Barkley punched in bar by unidentified man

The punch is certainly delivered in a king-hit, 'I was always going to punch someone tonight' fashion, by some clearly unhinged, dangerous, beaked/juiced hero.

Link

Perhaps they'll be less amused when their licence comes under threat as there are strict guidelines for how licensed premises are supposed to deal with issues of violence on their premises. Recording it, laughing at it and then leaking it onto Twitter isn't generally the approved method!

Barkley or not someone not expecting to get hit, and appearing to make placatory moves towards the fucking nutcase, ends up getting one "stolen on him" by some cowardly fucking arsehole.

And to make matters worse it "goes viral."

Absolutely pisses me off and I hope the idiot is identified and gaoled, and those involved in releasing it are gaoled too.

See how the tosser fares inside where he won't be able to steal one on somebody and get away with it.

ps: If it is Ross I'm gutted for him because a more unassuming, almost awkward with his fame, young lad, you couldn't wish to meet.

This could definitely influence Ross's decision. Why stay if you can't go out in your own City without getting assaulted? Maybe it was a hateful Liverpool fan, discussing Ross's poor challenge on Lovren? But unfortunately, it's just as likely to be one of the many 'so called' Everton fans who can be equally as hateful towards the lad.

I love Ross Barkley and desperately want him to stay, but if he decides to leave then he gets my full support.

Don't know about the deal breaker but it could be a jaw breaker. Getting hit on the chin when unexpected and with an open mouth there's every chance his jaw will go.

From the Daily Mail website:

"Barkley trained at Everton's Finch Farm training ground as normal on Monday despite appearing to be involved in the altercation."

Still he's probably just another poor misunderstood individual who's fallen on hard times and needs some support and guidance as opposed to custodial sentance.

Speculation on the People's Forum is he did know him and it's an on going thing between them. Shouldn't put himself in them type of situation stuff, but he's a young lad, hopefully a lesson learned.

The views of the victim will be taken into account but as this assault was clearly caught on CCTV and the actions of the offender speak for themselves then I would imagine whoever is responsible, once identified, will face prosecution regardless of the views of Ross Barkley.

The establishment where this occurred will also face questions as to why this wasn't reported to Police at the time and how the CCTV footage managed to find its way on to social media.

Let's put this into some context. I am a teacher- I know this isn't professional football fame but as a known member of the community I don't live in the town I work in. Why? because I am happier having that bit of anonymity. Like Ross, going out in the town and facing the prospect seeing the sixth formers, past and present really isn't professionally sensible or my idea of fun. IT only takes one who wants to be either 'overfriendly' or a knob and you find yourself in grief.

Ross in Liverpool is simply an much amplified version of this. I don't know why he would want to do it?

This shouldn't be a deal breaker one way or the other. There are plenty of places that the rich and famous can go to without having to go to bars in town. As I say it shouldn't be the case but unfortunately it is.

Footballers, whether they like it or not are on that pedestal and they can't just swan around in town like a normal member of the public without getting attention from somewhere. Most of the time it will be positive but occasionally there will be some idiot waiting to have a go. Just ask Fowler.

Kev (@15),

Come on. It's grainy, jerky, ripped second-hand to a mobile from a monitor, black & white CCTV footage. Everybody looks like fucking Morph with hair. You can barely make out facial features never mind the exact moment someone starts to fume or form a fist. Snide shit-heel looked like he was smirking up until the moment he smacked him to me (although, for the reason stated above, I certainly could never be sure) and the chance to take a surprise pop could have been the sole purpose behind him coming over all pally with Barkley.

I'm sure we'll get the rumour mill spewing forth all sorts of unfounded rubbish again, as usual: "Ross asked him how much to shag his bird", "They've known each other for years and have been mortal enemies ever since their mom's parked their buggies too close together in 'Morrisons' and baby Ross gave dat other lad a right dirty look when he got a whiff of the dump he did in his nappy", "He was a vengeful spirit conjured up by Dejan Lovren's Djinn lover in retaliation for Ross almost doing him with a reckless tackle. Swear down, lad. Bit like the monster in dat movie 'Pumpkinhead', except he's called 'Pisscanhead'."

