Joey Barton

[CoolClaret]

Though there is an issue with a lack of father figures in people's lives and tangible, negative outcomes as a result, Rowls is (predictably) doing the bidding of the rich by completely overlooking the real issue...

Wealth inequality and a lack of opportunity are causing major societal problems.

It also has nothing to do with this thread, as others have mentioned, as JB did have his dad in his life.

[dsr]

If so many people don't want to talk about absent fathers as a cause of crime, then why are so many people talking about absent fathers as a cause of crime? If you don't want to talk about it, then surely the answer is obvious?

[Claret53]

Why is it that someone giving a genuine view on this post is subjected to nasty insults? is it not possible to have an intelligent conversation on this topic (and others)?
Actually thinking WHAT may have caused JB's personality to be what it is is not the same as excusing it.
Violence in any situation is unacceptable. Sentencing policy requires the Courts to treat violence in a domestic setting as a more aggravated form than other settings.
A suspended sentence, combined with a requirement to undergo some form of rehabilitative treatment, can often be a better option for addressing underlying issues, rather than an immediate sentence. (I note that his wife did not support the prosecution).
This is relevant, I would suggest, to JB: his career before and after his time at Burnley shows significant issues with violence and temper, but when he played here the story was very different. I remember being amazed when, after a particularly unpleasant foul by Grant Hanley on him, which was obviously designed to provoke him, he kept his cool and treated Hanley like the prehistoric yob he was proving himself to be.
So, some combination of things when he was at Burnley clearly had a beneficial effect and it suggests that it may be possible to address his problems.
Recognising them is, I repeat, not the same as excusing his behaviour.
And his recently expressed political views are about as sophisticated, and unwelcome, as Grant Hanley's tackling!

[TheFamilyCat]

Why is it that someone giving a genuine view on this post is subjected to nasty insults? is it not possible to have an intelligent conversation on this topic (and others)?
Actually thinking WHAT may have caused JB's personality to be what it is is not the same as excusing it.
Violence in any situation is unacceptable. Sentencing policy requires the Courts to treat violence in a domestic setting as a more aggravated form than other settings.
A suspended sentence, combined with a requirement to undergo some form of rehabilitative treatment, can often be a better option for addressing underlying issues, rather than an immediate sentence. (I note that his wife did not support the prosecution).
This is relevant, I would suggest, to JB: his career before and after his time at Burnley shows significant issues with violence and temper, but when he played here the story was very different. I remember being amazed when, after a particularly unpleasant foul by Grant Hanley on him, which was obviously designed to provoke him, he kept his cool and treated Hanley like the prehistoric yob he was proving himself to be.
So, some combination of things when he was at Burnley clearly had a beneficial effect and it suggests that it may be possible to address his problems.
Recognising them is, I repeat, not the same as excusing his behaviour.
And his recently expressed political views are about as sophisticated, and unwelcome, as Grant Hanley's tackling!

I think you've missed the point that the supposed reason for his character flaws wasn't true. We may as well be having a discussion about the cause being because he's an alien.

[Rowls]

Most criminals don't have dads?

I can assure you that's not the case.

Oh no. They all have fathers, whether they're present or not.

Children who grow up without their fathers present have vastly reduced life outcomes. It's not debatable, it's irrefutable.

[ClaretPete001]

I would suspect that like most bullies he behaves when things are going his way and he is being given the respect that he feels he deserves. And with us both were true. He had a difficult period at Rangers between his two periods with us.

Whether it is nurture or nature that creates this kind of behaviour is probably fairly mute. We have no money to solve the problems of social equity and it's probably not possible to easily change someone's brain that has been wired to stress and aggression at an early age.

The days of middle class liberals wanging on about sh*t is just about done things are going to get much worse.

[TheOriginalLongsider]

Oh Jesus Christ. Up the Clarets? Continuous mind-numbing arguments with the odd sprinkle of interesting football chat !

[ClaretPete001]

Oh Jesus Christ. Up the Clarets? Continuous mind-numbing arguments with the odd sprinkle of interesting football chat !

Unless you have just crawled out from under a rock Joey Barton has just been found guilty of kicking his wife's head in.

