that. But he does know more about mens football than Aluko.

[roperclaret]

To say you get so offended and upset by some of the comments directed at you on this board you really ought to know better.

If you read my comment properly I didn't make anything up, I said 'I'd wager' he had meetings with senior players. I don't care how in the know you are, you have no idea about every meeting that happens between the manager and his senior players. Dyche was very big on dressing room atmosphere and he will have understood the risk he was taking with Barton, I'm sure he discussed it with the senior players who helped control the dressing room.

Either way it's not particularly important but you should really be careful with the tone you respond to people in future. It borderlined on arrogance and as the moderator it sets the tone for the whole forum.

To be fair you do have a history of making outlandish claims of what ‘you’ think is going on inside the club

[JohnMcGreal]

She regularly forgets players names, speaks about phantom formations within games, has very little tactical knowledge of the game despite the fact she played over 100 times for England Ladies - about the same standard as U13 boys. She shows herself up almost every time she is on live TV.

Let’s also not forget she falsely accused an international manager of being racist, ruining his career and life in the process.

I’m sure she is an intelligent woman - but one thing is for sure, she’s not on tv because of her footballing knowledge.

I suppose you have to ask yourself why anyone would care so much about a football pundit being any good or not. It means nothing. There are loads of pundits I don't rate. I'm not going to blow a gasket over it.

If her ability as a football pundit is the sole reason for his rage (I don't think it is) then he's an even sadder individual than I realised.

[RicardoMontalban]

the woman or Josrph

Come on, you can be better than that.

[Greenmile]

…Let’s also not forget she falsely accused an international manager of being racist, ruining his career and life in the process.

This is a lie. Mark Sampson was found by an inquiry to have made racist statements, and subsequently apologised unreservedly to Aluko. That’s not something someone who has been falsely accused would do.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... rew-spence

(on the subject of Sampson, it’s worth remembering that Rowls leapt to his defence at the time of that incident, like he has with Barton here. http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... =2&t=19545)

[Big Vinny K]

This is a lie. Mark Sampson was found by an inquiry to have made racist statements, and subsequently apologised unreservedly to Aluko. That’s not something someone who has been falsely accused would do.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... rew-spence

(on the subject of Sampson, it’s worth remembering that Rowls leapt to his defence at the time of that incident, like he has with Barton here. http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... =2&t=19545)

Will you please stop with this posting facts nonsense. It’s completely ruining this thread.
Let’s draw a line for this once and for all and get back to the job of Rowls spending lots of times with rabbits and holes.

[roperclaret]

This is a lie. Mark Sampson was found by an inquiry to have made racist statements, and subsequently apologised unreservedly to Aluko. That’s not something someone who has been falsely accused would do.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... rew-spence

(on the subject of Sampson, it’s worth remembering that Rowls leapt to his defence at the time of that incident, like he has with Barton here. http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... =2&t=19545)

Not quite true Greenmile - the comments were deemed discriminatory. It’s a fine line, but having heard Aluko speak about them, for me they were more just plain stupid than racist

[ClaretInLeeds]

This is a lie. Mark Sampson was found by an inquiry to have made racist statements, and subsequently apologised unreservedly to Aluko. That’s not something someone who has been falsely accused would do.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... rew-spence

(on the subject of Sampson, it’s worth remembering that Rowls leapt to his defence at the time of that incident, like he has with Barton here. http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... =2&t=19545)

It’s far from a lie. He was found to have made discriminatory comments and was paid out by the FA for unlawful dismissal, but never mind about that.

[Big Vinny K]

Not quite true Greenmile - the comments were deemed discriminatory. It’s a fine line, but having heard Aluko speak about them, for me they were more just plain stupid than racist

Why do you think he volunteered to take an educational course with an anti racism organisation ?

[Greenmile]

Not quite true Greenmile - the comments were deemed discriminatory. It’s a fine line, but having heard Aluko speak about them, for me they were more just plain stupid than racist

The exact quote from the independent barrister who headed up the inquiry was “on two separate occasions (Sampson) made ill-judged attempts at humour, which, as a matter of law, were discriminatory on the grounds of race”

Now, you can split hairs on this if you want but, for me, “discriminatory on the grounds of race” means “racist”.

In the interest of fairness, I should point out that the barrister went on to say “it was fundamentally important to emphasise that I have not concluded that MS is a racist”, but that’s not quite the same as concluding that he wasn’t a racist (not that I’m saying he was, to be clear).

Source - https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... rew-spence

[roperclaret]

Why do you think he volunteered to take an educational course with an anti racism organisation ?

As I said. It’s a fine line, and the course they offer is an anti discrimination course

[Greenmile]

It’s far from a lie. He was found to have made discriminatory comments and was paid out by the FA for unlawful dismissal, but never mind about that.

He wasn’t sacked for the racist comments he made, though. He was sacked for breaching his duty of care in a previous role, by having a relationship with one of his players.

[roperclaret]

The exact quote from the independent barrister who headed up the inquiry was “on two separate occasions (Sampson) made ill-judged attempts at humour, which, as a matter of law, were discriminatory on the grounds of race”

Now, you can split hairs on this if you want but, for me, “discriminatory on the grounds of race” means “racist”.

In the interest of fairness, I should point out that the barrister went on to say “it was fundamentally important to emphasise that I have not concluded that MS is a racist”, but that’s not quite the same as concluding that he wasn’t a racist (not that I’m saying he was, to be clear).

Source - https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... rew-spence

Let me be clear, I’m not trying to defend him. I just think they were more stupid comments about Nationality rather than race

[Greenmile]

Let me be clear, I’m not trying to defend him. I just think they were more stupid comments about Nationality rather than race

The independent inquiry thought differently. I’m going to assume they had access to a bit more info, and spent a bit more time thinking about it, than ether you or I, so I’m going to take their word over yours on this one, if that’s ok with you.

[Big Vinny K]

As I said. It’s a fine line, and the course they offer is an anti discrimination course

Not sure exactly what the fine line is but irrespective an organisation that was set up with it’s one objective to kick out racism is going to offer educational courses on discrimination in relation to racism rather than other discriminatory areas would you not think ?