Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: sheffield exile1 on November 26, 2021, 11:10:20 am
-
The Bristol Rovers manager is set to stand trial today at Sheffield Crown Court. Joey Barton, 38, denies assaulting former Barnsley manager Daniel Stendel when he was at Fleetwood Town, following a League One match between the clubs in April 2019. Mr Barton initially went on trial in June of this year following a one-year delay to proceedings due to the pandemic. However, it was halted on the second day due to things getting "lost in translation" over a cross-national video link. n June 2021, the trial got underway but was halted on the second day due to a faulty video link from Germany where Mr Stendel was giving evidence from. Judge Jeremy Richardson QC told the jury at the time: “It is just not right to struggle on.”
He added: “Unfortunately this morning I became increasingly concerned that things are getting lost in translation. He is a critical witness in this case. It’s not fair to him and not fair to anyone in this case.” The judge stood the jury down, and also pointed out at the time that it was the oldest case on Sheffield Crown Court's books after its initial postponement. Mr Barton's trial is now set to start on Friday, November 26 at Sheffield Crown Court. The jury trial is set to start at 10am, and it is anticipated to last one week.
-
I find it amazing that this is being heard at crown court. This is a low level assault charge. What a waste of court time and money.
-
It’s not like Joey Barton has been in trouble before !!!
-
It’s still the case that the defendant can elect to be dealt with by a jury or at magistrates court, in most circumstances.
It’s a regular trick by “ alleged offenders”. Crown court costs a fortune with barristers etc. The judge insists that everything is done correctly. The defendant usually hopes that some part of the prosecution case folds in terms of witnesses not appearing or being intimidated by the surroundings. The CPS will then continue offering no evidence or take a plea deal. I’ve seen it SO many times.
-
Trust me, I’m more than aware how crown court works having given evidence there many many times.
I would have thought with Barton’s bad character that he may have chose to have this dealt with at a lower level.
As you will probably be aware, this would not go to trial unless the cps thought they was a realistic chance of conviction.
-
Pity he's not being held on remand.
A little forfeit of liberty might make him think twice in future
-
The bloke is an odious pleb. Lock him up anyway for being an ignorant, violent tosser.
-
Hasn’t he been jailed twice before for assault in which case the three strike rule could come in to play?
-
f**k me. I read the thread title and thought he’d been seen at Cantley Park.
-
He also stands trial soon for beating up his wife as well
-
A nice man obviously. I’m surprised any club wanted him as a manager.
-
lest we forget "sometimes your eyes think they see things that didnt happen"
"this simply didn't happen"
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/jul/21/steven-gerrard-court-trial
-
There’s nothing like open minded people
If he’s found not guilty I hope you all come on here and apologise. Obviously you won’t
I don’t suppose all you who hate him have considered he might be innocent
Barton is many things but he’s not thick. If he’s guilty I hope he’s convicted but just like all of you I have no detail about the case apart from the press tripe which we all know is never biased or weighted in any way to sell papers
-
There’s nothing like open minded people
If he’s found not guilty I hope you all come on here and apologise. Obviously you won’t
I don’t suppose all you who hate him have considered he might be innocent
Barton is many things but he’s not thick. If he’s guilty I hope he’s convicted but just like all of you I have no detail about the case apart from the press tripe which we all know is never biased or weighted in any way to sell papers
Not sure what part of 'if he's guilty' you fail to comprehend.
He isn't guilty currently, but if this changes, my view stands.
-
Colin if he’s guilty he deserves what he gets. In his past he’s done some terrible things
I just feel that people are too easy to decide people are guilty without knowing the full facts which no one on this forum does
If he’s done it I hope he’s punished
-
Colin if he’s guilty he deserves what he gets. In his past he’s done some terrible things
I just feel that people are too easy to decide people are guilty without knowing the full facts which no one on this forum does
If he’s done it I hope he’s punished
Yep. Fair enough Phil. I acknowledge my view was a bit distasteful. Wait and see what happens.