The clue is in the title - avoid it if you don't want to read it.

[Rowls]

But I am curious, Rowls, about the use of the word "father."
[1] Is it a gender-specific thing or a numerical thing? [2] So if there are 2 mothers in a family, does the child have worse life chances than a mother/father combination?
[3] What if the father works away for 10 months of the year? [4] Does that affect life chances, compared to those who spend every day and night together?
[5] Are their children's life chances worse if there are 2 mothers, compared to a single father raising a child for example?
[6] 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: [7] are the life chances of a below-the-poverty-line mother/father household worse than a very rich two mothers household?
[8] 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?

[9] 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? [10] 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.

Some thoughtful questions here sleeperclaret.

1. "Father" is definitely a gender-specific term. Everybody knows what a father is and if I defined it, it would only be condescending.
2. Nobody really knows this. We don't have the data. I'm sure there will be nascent studies but there simply isn't the data to build a comprehensive picture. We'll have a better idea very shortly (in maybe 10-15 years+). There simply isn't the level of data yet, but there will be in the relatively very near future.
3. I really don't know. I suspect that fathers who work away for 10 months of the year but are in a stable relationship are an extremely small percentage of fathers. I wouldn't want to second guess this. As I say - I really don't know.
4. Not entirely sure how this question (4) relates to question 3. It's more to do with developmental psychology than simply stating the broad truth about children faring much better when they are raised in the same household as their father. However, what is essential to healthy baby-toddler development is having a much time, care, affection and interaction in the first 18-24 months. Primarily with the mother. That's a related but distinct topic to fatherless households.
5. Same answer as question 2 - we don't have the data, not that I know of. We'll have a much better idea very soon.
6. Most definitely not. It seems daft to say this, but the question prompts it: Men and women are different. Women are maternal in a way that men simply are not. We're all free to choose our professions in this country and yet 99.9% of midwives are women. The vast majority of nursery workers are women. Conversely most binmen are blokes. It seems like you're keen to ask my views on same-sex parenting in a roundabout way without asking outright so I'll just go ahead and tell you:
I'm happy for married or civil-partnered lesbians to conceive and adopt. I'm confident a two parent household is much easier to manage than a single parent household. All women are capable of being maternal and given we have the technology for people to become pregnant with IVF it seems cruel to deny lesbians this chance. However, I really do think that some kind of provision should be made for at very least talking about the role that strong male role-models play. Society can easily see bad actors like that Tate dude for what they are, but the lack of bad role models isn't enough to raise a child - positive role models are required. I believe all children need positive male AND female role models. I believe we especially need them during teenage years during puberty and that it's especially helpful to have a good role-model of the same sex as the child. Who doesn't need role-models?
When it comes to male gay couples, obviously the IVF route isn't open. Men don't have the same maternal drives as women although I'm sure fatherhood is the most rewarding thing a man can do. However, I'm completely opposed to surrogacy. Babies need mothers. Taking a baby away from its mother moments after birth seems cruel to me. I'm completely against it. We do actually have laws that forbid this - but only for cats and dogs. I'm not sure of the surrogacy rules that apply within the UK.
Most men I know either are (or would like to be) fathers. Most of them are great at it. I'm confident gay men are no better or worse but I oppose the surrogacy route.
7. See answers 2 and 6
8. This conflates three or four separate variables into a single question which could have numerous variations, so the only answer I can give you is an unsatisifactory, sometimes it will be and sometimes it won't be.
9. See answer 8
10. I think you're asking which is the most important factor, fatherlessness or exposure to violence? They're obviously both gravely serious. As you're keen to ellicit my personal responses, I think escaping domestic abuse is an easy priority over maintaining a two-parent household. The flip side is that from a purely statistical point of view the answer is that fatherlessness is more prominent than exposure to violence/domestic abuse. In cases where a father is violent towards a mother and/or a child in the household it's worth noting that step-children are at a vastly increased risk of being on the end of violence than children raised by their genetic father. Obviously, no mother should ever stay with an abusive father simply to keep the household together. That really goes without saying.
The figures are: An estimated 827,000 are exposed to and suffer from domestic abuse. 3.3 million are in single parent households. One is more serious, the other is more prominent.

