|
Post by seanclevedongas on Aug 16, 2021 15:55:16 GMT
Why are you so determined to defend the guy? Why do you refer to me as "they" when it was me the questioned Topper for posting something untrue and me who responded to his and your response? Why would it mean I am "wrong" if it is thrown out of court, the charge is withdrawn or he is found not guilty. What will I be wrong about? Point one. Because he is innocent until proven guilty and his wifes denial is good enough for me. Point two. You posted it and Antonio and to a lesser extent twerton agreed with you. That makes more than one when I do the maths. Topper is wrong in your opinion, not mine. Point three. You have clearly found him guilty on this thread and many other threads on here. Whatever way you say it you are clearly in the Barton out camp. I am not,so I will leave it at that and refrain from posting on this thread. It has nothing to do with me being in the Barton out camp (which I am) I would still say she hasn't denied it if I was his greatest fan, because she hasn't! and no matter how many times you say she has, won't make it true
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Aug 16, 2021 15:57:02 GMT
Why are you so determined to defend the guy? Why do you refer to me as "they" when it was me the questioned Topper for posting something untrue and me who responded to his and your response? Why would it mean I am "wrong" if it is thrown out of court, the charge is withdrawn or he is found not guilty. What will I be wrong about? Why don’t you just wait and see the outcome of the court case - it’s really becoming beyond tedious now ! Good advice and it has. Tip from me though, anything I find tedious on here I don't read or comment on.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 16, 2021 16:18:02 GMT
From her now deleted Insta post "I’d like to make it clear there is absolutely no accusation by myself or anyone else that Joe has been violent or physical towards me" Were wasting our time Topper, the jury on here have clearly found him guilty on this charge. I hope they will have the decency to admit they were wrong when it is thrown out of court, the charge is withdrawn or he is found not guilty. I and you know they will still stick to the just because she said that, does not prove it did not happen opinion. No, you're getting confused about what I'm saying. It's not about just taking sides. As far as I know his wife didn't deny any specific allegation, she simply said she wasn't supporting the prosecution, which we know any way because it was a 'victimless prosecution.' That's a fact (as far as I know). It has no bearing on his guilt or innocence, it's merely a fact of the case. So when Topper said specifically that she denied the accusations, I merely pointed out, that to the best of my knowledge, that was not true. Nothing to do with JB being guilty, nothing to do with me thinking JB is guilty. So, just because you think he's innocent and you think Topper's contribution supports his innocence and therefore you seem to want what Topper said to be true, is irrelevant to the facts, irrelevant to JB's guilt or otherwise, and irrelevant to what I said. So if he's found innocent (for that reason and many others, to be fair) I won't need to find the decency to admit I was wrong, coz I've never said he would be found guilty. I find it ironic that you're taking the high ground about a case that hasn't even been heard yet. What about you, can I accuse you of sticking to your guns despite the result of the court case (that hasn't happened yet), do I get to imply you don't have the decency to admit you're wrong about something we don't even know whether you're wrong or right about? What are you even talking about? I mean, all I said was "Not making an accusation is not the same as denying something." That's about as neutral and as factual (and as irrefutable)as it gets. You're the one spouting off about stuff you don't really know much about in the hope, it seems, that your side wins.