I notice 'Old Leake'. Is that the one near Sutton Bonington / Kegworth south of Nottingham by any chance? I used to drive through there and west leake / costock to get to work near wymeswold about 10 years back.
-
Colin that’s no. It’s the one on the A52 half way between Boston and Skegness
I’m not there now we moved about 5 yrs ago.
Nice part of the world
-
Found not guilty.
Sounds like insufficient evidence to conclusively prove that it was him who knocked over Stendel and caused his injuries.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-59513011
-
It’s a good job the courts don’t rely on people from this forum as there are many on here that were pronouncing him guilty long before his trial.
COYR
-
I’m awaiting all the hate Barton haters to be big enough to come on here and apologise for their comments without knowing the full facts
I’m sure that they I’ll be able to put a twist on so that the courts got it wrong or there’s been a mistrial etc
The truth is he’s not guilty
-
Yes he was found not guilty because not enough evidence.
That’s fair enough. Can’t convict someone unless all reasonable doubt can be established.
Someone pushed or barged Stendel though and Barton was seen going down the tunnel after Stendel did. So although found not guilty he may well be guilty as someone did it and quite frankly who else is stupid enough.
No that does not make him guilty but it is not unreasonable to suspect he is.
That’s a lot of waffle I know but Barton’s record speaks for itself.
-
I'm sure I read he had head butted him or something funny how it's changed to a shove or been banged into!
-
I'm sure I read he had head butted him or something funny how it's changed to a shove or been banged into!
That’s what was first reported. Think your right. It’s changed to shove or barge.
-
Yes he was found not guilty because not enough evidence.
That’s fair enough. Can’t convict someone unless all reasonable doubt can be established.
Someone pushed or barged Stendel though and Barton was seen going down the tunnel after Stendel did. So although found not guilty he may well be guilty as someone did it and quite frankly who else is stupid enough.
No that does not make him guilty but it is not unreasonable to suspect he is.
That’s a lot of waffle I know but Barton’s record speaks for itself.
Yes.
Bit of coincidence that Stendel ends up with injuries just at the same time that Barton was in the vicinity.
-
Which kind of tells us that there was conflicting evidence and not everyone who was there saw the same thing.
-
That's par for the course Hound. A very, very long time ago now a little boy ran out of a field down by the outskirts of Kirk Sandall. My car hit him. He died in my arms. But the point is that when it came to statements, a guy in the far distance swore blind that the boy had run out from the left hand side of the road. He didn't. He ran from the right hand side.
So 'evidence' of whatever human origin, simply cannot be relied upon.
BobG
-
Agreed Bob.
It is amazing though isn’t it that so many people had hanged Barton before the trial had started.
-
:):):)
-
The verdict doesn’t surprise me I can’t think of a more upstanding pillar of society than Mr B
-
The verdict doesn’t surprise me I can’t think of a more upstanding pillar of society than Mr B
PILLAR? Eeh, predictive text!
-
As I predicted.
People twisting their facts to meet the agenda they want
Agreed JB has done things in the past that he should not be proud of
No one is disputing that.
That does not change the facts of this case. He was found not guilty. So he didn’t do it
Now get over yourselves. NOT GUILTY
-
As I predicted.
People twisting their facts to meet the agenda they want
Agreed JB has done things in the past that he should not be proud of
No one is disputing that.
That does not change the facts of this case. He was found not guilty. So he didn’t do it
Now get over yourselves. NOT GUILTY
Sorry to be a Pedant but not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it, it means it wasn't proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
-
Still guilty of being a massive bell-end, though.
-
In his evidence, Mr Barton denied being hostile or aggressive towards his opposite number and stated he did not recall coming into contact with anyone in the tunnel.
He admitted using "industrial language" during a post-match handshake with Mr Stendel, but denied there were tensions between them during the match.
Nathan Kirby, Barnsley performance analyst intern, had given evidence that he saw Mr Barton run past him and "shoulder-barge" Mr Stendel.
However, Mr Barton's barrister Simon Csoka QC said in his closing speech that even if it had been an accident it was quite possible for Mr Barton to have been unaware of what happened.
