|
Post by LJG on Jul 28, 2021 13:18:09 GMT
s.4 Bail Act - the starting point is a right to unconditional bail. A custody sergeant won't have anything to do with the decision in relation to bail from court - that is dealt with by the magistrate. I wasn’t talking about bail from court; in the first instance, after his arrest and the initial investigation he would’ve either been NFA’d (No Further Action), RUI’d (Released Under Investigation - released pending the discovery of more evidence) or charged and bailed to court from police custody. If it was felt that there was any risk at all of him immediately reoffending or posing a threat to the alleged victim, he would’ve been remanded overnight to appear at court the next day. The custody sgt would be the one making the decision at that point after taking any representations from both the detainee’s solicitor and the CPS. What happens after the appearance at court is down to the magistrates or judge. Yes. But the unconditional bail he is now under is not police bail, it's bail from court - which is why I said the starting point is unconditional bail per the Bail Act. Which you said was untrue because a custody sergeant would have wanted conditions imposed. But a custody sergeant has no jurisdiction in relation to court bail. But I think we're talking at cross purposes.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 28, 2021 11:01:09 GMT
Has anyone who did this arranged to collect their cut-out yet?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 28, 2021 8:10:32 GMT
Bloke who has done nothing of note to date as a football manager continues to do nothing of note as a football manager- shocker.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 28, 2021 7:14:07 GMT
It's not difficult to get unconditional bail. In fact that is the starting point. That’s not true - the majority of custody sgts in DV cases will always look at imposing conditions if there’s even a hint of the person reoffending whilst on bail; they would have to have a seriously persuasive solicitor to get unconditional bail in those circumstances. s.4 Bail Act - the starting point is a right to unconditional bail. A custody sergeant won't have anything to do with the decision in relation to bail from court - that is dealt with by the magistrate.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 27, 2021 13:16:15 GMT
Victims don't need to bring charges. If they did no one would ever be found guilty of murder! A victimless prosecution absolutely does not mean there was no victim. It just means the potemtual victim isn't the one pursuing the case. Completely agree Hugo and just like the club statement, my post was poorly worded! As I said, it’s a poor statement but they are quoting the prosecutor so had to use the word. Personally I wouldn’t have quoted the prosecutor but I’m guessing they’ve done that to try and show support of JB with an innocent until proven guilty concept due to the way it’s been reported and probably the amount of messages and challenges they’ve been receiving? It’s a bad statement and has backfired but they have used a quote (naively) and the anger towards the use of the word victimless shouldn’t necessarily be solely on them - it was poor from the prosecutor to use it too in my eyes. I guess all I’m saying is before everyone jumps on a lynching bandwagon, we should hear the full story and judge actions from there No they're not. They were quoting an article in the Standard which appears to have now been amended to remove that line - probably because it was a misquote.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 27, 2021 13:14:23 GMT
No. It isn't. It is a misquote and a terrible one at that. I would like to think that the statement was prepared in conjunction with a legal expert, but, if so, surely they would have picked up on the fact that the Standard had either misquoted the Crown Prosecution or it was a typographical error? I think the Standard have edited the online article because I can't find reference to it there now so someone may have realised the balls up. I doubt very much though that the Standard nor the club are bothering to spend money on legal costs to write a newspaper article or put out a simple statement.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 27, 2021 12:57:44 GMT
There seems to be so much anger towards the clubs statement and I understand why - personally I think it’s a poorly structured announcement as everyone focuses on the ‘victimless’ word. However, whilst I would have released something worded differently if it was me writing it, the have been clear in that they are quoting the prosecutor and it is a statement of fact in that in a case where the victim has not brought the charge , there is legally no victim. If you are quoting - especially in a legal case - you have to use the wording and phrasing verbatim… Now the club are clearly sticking behind JB with the clear legal construct in this country of innocent until proven guilty. If they are seen not to and the media pick up on the sentiment and JBs role becomes untenable due to pressure; then they run the risk of him then being able to sue for constructive dismissal (which as well as damages under employment law, he could sue for reputation damages and slander). Not saying he would do anything like this but it is a risk. This is why clubs normally do not issue any statements other than facts and that they will not comment further. Im guessing the clamour for something to be released by the club from fans and media has caused a hastily written statement to be released. It’s a poor statement sentiment wise but it is factually and legally correct. No. It isn't. It is a misquote and a terrible one at that.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 27, 2021 7:07:35 GMT