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on Aug 16, 2021 16:22:38 GMT
Were wasting our time Topper, the jury on here have clearly found him guilty on this charge. I hope they will have the decency to admit they were wrong when it is thrown out of court, the charge is withdrawn or he is found not guilty. I and you know they will still stick to the just because she said that, does not prove it did not happen opinion. No, you're getting confused about what I'm saying. It's not about just taking sides. As far as I know his wife didn't deny any specific allegation, she simply said she wasn't supporting the prosecution, which we know any way because it was a 'victimless prosecution.' That's a fact (as far as I know). It has no bearing on his guilt or innocence, it's merely a fact of the case. So when Topper said specifically that she denied the accusations, I merely pointed out, that to the best of my knowledge, that was not true. Nothing to do with JB being guilty, nothing to do with me thinking JB is guilty. So, just because you think he's innocent and you think Topper's contribution supports his innocence and therefore you seem to want what Topper said to be true, is irrelevant to the facts, irrelevant to JB's guilt or otherwise, and irrelevant to what I said. So if he's found innocent (for that reason and many others, to be fair) I won't need to find the decency to admit I was wrong, coz I've never said he would be found guilty. I find it ironic that you're taking the high ground about a case that hasn't even been heard yet. What about you, can I accuse you of sticking to your guns despite the result of the court case (that hasn't happened yet), do I get to imply you don't have the decency to admit you're wrong about something we don't even know whether you're wrong or right about? What are you even talking about? I mean, all I said was "Not making an accusation is not the same as denying something." That's about as neutral and as factual (and as irrefutable)as it gets. You're the one spouting off about stuff you don't really know much about in the hope, it seems, that your side wins. Very well put
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2021 16:27:25 GMT
Were wasting our time Topper, the jury on here have clearly found him guilty on this charge. I hope they will have the decency to admit they were wrong when it is thrown out of court, the charge is withdrawn or he is found not guilty. I and you know they will still stick to the just because she said that, does not prove it did not happen opinion. No, you're getting confused about what I'm saying. It's not about just taking sides. As far as I know his wife didn't deny any specific allegation, she simply said she wasn't supporting the prosecution, which we know any way because it was a 'victimless prosecution.' That's a fact (as far as I know). It has no bearing on his guilt or innocence, it's merely a fact of the case. So when Topper said specifically that she denied the accusations, I merely pointed out, that to the best of my knowledge, that was not true. Nothing to do with JB being guilty, nothing to do with me thinking JB is guilty. So, just because you think he's innocent and you think Topper's contribution supports his innocence and therefore you seem to want what Topper said to be true, is irrelevant to the facts, irrelevant to JB's guilt or otherwise, and irrelevant to what I said. So if he's found innocent (for that reason and many others, to be fair) I won't need to find the decency to admit I was wrong, coz I've never said he would be found guilty. I find it ironic that you're taking the high ground about a case that hasn't even been heard yet. What about you, can I accuse you of sticking to your guns despite the result of the court case (that hasn't happened yet), do I get to imply you don't have the decency to admit you're wrong about something we don't even know whether you're wrong or right about? What are you even talking about? I mean, all I said was "Not making an accusation is not the same as denying something." That's about as neutral and as factual (and as irrefutable)as it gets. You're the one spouting off about stuff you don't really know much about in the hope, it seems, that your side wins. How long did it take for you to compile that drivel? Already told Seanclevedongas I won't comment further, but had to make an exception after your post. That is my final comment.
|
|
|
Post by purdownpoacher1 on Aug 16, 2021 16:49:58 GMT
Why don’t you just wait and see the outcome of the court case - it’s really becoming beyond tedious now ! Good advice and it has. Tip from me though, anything I find tedious on here I don't read or comment on. 😆thankyou for yr kind advice Sean, when I started reading this thread I thought it was about Clint Hill , unfortunately it deteriorated into the usual SPECULATION re JB and his ‘domestic’ ‘bloodbath . But I shall take yr sage like advice on board , for sure .👍💙
|
|
|
Post by wertongas on Aug 16, 2021 16:59:19 GMT
Nobody is saying JB is guilty only the courts can say that. But you and your family want him suspended, just in case he is found guilty? Reading the news articles again to find Mrs B's post it seems whoever said she was found by the police covered in blood has made that up, as the news articles simply refer to her suffering a bruise on her head which didn't require medical attention. I didn't say I wanted him suspended but that is not the case for some of the family, in the past other clubs have suspended managers when awaiting trial. I am more disappointed about Hill leaving, if JB were to be found guilty because of the severity of the case he could land up going to jail, Hill may have been a good replacement. I know it was only one game but he did do a good job in charge of the Oxford game. Hopefully JB will turn things around but some players don't seem to be giving 100 percent at the moment. We could do with 11 players with the effort of Stu Sinclair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2021 17:13:27 GMT
But you and your family want him suspended, just in case he is found guilty? Reading the news articles again to find Mrs B's post it seems whoever said she was found by the police covered in blood has made that up, as the news articles simply refer to her suffering a bruise on her head which didn't require medical attention. I didn't say I wanted him suspended but that is not the case for some of the family, in the past other clubs have suspended managers when awaiting trial. I am more disappointed about Hill leaving, if JB were to be found guilty because of the severity of the case he could land up going to jail, Hill may have been a good replacement. I know it was only one game but he did do a good job in charge of the Oxford game. Hopefully JB will turn things around but some players don't seem to be giving 100 percent at the moment. We could do with 11 players with the effort of Stuff Sinclair. Barton was in charge for the Oxford game, Hill was sent out to give the presser after the game.