[Rowls]

Though there is an issue with a lack of father figures in people's lives and tangible, negative outcomes as a result, Rowls is (predictably) doing the bidding of the rich by completely overlooking the real issue...

Wealth inequality and a lack of opportunity are causing major societal problems.

It also has nothing to do with this thread, as others have mentioned, as JB did have his dad in his life.

Given you a 'like' because, even though it's a sly dig at me, it's an honest one, Comrade.

[fatboy47]

Anyone know where I can get a yawning emoji?

Good thread...interesting to read the different takes on the "Barton question"...some stuff amusing with plenty of witty and well-argued responses...the type of thread that leads me to click on here most days.

There are other threads...many of them mind bogglingly tedious, repetetive and inane...they're easy to find by simply looking at the title.

It's not difficult Row x..... if it bores you, simply scroll past.

[IanMcL]

Joseph grew up on a drug ridden estate in Toxteth. He was clever enough to not follow the path of his mates/peers and despite getting ditched many Everton - his club - he was strong enough to make it and all the way to England.

He has real issues that need addressing, however, he has done well, relatively and against the odds.

[Greenmile]

Joseph grew up on a drug ridden estate in Toxteth. He was clever enough to not follow the path of his mates/peers and despite getting ditched many Everton - his club - he was strong enough to make it and all the way to England.

He has real issues that need addressing, however, he has done well, relatively and against the odds.

He kicked his wife in the head, Ian. I know you’re not a big fan of women, but surely you can bring yourself to condemn that.

[Row x]

Oh no. They all have fathers, whether they're present or not.

Children who grow up without their fathers present have vastly reduced life outcomes. It's not debatable, it's irrefutable.

Most of the criminals I've dealt with had fathers present

How many have you dealt with?

[Jakubclaret]

Joey is a good egg & often misunderstood. Some people can relate to him others can't.

[Row x]

Joey is a good egg & often misunderstood. Some people can relate to him others can't.

Not many good eggs kick their wife in the head

Shame on those who relate to him

[Jakubclaret]

Not many good eggs kick their wife in the head

Shame on those who relate to him

That was the verdict but was it the truth.

[Rowls]

Most of the criminals I've dealt with had fathers present

How many have you dealt with?

More than I could count. I'd estimate 1000-2000.

Your personal anecdote will never trump the stats on this.

[Row x]

More than I could count. I'd estimate 1000-2000.

Your personal anecdote will never trump the stats on this.

I've not counted, but 5 or 6 a day for 40 years gives me a little insight
Personal experience trumps stats

[Row x]

That was the verdict but was it the truth.

Probably

[Jakubclaret]

Probably

Is it something you can be sure about was you there?

[Row x]

Is it something you can be sure about was you there?

Which is why I said probably
The court will have heard from people who were there, photo evidence etc.....so yes
By the way, it's were you there, not was you there.

[Jakubclaret]

Which is why I said probably
The court will have heard from people who were there, photo evidence etc.....so yes
By the way, it's were you there, not was you there.

No of course not. I deal with the facts I know it's an alien concept on here unless I know something to be absolutely certain I don't cast judgement.

[sleeperclaret]

Some thoughtful questions here sleeperclaret.