So, based on the evidence of a witness, it is likely there was physical contact between the two, but insufficient evidence that a deliberate assault took place. Intent is always difficult to prove in cases like this.
-
Ok German. So what you’re saying is that everyone that goes to court is guilty whether the court say so or not
There are no innocent people who go to court. They are just not found guilty
Im so grateful you enlightened me
-
Ok German. So what you’re saying is that everyone that goes to court is guilty whether the court say so or not
There are no innocent people who go to court. They are just not found guilty
Im so grateful you enlightened me
not even close to saying that but there is no verdict of Innocent in English law, there is guilty and not guilty, guilty means the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt, not guilty means they haven't.
Therefore he may have done it but the prosecutors haven't proved he did it beyond reasonable doubt.
-
I said a long time ago on here that the alleged headbutt suddenly changing to a push would make all the difference. Now that's become even more mitigated in the form of an accident.
Whoever in the media made up the headbutt b*ll*cks obviously had an agenda based on Barton's past.
-
That just goes to show that people shouldn’t believe all that they read SS.
-
As I predicted.
People twisting their facts to meet the agenda they want
Agreed JB has done things in the past that he should not be proud of
No one is disputing that.
That does not change the facts of this case. He was found not guilty. So he didn’t do it
Now get over yourselves. NOT GUILTY
Sorry to be a Pedant but not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it, it means it wasn't proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
That's correct GR but continuing to insinuate guilt after a party has been through due judicial process, and found not guilty, can land someone in hot water from a civil case of libel or slander.
Ps, I'm not saying you're doing that in your post.
-
not guilty
the verdict of a court that a person is not, in law or in fact, responsible for the crime charged against him
The definition from the legal dictionary
No twist to meet my point of view. A straight up definition
Apparently JB is innocent
-
A deeply disappointing verdict .
Daniel having to see a dentist almost immediately following the incident remains unexplained .
The tensions between Barton and Stendel which began in October when we visited Fleetwood not a factor .
Tensions that resurfaced when we gave Barton's Fleetwood team of thugs a footballing lesson in the April .
The Red card for the Fleetwood defender in the second half with tensions in the technical area's boiling over
Again not a factor .
Barton attempts to high tail it out of an Oakwell car park immediately in his chairman's car and is stopped by a police officer and a steward .
Barton's previous , not a factor .
I get it , case not proved beyond doubt , I get it .
But please don't insult my intelligence and tell me he didn't assault Daniel Stendel .
-
I was at both those games just to add and it was clearly evident Stendel wasn't exactly Barton's cup of char .
First of all we beat his Fleetwood outfit pretty convincingly over both games .
Now I'll be the first to admit Daniel could go over the top a little in the technical area .
He was highly enthusiastic , kicked every ball and celebrating us scoring as good as us in the stands .
Sometimes he encroached in to the opposition technical area , it wasn't malice just enthusiasm .
That's why we all loved him at Barnsley .
The likes of Barton can't take that kind of thing .
I'll leave it at that , it's not exactly difficult to see how this ended up in court .
-
It’s a good job the courts don’t rely on people from this forum as there are many on here that were pronouncing him guilty long before his trial.
COYR
Very true, glosterred.
-
not guilty
the verdict of a court that a person is not, in law or in fact, responsible for the crime charged against him
The definition from the legal dictionary
No twist to meet my point of view. A straight up definition
Apparently JB is innocent
Scotland are one of a very few number of countries in the world that currently have three verdicts:
Guilty, not guilty and not proven. The latter verdict is now under review:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56630482
-
He wasn’t tried in Scotland. What’s the relevance
-
He wasn’t tried in Scotland. What’s the relevance
I know that he wasn’t tried in Scotland, Phil! I was just trying to point out that if we had a “not proven” verdict in this country then it could have caused even more controversy on this forum!
Just saying, Phil! :)
-
I went back to the day the deed was "done". I had forgotten the Barnsley players tweet but several people DID SEE exactly what happened that day
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=269913.msg854111#msg854111