Let's just hope he's physically ok, not too shook up and the other prick receives the punishment he deserves.

What is more concerning is where are Barkley's mates / minders?

There has to be more footage, surely.

Everybody knows how dangerous a single punch can end up being... it was so long ago that one of our own fans was killed in town after our 7-1 win over Sunderland by that ex-Kopite's stepson.

1. You 'would have liked to see the mutants head roll' This, therefore, makes you the equivalent of the 'mutant'. Also check views on here about said 'mutant'.

2. You want Ross to 'roll' his head. You want Ross to be in every bit of news until his day in court with all the dire consequences that will have for Ross and Everton? Utterly unbelievable!

3. Thank God Ross has more self-control and appreciation of events than you have.

4. This post tells us a lot more about you than the event.

Ross should have left well alone which indicates he was likely tanked up and were he to have been sober, he likely would not have got involved as he would have been more alert to the problems. But drink does something to the brain.

Ross could have been stabbed never mind punched, and this could have happened anywhere, so stop bloody over reacting saying Ross may have had enough being at Everton. Ross is from Liverpool – he is not Johnny go down lightly. He probably realises that where it not for his own input we would not have been punched.

The police will only charge someone if there is a prospect of it leading to a conviction. Ross is a millionaire and he would not like the publicity.

Hopefully went in for a stretch and a massage, if so he's not badly hurt and can put it down to experience and stay out of places like where he was.

John, your wrong there. The lad got himself into position to throw a punch a few seconds before, you can see him moving his feet and body shape getting leverage.

That said, I've seen many a player from both clubs in various Liverpool nightclubs and not seen them get any hassle. I even recall seeing Stevie Me in the infamous Pleasure Rooms around 2004 ish surrounded by his Huyton cronies.

I'm not condoning what the twat did but there is clearly interaction between them, Barkley actually puts his hands on the lad first by brushing his shoulder then it looks like stroking under his chin and saying something.

I wouldn't be convinced that this was completely unprovoked as they're claiming.

If this were the case then Ross would be punched every time we went out. The lad must have felt a threat – use loosely even – for him to have reacted as he did.

It may have been an Everton fan who cannot tell the difference between being a fan and frustrated with his performances on the pitch and in his view, his right to attack him where chance avails itself.

Are you for real? You are aware that Class A narcotics are freely available in Liverpool, right?

There are plenty of horrible little scrotes who would punch you or anyone else for the sole reason that they imagined some slight in their coke-addled paranoid little minds. Who knows what happened here without all the facts?

Saying there has to be a "reason" that makes sense to a "reasonable" person is ridiculous and very naive, and I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make?

No disrespect John but if you truly believe that, you've led a very sheltered life. There are unprovoked attacks in most cities in the UK every weekend of the year.

Naive your comment there.

Honestly how posters can get so much information from a CCTV image is beyond me1 No matter what state that Ross was in drunk or sober, no matter what was said by him to the other bloke, the fact he was punched in the kisser is not what I would call civilised behaviour no matter who is involved, no matter what motive lay behind that behaviour.

If your son or brother or mate was in a pub and somebody they were talking too flattened them would you be worried about what the victim had said or done? Probably not, and most people would want to see the attacker face their just rewards.

Perhaps some of the speculation made on this thread is why Ross didn't want to press charges?

Anyway, hopefully someone at the club speaks to him about being a bit more selective and careful where he's hanging out.

I've lived in this city all my life and you wouldn't see me in the City Centre any weekend drinking that late. There's no shortage of knob-heads like the thug in this video just waiting to kick off.

Joking apart, that sort of behaviour should not be tolerated at all. I sincerely hope Ross has no after effects, and more importantly, the perpetrator is caught, hung and quartered.

Probably just get a smacked wrist, the way the justice system is.

And, by the way, what the eff has that got to do with anything.

