Barton

It depends entirely what it says in the employers staff handbook. That said I've never come across one that doesn't include it.

 

How do you not consider alleged violent conduct a good excuse to ban him or at least take action???? I’m not surprised at you thinking that but come on, are you just trying to be controversial at this point?

 

Not enough nots

 

Thank goodness

 

47 years !!

 

JP - your heart is ruling your head here!
We have two people facing serious charges - one has an appalling record - the other would seem to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time but at the present time neither have been found guilty.
You can't say that because someone has an appalling criminal record he must be guilty of a crime and that someone whose brother was murdered etc. is not guilty of a crime.

At the present time, in the eyes of the law both are in identical positions.

 

Have a look at their CodArmy Facebook, it's the closest they've got to a forum. It's not all pro Barton, a few want him gone, but most of them are deluded. Think he'll get a fine and community service, they're even comparing what " SYP did to 96 scousers" to what they're doing to Barton.
Loons

 

We have to believe that because of the evidence that South Yorkshire Police have presented to them,
the DPP must be confident that the accusations against Barton stand a good chance of being proven,
otherwise were there any doubt at all, they would have probably recommended not to proceed with
case.

 

As it’s actually in the football ground there has to be a considerable worldwide football banning order. To not do this would plunge the fa’ reputation further into the gutter than I thought possible.
I’m all for 2nd chances but he’s already spent his and there are direct comparisons to draw from fans sentences here for similar crimes, even worse for repeat offenders.

 

What it won't say in the handbook is "any kind of assault in any work place is instant dismissal".

Imagine a rugby or ice hockey player, for example, living by such a rule.

What about...say.. Conor deliberately treading on that opponent's foot that time? It was some kind of assault. BFC thankfully did not instantly dismiss him.

 

Fleetwood don’t have any morals look at who manages them and who they sign. Would be appalled to support them.

 

51% chance, I believe.

 

Do you think that because it's a high profile case and in the public interest was a factor in the CPS deciding to prosecute?
And would Barton's past record have influenced them or is the CPS not 'allowed' to look at past crimes?

 

It looked like the opposite to me.

 

From their Facebook page......
"Reading my paper this morning it says Ched Evans is set to join Oxford on loan , I thought Sheffield United had released him and why have FTFC not gone for him?"

And someone replies.......
" Maybe he doesn’t want to play for jb not a good example being set by him"

And I'm pretty sure they're being serious

 

If you watch the matchday recap it is Barton keeping hold of Daniel's hand so hes got that wrong for starters.

 

My view which could be wrong of course, is that the CPS must be confident of a guilty verdict otherwise they wouldn't proceed. As a Club official, I was involved in a case where our Steward did a runner with a woman (not his wife) and took the Clubs takings with him.

The Committee presented cast iron evidence to the Police and they were satisfied he was bang to rights. The CPS agreed 95% and the CID started to collect evidence.

During their investigations our Treasurer was able to show that he emptied the bandits on a Sunday and got two members to count the money enter the amount and sign their names in a ledger. He then handed the money to the Steward to recycle the coins into notes the following week. The flaw in his system, was that unfortunately, he didn't get the Steward to sign for it.

The Police then told us that he had hired top lawyer of the day, Barrington Black to defend him, which convinced them even further of his guilt but because of the receipts issue and the fact that Black would have homed in on that ,at the end of the day, they finally decided not to proceed.

As for Barton, it must be difficult for the CPS or a juror for that matter not to take his past misdemeanours into account, because they have been well publicised, but for now they will only be looking at the assault on DS and will find accordingly.

Be interesting to see what he pleads in his defence and whether he has any evidence or a witness to back his claims.

 

Code for Crown Prosecutors:

4.7 The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the prosecutor’s objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which they might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged.

'More likely than not' is also described in the relevant guidance as a 51% chance. This is just the the decision whether or not to prosecute by the CPS. A court must of course find that guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

 

It will refer to a work context. Barton was at work when the incident happened. I wrote BFC's staff handbook in 2012 which include clauses to this effect. That said it has probably changed since then.