Barton and Evans.... a match made in heaven. Maybe they could get Chris Morgan in on the coaching staff too.
I wouldn't compare Evans to Barton. Evans was acquitted and, on top of the time served in jail for a crime he was eventually found not guilty of, he missed out on a crucial stage of his playing career and had his name dragged through the mud in the process. Barton however is as guilty as sin and should be locked up.
Whilst Barton has a criminal record to prove his violent character, which to a certain extent indicates what he's capable of, what can you actually cite as proof of what happened regarding the incident at Barnsley? There were various dramatic descriptions on here early doors. But nobody seemed to really know. Unless you witnessed the drama itself, without a trial I'm not sure how you conclude Barton is guilty as sin and should be locked up.
1) two tweets about him attacking Stendel in a cowardly manner from players very soon after alleged attack. 2) Stendel visit to the dentist .
Correct. Can think what you like about Barton as a person and cite his criminal record but it all means **** all about the incident in question and until he has his day in court and is proven guilty he is still an innocent man.
Whatever a court decides I believe Stendel, Cavare and Woodrow over a known thug who thought nothing of putting a lighted cigar in another players eye.
As I said, there were various dramatic descriptions at the time. Stendel visiting the dentist is not on the face of it sufficient to consider anyone as guilty as sin and worthy of locking up. We shall see.
They aren't going to base the decision of the trial based on my message on a fan forum. We all know what he is like and know that and 2 of our players commented on it before being told to remove their comments. Also the fact that between leaving the pitch and him trying to leave Oakwell without the rest of his team, Stendel's face ended up covered in blood, you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that he probably had something to do with it.
Me too. You might have therefore thought that it was relatively straightforward to work out whether an offence might have been committed. It's taken so long though that there must be something preventing it being nailed on obvious repeat Barton thuggery.
I was told there were no cameras. I don't think CPS would have brought the case if they weren't confident there was sufficient evidence to gain a conviction.
The concept of innocent until proved guilty is a complicated one. Guy robs a bank - goes to court - jury find him not guilty - in the eyes of the law he's innocent - but is he really innocent. Some people in prison for crimes they didn't do because of wrong guilty verdict. Law says they're guilty but are they? Until proven guilty means just that it doesn't mean someone is innocent. Not sure how Barton case will turn out - the guy with the real problem is Willks.