1. "Father" is definitely a gender-specific term. Everybody knows what a father is and if I defined it, it would only be condescending.
2. Nobody really knows this. We don't have the data. I'm sure there will be nascent studies but there simply isn't the data to build a comprehensive picture. We'll have a better idea very shortly (in maybe 10-15 years+). There simply isn't the level of data yet, but there will be in the relatively very near future.
3. I really don't know. I suspect that fathers who work away for 10 months of the year but are in a stable relationship are an extremely small percentage of fathers. I wouldn't want to second guess this. As I say - I really don't know.
4. Not entirely sure how this question (4) relates to question 3. It's more to do with developmental psychology than simply stating the broad truth about children faring much better when they are raised in the same household as their father. However, what is essential to healthy baby-toddler development is having a much time, care, affection and interaction in the first 18-24 months. Primarily with the mother. That's a related but distinct topic to fatherless households.
5. Same answer as question 2 - we don't have the data, not that I know of. We'll have a much better idea very soon.
6. Most definitely not. It seems daft to say this, but the question prompts it: Men and women are different. Women are maternal in a way that men simply are not. We're all free to choose our professions in this country and yet 99.9% of midwives are women. The vast majority of nursery workers are women. Conversely most binmen are blokes. It seems like you're keen to ask my views on same-sex parenting in a roundabout way without asking outright so I'll just go ahead and tell you:
I'm happy for married or civil-partnered lesbians to conceive and adopt. I'm confident a two parent household is much easier to manage than a single parent household. All women are capable of being maternal and given we have the technology for people to become pregnant with IVF it seems cruel to deny lesbians this chance. However, I really do think that some kind of provision should be made for at very least talking about the role that strong male role-models play. Society can easily see bad actors like that Tate dude for what they are, but the lack of bad role models isn't enough to raise a child - positive role models are required. I believe all children need positive male AND female role models. I believe we especially need them during teenage years during puberty and that it's especially helpful to have a good role-model of the same sex as the child. Who doesn't need role-models?
When it comes to male gay couples, obviously the IVF route isn't open. Men don't have the same maternal drives as women although I'm sure fatherhood is the most rewarding thing a man can do. However, I'm completely opposed to surrogacy. Babies need mothers. Taking a baby away from its mother moments after birth seems cruel to me. I'm completely against it. We do actually have laws that forbid this - but only for cats and dogs. I'm not sure of the surrogacy rules that apply within the UK.
Most men I know either are (or would like to be) fathers. Most of them are great at it. I'm confident gay men are no better or worse but I oppose the surrogacy route.
7. See answers 2 and 6
8. This conflates three or four separate variables into a single question which could have numerous variations, so the only answer I can give you is an unsatisifactory, sometimes it will be and sometimes it won't be.
9. See answer 8
10. I think you're asking which is the most important factor, fatherlessness or exposure to violence? They're obviously both gravely serious. As you're keen to ellicit my personal responses, I think escaping domestic abuse is an easy priority over maintaining a two-parent household. The flip side is that from a purely statistical point of view the answer is that fatherlessness is more prominent than exposure to violence/domestic abuse. In cases where a father is violent towards a mother and/or a child in the household it's worth noting that step-children are at a vastly increased risk of being on the end of violence than children raised by their genetic father. Obviously, no mother should ever stay with an abusive father simply to keep the household together. That really goes without saying.
The figures are: An estimated 827,000 are exposed to and suffer from domestic abuse. 3.3 million are in single parent households. One is more serious, the other is more prominent.

Thanks for the comprehensive response - it is appreciated.

I think I'm drawing some slightly confused conclusions from your answers and earlier statements but just wanted to check my understanding.

If I'm assimilating this all correctly, you believe that a present father is important to the life chances of children (A1), and this is absolutely about gender - the male influence is really important. But at the same time, there is insufficient evidence that the role of a man in the house has any impact at all compared to a similar set of circumstances where gender is all female (A2) but you seem willing to entertain the fact that it might lead to better or similar outcomes, despite the lack of a father. This would seem at odds with A5, though which is a similar to A2, but the lack of a "mother" seems to cause less concern than the initial sentiment around a lack of a father. A6 though is fairly clear that you do not believe that 2 fathers would have a similar impact on the outcome for the child, since the initial period where a child needs its mother is so important that an additional father cannot make up for it.
The point of Q3 and Q4 were to determine whether the physical presence of a "father" was important, as opposed to a remote "father". This would be the case where single parent families exist, and there is a non-cohabiting arrangement with the father and child, but they retain regular contact and see each other for weekends. The relationship is strong, they are clearly father and child, but they do not share a house for long periods. Your answer here was interesting in that it was focused on the stability of the "marital" relationship rather than the parent child relationship (unless I'm misreading) as the driver for the child outcomes.