There may well be previous, who knows? Whatever was said is no justification for a cowardly attack like that. It is quite unbelievable some people on here making up fairy stories talking about possible provocation or anything else.

Take Ross Barkley the famous footballer out of that video and a judge looking at that has only one conclusion - you're going down sunshine! He doesn't start thinking "yeah but I reckon the curly haired lad is doing something to rile him outside" or "he touched him before he got clocked". No, like Roy Walker on Catchphrase, he says what he sees and because he sees it he says it.

Cowardly attack, getting a victim's confidence and then assaulting him. Completely unprovoked in the eyes of the court.

It's a sad indictment on society that Ross cannot go out and have a few beers with his mates. The price of being a famous face I'm afraid to say. It's nothing more than some prick simply wanting to say, "I smacked that Barkley fella".

He is no doubt a saddo who supports a shit football club and is simply jealous of Ross's status in life. Moron.

If he has been assaulted then yes he should press charges, not to do so send out the wrong message, idiots should not think they have impunity.

Hopefully line drawn asap learns and moves on.

Sorry, but that's not putting it into context at all. Ok, you might be recognised by your own pupils, their parents and past attendees, but you're not going to be recognised by people from the opposite end of the country or unfairly targeted by those with an affiliation to a 'rival' school. 

Thanks to the global popularity of the Premier League the top players are known all over the world. There's nowhere populated they can go to be absolutely guaranteed anonymity. 

So, instead of going out in Liverpool, say Ross opts to go on a secret bender in St. Beezey in Cornwall. Is that 'problem solved' by simple virtue of the fact there's significantly less people and he doesn't live there?

Someone is still going to cotton on to who he is and if that person, or any others who hear he's in town, happens to be a gobshite or a Tic Tac brained thug, then there's still the possibility of him becoming a convenient target for unwarranted verbal abuse or violence. Maybe it's actually more risky in a less populated place because there's fewer people around to witness what might happen or likely to jump in and put a stop to such behaviour?

What about when he pops to the supermarket? Is that a risky act of stupidity given that he could order online and get his scran delivered instead, because nobhead neanderthal's have also been known to roam the streets before noon and have to head somewhere to restock their Haribo's on a regular basis?

I don't see a football player going out for a drink on the odd occasion and mingling with people who don't earn millions as "swanning about" or 'pushing his luck'. Are they supposed to cut themselves off from contact with the outside world completely and view their salary as fair recompense for residing in a stifling, suffocating bubble, whilst refraining from ever again sampling the simple pleasures everyone else takes for granted? It's never going to happen, especially when you're talking about young men with the normal yearnings of anyone else their own age.

Regardless, the real problem isn't on their part or of their own making. It's societal. It's the 'cut loose at all costs' culture that has been allowed to take grip in this country.

People get smacked by pissed up loons every weekend of the year, in every city and town throughout the country, regardless of their profession or any provocation other than being present. Police force's spend an obscene amount of their time and resources mopping up and containing the bloody mess an army of barely coherent, mashed-potato mouthed, beer monsters, trail in their wasted wake. They even film and whack footage on TV of the totally wankered Walking Dead stumbling all over the shop, spewing in the street and stomping on heads and try to pass it off as some form of bizarre 'entertainment'.

This time it was Ross who was the unlucky one, next time it could be anybody not nervous enough to lock themselves away every night out of fear of getting fucked over. Doesn't matter if they're a footballer or a fishmonger.

No, it was unprovoked. A hand on a shoulder does not, ever, ever, warrant a fucking punch in the face. Good God.

I said that if you watch the video there is clearly more going on than a stranger just cold cocking him just for the fun of it. Why was he stroking the lad under the chin and brushing his shoulder? Just because he felt like it?

And btw David, I disagree with anything you post, Barks, I said I did not condone what the lad did, just that there looks like there was more to this by watching the footage.

The downside of this is, it is a shame that just because you are a noted celebrity, you can't have a night out and enjoy it, without having to be on your guard all the time.