You must have missed the earlier explanation of what it means just like the tool who penned the club statement. A victimless crime is a crime of domestic violence where the victim refuses to give evidence against the accused but the police and CPS believe there is enough actual evidence for a successful prosecution without the evidence of the victim. If what you say is what the CPS and police believe, why on earth was he given unconditional bail? If they have the slightest worry it could happen again, why on earth did they not stop him from contacting his wife, let alone continue to live with her and the kids? The club have stated what the judge said, but you have clearly judged him guilty until proved innocent. It's not difficult to get unconditional bail. In fact that is the starting point.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 27, 2021 6:54:07 GMT
What a disgusting club statement. To use the words victimless crime whoever it is quoted from shows the club in a very bad light. I also think it might be a misquote. I would be surprised if the Crown Prosecutor used the words victimless crime and not victimless prosecution.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 27, 2021 6:53:09 GMT
RoverDrive, You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that he keeps the job until the extent of any misendeavours is LEGALLY concluded. Criticism of Waels statement makes me laugh because all the so say know it alls on here are probably forgetting that the wording has almost certainly been drawn up by a solicitor! I will support my club and its Manager rather than try to interpret the conflicting reports and assumptions on here. A solicitor would understand that a victimless prosecution is not what they are claiming it means so no, there's no way this was written by a solicitor. I used to have a tiny bit of respect for you despite the fact you bashed hard working local young players week in week out. With your Joey Barton obsession I now have absolutely zero respect for anything you post.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 26, 2021 22:07:05 GMT
The Club only reported what the Crown Prosecutor said-so basically there is no case to prosecute-why dont people get this,or maybe because its JB it suits their agenda in trying to get him scaked No. You are wrong. That is not what victimless crime means in this context.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 26, 2021 21:27:47 GMT
Embarrassing statement. Makes you wonder who is advising Wael and/or who is really running the club at the moment. A lawyer and not a public relations expert clearly. Yes, worry about what you can legally say but ffs surely you need to think about how stakeholders like fans will react. Um, nope! I think a lawyer would have been able to tell them they'd misunderstood what was being said by the CPS and not to put it on the statement because it doesn't mean what they think it means.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 26, 2021 21:25:33 GMT
Did anybody expect a different outcome in regards to the clubs statement tonight? Unless the statement read Joey Barton has been relieved of his duties with immediate effect, there was always going to be an extreme reaction by some. My personal opinion is that a suspension from duties would of been the best option, but I am not the one making the decision and I think it has been clear since this news broke the club were going to choose to support JB. If found guilty, which I do not expect him to be, the club will have made a huge mistake in the decision they have taken. If found not guilty, or the case is thrown out prior to the trial date, (think this is a possibility) and the club are performing well then they have chosen to back their manager and will feel they have rightly done so. Only time will tell. I support BRFC and have done since my first game at twerton with my grandad, managers have come and gone in that time as have owners, the only constant is the fans and the blue and white quarters, I will continue to support regardless of who’s in charge and the players who pull on the shirt this season will still have my full backing and me and my son will continue to be there cheering them on I didn't expect the club's statement to radically misunderstand a procedural comment by the Crown Prosecutor and try to spin it as though r Joey has done nothing wrong.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 26, 2021 20:11:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 26, 2021 19:14:10 GMT