|
|
|
Post by cj on Aug 16, 2021 18:27:28 GMT
No one is ignoring it, it is just not a denial I'm lost, if she's not accusing him of doing anything what has she got to deny. I'm lost too. What has come out so far is that apparently she phoned the police. We know he was arrested and charged for assault and it is being labelled as a victimless crime, which is the term used in domestic violence cases. None of this means he is guilty though and it should be treated as innocent until proven otherwise. Then we see her statement. She did not deny the assault in any shape or form. She denied making the accusation. Which to me, is strange because it was apparently her who contacted the police. Very confusing! I don't think her statement on social media actually helped things at all. Probably would have been better not to have said anything. Why didn't she just point blank say JB did not hit her instead of just denying making the accusation? Strange. But what worries me is how she ended her statement: "We consider this to be a private matter". If nothing actually happened, what could possibly be the private matter in question when it is regarding an assault charge?
For the record, I am in no way calling him guilty. However, there is enough there to be very concerned about the whole situation.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 16, 2021 18:30:22 GMT
I'm lost, if she's not accusing him of doing anything what has she got to deny. I'm lost too. What has come out so far is that apparently she phoned the police. We know he was arrested and charged for assault and it is being labelled as a victimless crime, which is the term used in domestic violence cases. None of this means he is guilty though and it should be treated as innocent until proven otherwise. Then we see her statement. She did not deny the assault in any shape or form. She denied making the accusation. Which to me, is strange because it was apparently her who contacted the police. Very confusing! I don't think her statement on social media actually helped things at all. Probably would have been better not to have said anything. Why didn't she just point blank say JB did not hit her instead of just denying making the accusation? Strange. But what worries me is how she ended her statement: "We consider this to be a private matter". If nothing actually happened, what could possibly be the private matter in question when it is regarding an assault charge?
For the record, I am in no way calling him guilty. However, there is enough there to be very concerned about the whole situation.
victimless prosecution
|
|
|
Post by cj on Aug 16, 2021 18:35:47 GMT
Why are you so determined to defend the guy? Why do you refer to me as "they" when it was me the questioned Topper for posting something untrue and me who responded to his and your response? Why would it mean I am "wrong" if it is thrown out of court, the charge is withdrawn or he is found not guilty. What will I be wrong about? Point one. Because he is innocent until proven guilty and his wifes denial is good enough for me. Point two. You posted it and Antonio and to a lesser extent twerton agreed with you. That makes more than one when I do the maths. Topper is wrong in your opinion, not mine. Point three. You have clearly found him guilty on this thread and many other threads on here. Whatever way you say it you are clearly in the Barton out camp. I am not,so I will leave it at that and refrain from posting on this thread. Point 1. Correct, innocent until proven guilty. His wife hasn't denied though.
Point 3. Sean hasn't found him guilty. Nowhere has he stated or suggested JB is guilty. He just rightfully corrected that his wife didn't deny the assault. That doesn't mean Sean finds him guilty. What a crazy accusation! This bit gets me though... "Whatever way you say it you are clearly in the Barton out camp. I am not,so I will leave it at that and refrain from posting on this thread." So reading this, it looks like you are suggesting that those in the 'Barton out camp' will find JB guilty. Is that right? Another crazy accusation if so!