Do not forget that Barkley is just a young man and no different from a lot of other young men who like to go out and wind down after work, and not to look for trouble.

We all live and learn from these things, but at least it was just a punch and nothing worse.

Also, this could occur anywhere in the country, for tribal reasons or for reasons like jealousy or envy.

As John Daley says- –you can get thumped anywhere – whether it is in the centre of a city or in the back of a hay cart in rural Suffolk (in which case, you probably deserve it).

I could say that Ross looks a bit pissed to me and pissed people do stupid things and are often over familiar ("Arrr come 'ere lad, I've always loved you" type of thing). It doesn't matter one jot.

What I am saying is that there is no excuse. Sorry, but you saying that sounds a bit like you were making an excuse for the response, whether you meant to or not.

No verbal provocation, or putting a hand on the shoulder justifies that response. Therefore it is completely unprovoked.

Catchphrase, Kev, start watching Catchphrase.

I have a scar on left eyebrow that says otherwise.

Wise up!

You say about Ross being recognised anywhere he goes. Of course you are correct. In other areas though I don't think that he:
1) Would evoke the same feelings amongst those tanked up.
2) In liverpool, he transcends football. He is a local celebrity 'one of our own' he is known by people who are not football fans.

Outside of Liverpool I feel that there are less issues. Certainly in areas such as Formby, Alderley Edge, Wilmslow etc. where these 'meathead' lads tanked on too much Carling don't go. I doubt a 50 year old property developer drinking a barolo with his misses is as likely to throw a punch...

Secondly, you are right. Could happen at the supermarket etc. Should he avoid this- no. A simple risk assessment would suggest that the likelihood is less. In a bar though? Late on? Much more likely.

I differ with your thing about footballers cutting themselves off from society. Not suggesting that at all. A meal, a 'decent' bar is fine. I don't see avoiding places like this as much of a sacrifice, no. That is life- Like I pointed out, many more of us make sacrifices because of our profession. It is not unique to Ross.

I do have a problem really with high level athletes drinking in the peak part of the season. I know there is no proof that he has, and I don't wish to speculate like some. None of my business, but If I were Koeman I do think I would expect more.

He is a good lad I feel. People mention horrific incidents that are sadly not uncommon enough that happen in these bars. Why is he putting himself in this position?

If you mean that literally, then clearly a jury doesn't get to ask questions in court.

If you mean defence lawyers would ask those questions, why would they? To suggest that touching somebody justifies lamping them? Surely no lawyer would look to that as a defence. Ditto something that has been said.

Hope Rom dosen't frequent 'those' sort of places.,. mind you, deal probably done now.

Sorry but the only way something like this is going to be resolved is in a forum like ToffeeWeb. Surely we have some lip readers among us?

I'm pretty sure it would not get an acquittal.

You ARE sounding for all the world like you are trying to excuse a vicious and unprovoked (by any reasonable definition) attack Kevin. I am curious why that is (but not that curious to be honest).

I live in Wilmslow. Plenty of people come in on the train at the weekend and I have seen the same "meatheads" you describe. Not so frequently as when I grew up in L7 admittedly but it only takes one. Which I think was John's point. This isn't a location issue, it's a sociopath issue.

Why was Ross stroking his chin and brushing his shoulder? What did he say to him for the lad to react like he did?

There the questions a lawyer will ask. The footage does not provide evidence that it was completely unprovoked, that's all.

His parents Andy and Christine are still campaigning and fighting for justice for their son. There has been several articles published about young Andrew and what happened to him, in the Liverpool Echo... Sorry, I can not do links.

The cowards who carry out this type of behaviour need bringing to justice.

Why indeed.

For years I went to town with 'the lads' on a Saturday night (nb: lads now so old, one dead, one using a stick to walk, one has had multiple strokes).

But back in the late 70s/early 80s we went out mob-handed (usually about 10 of us but often more) and there was nowhere that we considered off-limits (even Dutch Eddies - wooOOOOooooo!).

Off course town had it's nutters back then, but (at the risk of sounding all 'everything was better years ago') I believe there was a difference that made things safer for us.