I can assure you I am not related to Joey Barton in any way but only interested in the football side of things and until proven guilty as far as I am concerned he is innoocent. Wael runs our club and employs the staff why can we not just leave it to him to sort out.It seems a very strange Court case where it looks like those involved (if they are) will not be there and his Girlfriend is saying nothing happened. Until he is proven guilty he has every right to manage our football club anhd personally I dread to think what will happenh if he goes having signed all the players and backroom staff. Don't envy Wael but lets leave it to him to sort out. If you're only interested in the football side of things why were you so delighted by the utter sh** Barton served up last season and his crapola behaviour in press-conferences?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 26, 2021 19:12:22 GMT
Please re-post here where I said the police make the decision not the CPS? I don't really know what you're responding to if I'm honest. Did you definitely mean to reply to me? My post included the Henbury Gas quote that you responded too. You conveniently cropped off the post from Henbury copied here again 5 hours ago Henbury Gas said:
and i agree with you, my point is/was that you cannot trust the police to get it right even when presented with the evidence I didn't conveniently chop off anything. When you reply it only quotes the previous two posts.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 26, 2021 18:19:10 GMT
I don't disagree. I would say it is a bit of a higher bar when the CPS decide whether or not to prosecute but they are not without fault. Though it would be wrong to say they can't be trusted to do a proper job. What are you talking about? The police attend such incidents to maintain order and keep the peace. They take statements, arrest and bail as necessary. They then collect any evidence, the amount and time spent depends on the seriousness of the perceived "crime". They then attend any trail giving any evidence relevant to the role the police had in the incident. That's it. The police hand over the file and evidence to the CPS. It's the CPS who decide whether to pursue the case for trial in the magistrates or crown court or not. That is not for the police to decide. I sat in the public gallery at the crown court to see a trial for an alleged knife crime. Apart from he said/ she said evidence the only evidence of a knife was that 2 hours after the alleged assault the defendant was found to have a kitchen knife in his kitchen drawer. (guilty guilty obviously then) The alleged victims couldn't agree how big or what colour the knife in question was or every other point in how it happened either. It was clear to me the police were in dismay at the waste of time due to the CPS taking it to trial. The Judge looked total p***ed off as well. The Jury took less than a hour to vote 12 - 0 Not Guilty. IMO CPS say knife crime take em to court, wife beater take em to court, german beater take em to court, well maybe 1 in 3 should go through Please re-post here where I said the police make the decision not the CPS? I don't really know what you're responding to if I'm honest. Did you definitely mean to reply to me?
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 26, 2021 16:57:10 GMT
Oh to be getting back to Football and leaving the decision making to Wael. He pays the money and its up to him who he employs or sacks., Personally I think he will stand by JB unless either Court case ends up with him in prison which I would say is very unlikely. Have a feeling that if this was not Joey Barton neither case would have resulted in Court Cases. What will it take Steve? What single thing can make you criticise your hero r Joey? Getting us relegated and beating his wife won't do it, I dread to think what could ... No, wait, I've got it ... if he signed Ollie Clarke! If that happened surely your head would explode.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 26, 2021 14:15:19 GMT
I expect they're just prosecuting him without evidence because of who he is. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 26, 2021 14:12:34 GMT
No one is prosecuting anyone because of who anyone is, that's crackpot bollocks. Also, it is not for the club to carry out their own investigation into criminal proceedings by interviewing people making allegations against their employee. That would be a very quick way to be charged with perverting the course of justice. No one has ever been prosecuted because of their past before?? It’s natural to think the worst of someone with previous. Half the people on here have wrote him off, without hearing any evidence. Look at the Ched Evan’s situation. Never had a proper case, but he was prosecuted and even found guilty. If he wasn’t a footballer, they wouldn’t have taken him to court. Black people, still get pulled over more than white etc. If they already think he’s a bad egg, they are more likely to prosecute. It makes a statement, even if he’s innocent. I think if it was someone with a perfect past and they had no witnesses and the person didn’t need to go the hospital, they would just check up on them Criminal prosecutions are not brought on the basis of personality. How much time do you think these people have to dream up allegations of domestic violence and then decide which controversial famous person to pin them on? Ched Evans is a completely different set of circumstances, one I can't be bothered to haul over again.
|
|