I think part of the confusion for me is that the answers started in an evidence-driven way but then moved into belief system territory. For example you state that "All women are capable of being maternal" which I don't believe to be true (or we may have different views on what "being maternal" involves). I can't with certainty say that I'm correct in my beliefs, but statistics would certainly be on my side since I only need to find one negative.

I genuinely wasn't trying to ask for your views on same sex parenting. I was merely trying to understand if you consider "father" or "mother" to be familial roles or whether they were inextricably linked to gender. Again, if I'm paraphrasing correctly, I get the sense that you view being a "father" as the byproduct of being a man rather than performing a role traditionally associated with a male member of a nuclear family. In the latter either gender can fulfill a "father" role e.g. enforce discipline etc, in the same way either gender can be nurturing, empathetic etc. I believe that regardless of who plays which role in a family unit, the important thing is that all elements are there and that combination is what provides the correct upbringing of a child, not the gender of the person offering it.

Again, we can disagree on views of surrogacy, but ny interesting take from your response was around the value you place on marriage/civil partnerships. This brings up lots of other questions like "is it better for a child to be in a house with 2 married parents who dislike each other, or with 2 unmarried parents who love each other?". It's as if the tradition and the belief in innate value of that tradition, not the actual value in a real world scenario, is the most important thing. This was backed up by your response to Q8 which implied it might be better for a child to stay with a criminal and domestic violence perpetrator than to be in a single parent household. I can't imagine a scenario where that would be the case.

In A10 I believe you may be using some statistics without understanding their relative values or impacts. You acknowledge that being exposed to domestic violence is worse, but less prevalent than being in a single parent family. If I can exaggerate slightly for effect, it's like saying the prevalence of childhood obesity is much higher than being run over by a car so it's much of a muchness whether you eat a burger or cross a busy motorway - they're both bad, but one happens more often and the other is more serious.

[sleeperclaret]

Joseph grew up on a drug ridden estate in Toxteth. He was clever enough to not follow the path of his mates/peers and despite getting ditched many Everton - his club - he was strong enough to make it and all the way to England.

He has real issues that need addressing, however, he has done well, relatively and against the odds.

At the risk of being a pedant, I believe Joey Barton was from Huyton. I think it was Robbie Fowler who was from Toxteth but I don't recall the length of his string of assault charges...

[Rowls]

Hi again sleeper and some interesting stuff raised here.

I'm going to break it into separate replies to help make it digestible on a screen.

If I'm assimilating this all correctly, you believe that a present father is important to the life chances of children (A1), and this is absolutely about gender - the male influence is really important.

Yup - spot on.

But at the same time, there is insufficient evidence that the role of a man in the house has any impact at all compared to a similar set of circumstances where gender is all female (A2) but you seem willing to entertain the fact that it might lead to better or similar outcomes, despite the lack of a father. This would seem at odds with A5, though which is a similar to A2, but the lack of a "mother" seems to cause less concern than the initial sentiment around a lack of a father.

I'm not quite sure about the conclusions here but I have to confess that given what you've typed above, I'm not 100% sure I understood your question 5 correctly - Are you asking to compare life outcomes of a child raised by two women with a child raised by a single man?

A6 though is fairly clear that you do not believe that 2 fathers would have a similar impact on the outcome for the child, since the initial period where a child needs its mother is so important that an additional father cannot make up for it.

Yes, correct. Children need their mothers. It's as simple as that.

[Rowls]

The point of Q3 and Q4 were to determine whether the physical presence of a "father" was important, as opposed to a remote "father". This would be the case where single parent families exist, and there is a non-cohabiting arrangement with the father and child, but they retain regular contact and see each other for weekends. The relationship is strong, they are clearly father and child, but they do not share a house for long periods. Your answer here was interesting in that it was focused on the stability of the "marital" relationship rather than the parent child relationship (unless I'm misreading) as the driver for the child outcomes.

My answer to both was essentially, I don't know. And I suspect that the number of fathers who work away 10 months a year is extremely small. Common sense dictates that will affect a child differently to a father who is present constantly but like I said, I couldn't say.