Basically, there was no cheap 'beak' and steroids were something only used by East German weight-lifters (only drugs mentioned then was heroin which, to us, seemed a Birkenhead meff thing).

Consequently, the rage/paranoia levels in those you were rubbing shoulders with in pubs/clubs was greatly reduced.

Sure you could end up with a sore face if you didn't have the right answer to "Who the fuck are you looking at?" or "Are you looking at my tart?" but generally, there would need to be a 'reason.'

A change (imo) has come with the 'king-hit' or as it's now known is Australia, the 'cowards punch' Link

Basically it seems there are people 'out there' now who (probably as a result of something other than just bevvy) want to punch someone (anyone) just to..do it.

Just to feel what it feels like, just to swing a haymaker, connect and get the 'I just twatted someone' feeling travelling up their arm.

Pro boxers will tell you that the punch you know is coming is nowhere near as scary/damaging as the one you don't anticipate and there is something very frightening knowing there are juiced-up raging pot-herbs wandering about who will/can go from nought to BANG! for absolutely no (good) reason.

In Australia, 90 people have been killed by the coward's punch since 2000, if Ross was in training this morning, maybe he should count himself lucky.

But I need to be consistent. I used to hammer drunken Duncan on here for stuff like this. Koeman should know what time this was, what Ross was drinking and why he was out.

Ross shouldn't be out drinking late or night or not. He's an elite athlete earning millions a year at 23. He gets paid so well to be an elite athlete. He's got the rest of his life to do this. I know 40,000 who'd swap places with him and wouldn't touch a drop of alcohol, smoke and do all the right things.

Wanna be the best you gotta make sacrifices. And he's paid millions a year to do so.

Don't tell me you're giving it everything if you're out boozing during the season. This ain't the 70s

The scumbag's Dad lawyered up so he got community service but the court established there was no motive.

I say gangster with no disrespect to proper gangsters unlike this coward.

As someone said earlier get bomber on the case.

Liverpool has always been tough but drugs seems to have brought about a breed of lunatic cowards.

Good on Ross for not getting involved.

I agree with the drinking but I suppose it depends on the club rules. I assume they frown on it but is it a job requirement they stay off the booze? The Spurs and Arsenal lads seem to be out boozing all the time. When I was at Uni in Manchester we'd see Giggsy and Lee Sharpe out.

Similar situation, I know.

Hopefully he's getting a firm knock on his door as we speak. Put it behind you, Ross, and move on.

I doubt any player knowing he had to train next day is going to drink a lot of alcohol the night before, as he will be fully aware of the club's policies, and be knowledgeable enough, that no matter were he goes, that he will be recognized.

By the way, 'Santa Chupitos'?

Daft names they have now, not like in my day when there were proper club names like Flintlocks, The She and Pickwicks.

What?

I've been consistent in my posts, the video does not show it was a completely unprovoked attack like his lawyers are saying. Hopefully this will be a lesson learned for him and he'll avoid situations like this in the future.

Jesus.

Quinn's, Casablancas where you had to knock on the door and a little face plate opened to check you out before they let you in.

Plus there's another reason this would never have happened in the old days, namely it was pretty much impossible to get a drink after 10pm on a Sunday in Liverpool City Centre.

It WAS a completely unprovoked attack. Nothing like any verbals or placing a hand on someone's shoulder or chin comes in any way close to a definition of provocation for what followed. That may be intensely infuriating to some people but this does not in any way qualify as provocation. This IS absolutely crystal clear in the video.

If you don't get this then there's nothing I can say to you to explain the difference but I think this is why you may be winding some people up here.

Based on the post match interview Lukaku and Ross didn't exactly seem friendly. Ross stood a good yard away with negative body language pivoted away from Lukaku.

When asked about the assist Rom half heartedly said something about Ross improving in his new position. He looked over the interviewers head to avoid eye contact as he was obviously uncomfortable with the question.

Colin, apparently he was in the bar at the same time and got over to Ross as fast as he could – by which time the bar had closed.