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Aug 16, 2021 18:39:36 GMT
Innocent until proven guilty is a legal conceit designed to protect people from the law. It's not a magic spell. It doesn't warp reality or go back in time to change events that actually happened.
|
|
|
Post by cj on Aug 16, 2021 18:45:17 GMT
I'm lost too. What has come out so far is that apparently she phoned the police. We know he was arrested and charged for assault and it is being labelled as a victimless crime, which is the term used in domestic violence cases. None of this means he is guilty though and it should be treated as innocent until proven otherwise. Then we see her statement. She did not deny the assault in any shape or form. She denied making the accusation. Which to me, is strange because it was apparently her who contacted the police. Very confusing! I don't think her statement on social media actually helped things at all. Probably would have been better not to have said anything. Why didn't she just point blank say JB did not hit her instead of just denying making the accusation? Strange. But what worries me is how she ended her statement: "We consider this to be a private matter". If nothing actually happened, what could possibly be the private matter in question when it is regarding an assault charge?
For the record, I am in no way calling him guilty. However, there is enough there to be very concerned about the whole situation.
victimless prosecution Thanks for the correction AF. Appreciate it
That is how easy it is to accept corrections on here (like she didn't deny the assault but denied making the accusation) instead of acting like some have.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 16, 2021 18:55:04 GMT
But you and your family want him suspended, just in case he is found guilty? Reading the news articles again to find Mrs B's post it seems whoever said she was found by the police covered in blood has made that up, as the news articles simply refer to her suffering a bruise on her head which didn't require medical attention. I didn't say I wanted him suspended but that is not the case for some of the family, in the past other clubs have suspended managers when awaiting trial. I am more disappointed about Hill leaving, if JB were to be found guilty because of the severity of the case he could land up going to jail, Hill may have been a good replacement. I know it was only one game but he did do a good job in charge of the Oxford game. Hopefully JB will turn things around but some players don't seem to be giving 100 percent at the moment. We could do with 11 players with the effort of Stu Sinclair. Whilst "assault by beating" sounds a serious crime it's the most minor of assault offences that's why it's only heard in a Magistrates Court, I've no idea where you get the impression from he will go to jail if he's convicted. Although Wael's already said Barton will be dismissed if he's found guilty, if he does leave I sense Wael will want to bring in an entirely new management team not appoint anybody who had connections to Barton. Hopefully things will improve tomorrow night as, if they don't, you do have to wonder where our next pts are coming from with two tough looking away fixtures coming up next.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2021 18:56:06 GMT
Point one. Because he is innocent until proven guilty and his wifes denial is good enough for me. Point two. You posted it and Antonio and to a lesser extent twerton agreed with you. That makes more than one when I do the maths. Topper is wrong in your opinion, not mine. Point three. You have clearly found him guilty on this thread and many other threads on here. Whatever way you say it you are clearly in the Barton out camp. I am not,so I will leave it at that and refrain from posting on this thread. Point 1. Correct, innocent until proven guilty. His wife hasn't denied though.
Point 3. Sean hasn't found him guilty. Nowhere has he stated or suggested JB is guilty. He just rightfully corrected that his wife didn't deny the assault. That doesn't mean Sean finds him guilty. What a crazy accusation! This bit gets me though... "Whatever way you say it you are clearly in the Barton out camp. I am not,so I will leave it at that and refrain from posting on this thread." So reading this, it looks like you are suggesting that those in the 'Barton out camp' will find JB guilty. Is that right? Another crazy accusation if so!
Point 3. Clevedongas has already found him guilty in the C Town match thread. "He will be gone in November when he is found guilty of one or both charges". His words not mine. That suggests to me he has already decided on his guilt.
|
|
|
Post by cj on Aug 16, 2021 19:00:43 GMT
Point 1. Correct, innocent until proven guilty. His wife hasn't denied though.
Point 3. Sean hasn't found him guilty. Nowhere has he stated or suggested JB is guilty. He just rightfully corrected that his wife didn't deny the assault. That doesn't mean Sean finds him guilty. What a crazy accusation! This bit gets me though... "Whatever way you say it you are clearly in the Barton out camp. I am not,so I will leave it at that and refrain from posting on this thread." So reading this, it looks like you are suggesting that those in the 'Barton out camp' will find JB guilty. Is that right? Another crazy accusation if so!
Point 3. Clevedongas has already found him guilty in the C Town match thread. "He will be gone in November when he is found guilty of one or both charges". His words not mine. That suggests to me he has already decided on his guilt. Fair enough bidefordgas. I didn't see that comment. I think.