I think part of the confusion for me is that the answers started in an evidence-driven way but then moved into belief system territory. For example you state that "All women are capable of being maternal" which I don't believe to be true (or we may have different views on what "being maternal" involves). I can't with certainty say that I'm correct in my beliefs, but statistics would certainly be on my side since I only need to find one negative.

I don't think all women are maternal, only that they all have that capability. I think I phrased this poorly. After I had written it, posted it and re-read it I wanted to change the phrase you're taking issue with. If I wrote it again I would say:

Women are maternal; men are not. It's completely different. Even for 'butch' women or 'camp' men. Women get pregnant, women bear children, women nurse babies.* Men do none of these things.

I genuinely wasn't trying to ask for your views on same sex parenting. I was merely trying to understand if you consider "father" or "mother" to be familial roles or whether they were inextricably linked to gender. Again, if I'm paraphrasing correctly, I get the sense that you view being a "father" as the byproduct of being a man rather than performing a role traditionally associated with a male member of a nuclear family.

It's both these things.

In the latter either gender can fulfill a "father" role e.g. enforce discipline etc, in the same way either gender can be nurturing, empathetic etc. I believe that regardless of who plays which role in a family unit, the important thing is that all elements are there and that combination is what provides the correct upbringing of a child, not the gender of the person offering it.

That's an interesting take on gender roles in parenting. I'd say that a simple platitude that children need love and care more than anything else is true, but everybody would agree on that, making it anodyne. The questions should be, who is best placed to provide the love, care, attention, discipline, routine etc in a child's life. The child's genetic parents is the correct answer according to every study I've ever read about or heard about.

Again, we can disagree on views of surrogacy, but ny interesting take from your response was around the value you place on marriage/civil partnerships. This brings up lots of other questions like "is it better for a child to be in a house with 2 married parents who dislike each other, or with 2 unmarried parents who love each other?". It's as if the tradition and the belief in innate value of that tradition, not the actual value in a real world scenario, is the most important thing.

Well... we're into classic territory here. Is it better for a child to be raised in a loveless household or for the parents to separate.

On this, the studies back me up as far as I know. It is far better for a child's life outcomes that the parents bute their lips and stay together for the sake of the children.

My view on this goes against modern thinking but the stats show that modern thinking is wrong here.

This was backed up by your response to Q8 which implied it might be better for a child to stay with a criminal and domestic violence perpetrator than to be in a single parent household. I can't imagine a scenario where that would be the case.

No, my answer to that question was ambiguous because your question was over-ambitious and mixed together too many variables. I make it explicit that a child should not be kept in a household where there is domestic violence.

The way your question is phrased, it can be read to ask the following question:

"Are the life chances better where the father is at home, but is a criminal.... than one where the mother has escaped the domestic violence and safeguards the child from that lifestyle but lives alone?"

The father being abusive wasn't definitive in your question, hence my ambiguous answer. It could refer to a happily married pair of lags vs a single mother who'd escaped domestic violence. If the father is abusive then it's an automatic and emphatic, 'No.'

In A10 I believe you may be using some statistics without understanding their relative values or impacts. You acknowledge that being exposed to domestic violence is worse, but less prevalent than being in a single parent family. If I can exaggerate slightly for effect, it's like saying the prevalence of childhood obesity is much higher than being run over by a car so it's much of a muchness whether you eat a burger or cross a busy motorway - they're both bad, but one happens more often and the other is more serious.

Neither fatherlessness nor domestic violence should be treated with anything other than serious contemplation.
Everybody understands how malicious domestic violence is. This thread is living proof of that.
My point is that society treats fatherlessness as "much of a muchness" as you put it. Attempting to cross a motorway is a very apt metaphor for domestic violence - it's dicing with death and it will kill you. That's a great choice of imagery, real kudos there.
But although I know you're being rhetorical, the metaphor of burgers and childhood obesity doesn't work. Obesity as a metaphor can be kinda made to fit. But it falls down on the eating burgers part. The route to obesity is pleasurable. Burgers are nice. But there aren't any positives in fatherlessness.

As a society, we rightly recognise how destructive and abhorrent domestic violence is. But when it comes to fatherlessness, we equivocate and the children suffer.