Brent, I heard Rom was busy practicing trapping bags of cement.

It's pure speculation like nearly every post about this including mine but if you add in he was telling him he shagged his Mrs or his Ma the previous day you don't think that's going to set someone into a rage especially with drink involved?

Of course it would, again we don't know what was said and if there is any history here and if they in fact do know each other, I'm sure that it'll all come out sooner or later.

People don't tend to go round punching people mid-conversation for absolutely no reason at all – at least not in my experience.

Personally I don't think there's ever a reason to punch someone in the face, unless you're in a licenced boxing ring, but that doesn't mean this dickhead didn't have his 'reasons' for it.

Who knows what's actually going on, or what's being said – either way it's cowardly and the kid should be held to account because it's fucking stupid, and dangerous to punch people – aside from that, the matter of why he did it, we'll probably never know...

Until Ross is about 50 and brings out a book.

No big deal for me, though I'm looking forward to the microscopic analysis of Koeman's body language, words, tonality and eye movement when he gets asked about this in his next presser.

Link

From a personal point of view, I am in the city centre every single weekend and I cannot remember the last time I saw any trouble. From my experiences of working around the UK and abroad, the smaller places like Formby, Cheshire and Southport are far more 'moody' than Liverpool City centre, whatever a famous teacher above would like you to think. There is always trouble kicking off in small bars, all over the country.

I'm sure Ross will get over this little incident, as usual, massive over-reaction on here.

I wonder where on earth young players must go to have some fun. Glasgow must be the absolute worst for this shit. I honestly think that it is a reason why London is so attractive to footballers. There are brain dead show offs everywhere, some of them are footballers, but I fear that Ross might see London as a bit more appealing today.

More people = more crackpots.

This could have happened anywhere in the UK

However, so as not to come across as too pious, I have on several occasions thought of an imaginary encounter with Jimmy Case: "Middle-aged man spits in former Liverpool ace's drink while ace is at toilet. Cowardly bastard flees before former hard man returns."

My view is try and find the guy, charge him for violence and never justify it because Ross or anyone else said something that turned this knob to violence. Never justified, football player or anyone.

Complete strangers don't just walk up to someone and start brushing their shoulders and stroking under their chins, it doesn't happen, there is more to this story for sure.

Either way it's not justification to punch him in the face, but provocation and justification are not the same thing.

Seems the whole thing is over a girl.

1. The clip is just that, a clip.. we don't see the lead up, the conversation or any previous or provocation. You CANNOT make any assumptions on the clip whatsoever other than the fact that the punch was a pre-emptive strike.

2. Such punches are dealt with in Australia as King hits, a cowards one punch unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim. This qualifies.

3. The danger in such attacks is not the punch but the fact it takes out the victim who more often as not hits the deck back of the head first causing often lethal damage.

The perpetrator now faces a minimum 10-year sentence in Australia for this and so they should.

What I said was that the video does not prove what Barkley's lawyers are saying, that he was assaulted by a stranger without any provocation.

In fact, the video shows that there may have been some provocation on Barkley's part.

Is this area were this pub/club is known for trouble? Is it a rough part of the city?

To be honest it doesn't matter where you go, if you're quite famous in any capacity, there's always some arse who wants to have a go.

I asked after seeing the place on Sky Sports. From the outside, it looked a bit run down, not a place that I would imagine professional footballers would frequent.

Where did this photo come from?

Also mention of the guy in the Twitter photo as being one his 'boys' as he puts it on his Facebook page.

You don't have to dig too deep online to find all this – and people don't get sucker punched in a bar mid-conversation like that without the person doing it having a reason (as they see it).

Clearly there's no justification for it, but to say it happened out of the blue seems both far fetched and from what I've been reading, wide of the mark.

I'll be amazed if it was a punch in the face from a complete stranger. You only have to watch the video to see there's clearly some interaction going on beforehand.

"Back in April 2014, Ross Barkley was allegedly threatened on Twitter by a convicted drug dealer and known gangster in a row over a girl.