How about the rest of point 3... Are you are suggesting that those in the 'Barton out camp' finds JB guilty?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2021 19:09:26 GMT
Point 3. Clevedongas has already found him guilty in the C Town match thread. "He will be gone in November when he is found guilty of one or both charges". His words not mine. That suggests to me he has already decided on his guilt. Fair enough bidefordgas. I didn't see that comment. I think.
How about the rest of point 3... Are you are suggesting that those in the 'Barton out camp' finds JB guilty?
No I am not saying everybody has, but having read his comment a day or so ago remembered what he had said. Can't be bothered trawling other threads but not the first time that he has made similar comments and even putting us all into only two different groups. Those who want him out and the other group who are starstruck or similar words to that. I personally am not in either group and I am certainly not the only one.
|
|
|
Post by cj on Aug 16, 2021 19:16:27 GMT
Fair enough bidefordgas. I didn't see that comment. I think.
How about the rest of point 3... Are you are suggesting that those in the 'Barton out camp' finds JB guilty?
No I am not saying everybody has, but having read his comment a day or so ago remembered what he had said. Can't be bothered trawling other threads but not the first time that he has made similar comments and even putting us all into only two different groups. Those who want him out and the other group who are starstruck or similar words to that. I personally am not in either group and I am certainly not the only one. Ok. I know you said you wouldn't respond on this subject but thanks for responding to me though.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Aug 16, 2021 19:48:58 GMT
I didn't say I wanted him suspended but that is not the case for some of the family, in the past other clubs have suspended managers when awaiting trial. I am more disappointed about Hill leaving, if JB were to be found guilty because of the severity of the case he could land up going to jail, Hill may have been a good replacement. I know it was only one game but he did do a good job in charge of the Oxford game. Hopefully JB will turn things around but some players don't seem to be giving 100 percent at the moment. We could do with 11 players with the effort of Stu Sinclair. Whilst "assault by beating" sounds a serious crime it's the most minor of assault offences that's why it's only heard in a Magistrates Court, I've no idea where you get the impression from he will go to jail if he's convicted. Although Wael's already said Barton will be dismissed if he's found guilty, if he does leave I sense Wael will want to bring in an entirely new management team not appoint anybody who had connections to Barton. Hopefully things will improve tomorrow night as, if they don't, you do have to wonder where our next pts are coming from with two tough looking away fixtures coming up next. Your University of Google Law degree has failed you again I'm afraid, Topper (or you've failed it). The maximum sentence for a summary only offence (one tried in the magistrates court) is a fine of five thousand pounds or six months in prison or both. The sentencing guidelines will categorise the offence based on harm done and culpability - factors indicating greater harm include vulnerability of victim due to personal circumstances (domestic violence) factors indicating higher culpability including use of a weapon (including a shod foot). At that point the categorised offence is given a category range - aggravating factors include previous convictions. For category 1 offences with aggravating factors the maximum sentence of 6 months imprisonment is available. D minus. See me after class next week
|
|
|
Post by BrightonGas on Aug 16, 2021 19:51:35 GMT
Whilst "assault by beating" sounds a serious crime it's the most minor of assault offences that's why it's only heard in a Magistrates Court, I've no idea where you get the impression from he will go to jail if he's convicted. Although Wael's already said Barton will be dismissed if he's found guilty, if he does leave I sense Wael will want to bring in an entirely new management team not appoint anybody who had connections to Barton. Hopefully things will improve tomorrow night as, if they don't, you do have to wonder where our next pts are coming from with two tough looking away fixtures coming up next. Your University of Google Law degree has failed you again I'm afraid, Topper (or you've failed it). The maximum sentence for a summary only offence (one tried in the magistrates court) is a fine of five thousand pounds or six months in prison or both. The sentencing guidelines will categorise the offence based on harm done and culpability - factors indicating greater harm include vulnerability of victim due to personal circumstances (domestic violence) factors indicating higher culpability including use of a weapon (including a shod foot). At that point the categorised offence is given a category range - aggravating factors include previous convictions. For category 1 offences with aggravating factors the maximum sentence of 6 months imprisonment is available. D minus. See me after class next week Or to continue in the same vein... No further questions!
|
|