Anyway, I'm off to bed for now but thank you for the thoughtful interactions, questions and responses.

[ClaretPete001]

I think to understand the likes of Joey Barton you have to move away from the faux socio-cultural post modernism of the last 50 years and the social structures of the 19th century and look at the science.

The brain is plastic, it develops in a permanent relationship with the environment. If the environment is stressful and aggressive then that is how the brain will develop - literally hard wired to respond to those circumstances. We are not talking about some kind of ephemeral social construct but the biology of the brain in conjunction with a genetic inheritance and intrinsic personality traits.

The point about stable family lives is not that a stable family life creates better behaviour - it just creates stability. Correlation is not causation, the family is not the key variable here stability is...!

Once you start to de-construct stability then you have issues, which are very hard to resolve. Brains are not easy to re-wire and as Rachel Reeves proved yesterday the UK economy will not fund stability anymore. An ever diminishing middle class will eventually tire of it.

I doubt Joey Barton will change until his brain chemistry does as he gets older. And I no longer believe you can solve the social problems that created him because the boundaries that created social stability, the nation state, is also starting to de-construct in front of our very eyes.

You either tolerate and excuse men kicking women's heads in or you don't...! That is the only moral issue at play here.

[aggi]

I know a kid with two mums (although they recently got divorced so I guess there may be some more step-mums on the scene soon) and two dads so I guess their outcomes will be amazing.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Intelligent man Joey has this afternoon continued to attack the magistrate who convicted him, retweet posts about the “feminists” on the CPS Board who pushed for his conviction because he criticised women’s football and defended Laurence Fox.


Oh and held a podcast with David Icke’s son.

[Bacchus]

I think many footballers struggle to replace the buzz of and the adulation that comes with it. Many try to find it in management, or punditry, or after dinner speaking.

With Barton's record I guess there aren't many avenues left to go down and the right-wing whackos online are the only folk who'll feed his craving for attention.

He'll end up in jail sooner or later. Shame really, whatever challenges he had as a kid he's spent most of his life with far more opportunities than most people will ever have, and no doubt surrounded by people more than willing to help him.

[IanMcL]

At the risk of being a pedant, I believe Joey Barton was from Huyton. I think it was Robbie Fowler who was from Toxteth but I don't recall the length of his string of assault charges...

Correct. Thanks. Could have sworn Toxteth was in his life, somewhere. Read his book! Memory fading!

[Darnhill Claret]

If you decided to write a film with Joseph Barton, I think that there might be a 'Sliding Doors' background theme, that took Barton away from his predicted life path, through a football career, and then slowly but surely return him to his earlier predicted life path. Will this continue to its natural conclusion or will he make some better choices in the future.

[wilks_bfc]

Barton is back at it, this time saying he was close to signing for WHU before he signed for us, but they apparently pulled out the deal after concerns raised by some players, with Nobel being the one he names

He then goes onto say he was better than both Noble & Parker “was his bitch”

His spells here seems to be the only times where he didn’t have any controversy (betting ban apart) but he’s not half tanked his reputation since then

[Fretters]

Barton is back at it, this time saying he was close to signing for WHU before he signed for us, but they apparently pulled out the deal after concerns raised by some players, with Nobel being the one he names

He then goes onto say he was better than both Noble & Parker “was his bitch”

His spells here seems to be the only times where he didn’t have any controversy (betting ban apart) but he’s not half tanked his reputation since then

From westhamzone.com

“I did my medical. I was two days in the building, very close to signing for them. At the last minute, it just disappeared, and I went to Burnley,” he recalled.

“It was under Slaven Bilic – but I don’t think it was Bilic, I think it was a couple of lads in the dressing room, like Mark Noble and that. I can see if it was him, it fits because I was well better than him, and I’d have just taken his jersey.

“There would’ve been nothing he could do. I could’ve just said ‘come here, soft lad, sit on the bench and watch someone who’s better than you play every week’. I’ll never know, I heard, I got told it was a couple of players. I’m just putting two and two together and making 15 there.”

---------------------------

"Well better than him" - talking like a 12 year old in every way.

[TheFamilyCat]

Mark Noble: 414 PL appearances
Joey Barton: 269 PL appearances

Not the only factor of course, but maybe an indicator that Joey might not have been better.

[Burnley1989]

From westhamzone.com

“I did my medical. I was two days in the building, very close to signing for them. At the last minute, it just disappeared, and I went to Burnley,” he recalled.

“It was under Slaven Bilic – but I don’t think it was Bilic, I think it was a couple of lads in the dressing room, like Mark Noble and that. I can see if it was him, it fits because I was well better than him, and I’d have just taken his jersey.

“There would’ve been nothing he could do. I could’ve just said ‘come here, soft lad, sit on the bench and watch someone who’s better than you play every week’. I’ll never know, I heard, I got told it was a couple of players. I’m just putting two and two together and making 15 there.”

---------------------------

"Well better than him" - talking like a 12 year old in every way.

I cant even listen to him these days, hes horrible.

[CoolClaret]

Disappointing (along with all the other crap that he's been involved with recently) that Joey, who, is still supported by many a Claret feels the need to throw some shade at our gaffer (who's doing a fantastic job)... but anything for a few rage-inducing clicks.

Nothing quite like burning bridges, eh Joey?

[burnmark]

It was very common knowledge that he was joining West Ham and together with the supposed concerns from the players mentioned above there was a bit of backlash from supporters also which influenced the club’s decision not to sign him.

[JohnMcGreal]

If he was as good as he claims there would have been other Premier League clubs ready to snap him up once the West Ham deal fell through, instead of him having to drop down to the Championship.

He was great for us at the time but he's an absolute belter and I wouldn't want him anywhere near the club now in any capacity.

[IanMcL]

He needs a father figure, like Mr Dyche, to keep his head from wobbling.

I thank him for his great service to the Clarets. His relentless determination was the reason we won, not 2nd.

[NottsClaret]

A decent enough Premier League player, a great Championship player, an absolute t**t of a man, a pathetic bully and a misogynistic coward.

[Indecisive]

For whatever reason I fell into the trap when he was with us of thinking he’d changed. Couple of interactions with him around the ground and he seemed quite pleasant.

But like pretty much everyone can agree with. He’s proven without doubt he is just rotten to the core.

Now I’m slightly embarrassed our club has had any association with him.

Probably hard to find a more dislikable footballer, past or present.

[helmclaret]

He needs a father figure, like Mr Dyche, to keep his head from wobbling.

I thank him for his great service to the Clarets. His relentless determination was the reason we won, not 2nd.

The lengths you go to defend him is frightening.

[Big Vinny K]

He needs a father figure, like Mr Dyche, to keep his head from wobbling.

I thank him for his great service to the Clarets. His relentless determination was the reason we won, not 2nd.

Unbelievable

What he needs is a lengthy stint in The Big House. He’ll get himself a father figure in there no doubt - in fact he will probably have more than one daddy to answer to.

I’m embarrassed that he ever kicked a ball for us.

[Wile E Coyote]

you all work with, or have worked with wife/partner beaters, they are in your families, close, or distant , they sit near you on matchdays, so let's drop the pretence and holier than thou nonsense.
football fans, or the herd mooing types will forgive and forget virtually anything a player does as long as he wears the right club colours.

[Pickles]

A decent enough Premier League player, a great Championship player, an absolute t**t of a man, a pathetic bully and a misogynistic coward.

Those are pretty much word for word my thoughts too.

[Swizzlestick]

A decent enough Premier League player, a great Championship player, an absolute t**t of a man, a pathetic bully and a misogynistic coward.

Nothing more needs to be said.

[KRBFC]

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

No you won’t

[daveisaclaret]

you all work with, or have worked with wife/partner beaters, they are in your families, close, or distant , they sit near you on matchdays, so let's drop the pretence and holier than thou nonsense.
football fans, or the herd mooing types will forgive and forget virtually anything a player does as long as he wears the right club colours.

There are only unsavoury reasons you would call criticising Joey Barton for abusing his wife "holier than thou nonsense" aren't there? It's not something an innocent bloke would do