Sam Walker sent a sinister message to a then 20-year-old Barkley saying: 'Inbox me a number for you ya little rat! You no wot this is about, so don't play stupid or your footie career will come to an end.'

The message is thought to have been sent after Barkley's ex-girlfriend started dating Walker."

Jokes apart, he didn't press charges, he didn't press his buttons, he didn't press at all!

Hope Barks is okay though, reports said he attended training today.

We don't want either him or Barkley missing for the run-in. I'm convinced that we'll catch Arsenal or Man Utd – or even both

Why would it amaze you, James. He must know him because he exchanged a few words with him? Not much of a mingler when you're out and about? People speak to people they don't know and have never met before in a bar all the time. Nothing unusual or 'suspect' about it at all.

Bullshit alert: It is the Sun though.

We've come a long way from when Mark Ward used to play pool in the Blue House or Steve Nichol played pool for the Victoria Lodge in Birkenhead, footballers are more like pop stars, and therefore will get more abuse from Knob'eads.

Dutch Eddies, the Flintlock, Pickwicks and the She Club....

You'll tell us next you had a membership card for the Cabin Club. Have you NO shame?

I think it's safe to say we are all on Ross Barkley's side here, but it seems to me that some people are choosing to make assumptions that do not prioritise sense over sentiment.

Let me state categorically I NEVER had a membership for The Cabin.

I don't think of myself as sophisticated but give me a little credit please!

Besides, my mate knew the owner of Liberty's (Jimmy Smith, former chairman of South Liverpool) and he'd let us in there buckshee.

(His brother used to do Scouse Mouse in the Echo... and work the door of Liberty's.)

Basically the effects of such, where, the consumers were reduced to a trance-like state, being statuesque and failing to be able to communicate to those around them!

I have my own suspicions, that our goalkeeper, Joel, (El Teflon) may have been experimenting with this substance for the last few games.

As he has displayed many, or all, of the previous symptoms!

Just a thought.

These young men are obscenely paid athletes, worshipped by those earning less in a year than he earns in a week, and by being out in clubs til the early hours, he's leaving himself open to the gossip rags, who will splash any bullshit rumour all over their sordid front pages, or being damaged by some beaked up moron.

I couldn't imagine Olympic athletes clubbing it if they have a competition coming up, and with the season entering a crucial phase (especially with Arsenal dropping more points at Palace), we need all our players at the absolute peak of fitness; to me, he's letting us fans down, many of us who can't afford to go clubbing, or know our performances at work would suffer, and unlike him, we could lose our jobs.

So I have no sympathy for him – he'll have his holidays coming up in the next 6 weeks or so when he can do what he likes, but he prefers to risk getting injured out in clubs having a good time when he should be resting properly and giving his body recuperation time after running around Goodison only hours earlier...

I know I'm going to get the usual hammering for this but I remember the abuse Gibson received (rightly so) on social media for going out on the piss and not looking after himself

You are going back some there mate, I was ex-Navy, back in 1969 and visiting Liverpool for the first time, I somehow went there, to discover their hospitality.

That's the last I remember, woke up in Mombassa!

Only joking about the last bit, but it did bring back memories that one.

You have tried to pedal these rumours before on here about Barkley's "early hours boozing". I've only ever heard them from you.

When did it become a crime for a young guy to relax AFTER a hard game, by going out to spend time with his mates, listen to a bit of music? Maybe meet a gorgeous bird?

Trust me when I tell you, if Barkley was a pisshead, staggering around bar to bar, half of this city would know about it.

If you have ANY evidence whatsoever of these "early hours boozing shenanigans" (something a little more substantial than your own suspicions) then lets have it.

If you can't do that and you do get "the usual hammering" you will have asked for it

A complete Norris Cole of a post

Objective neutral reporting? I think not! What exactly are the fucking BBC thinking about with that remark!

There's something in what you say. Duncan Ferguson couldn't wait to get out of Glasgow, and it must be and absolute nightmare there, but by the same token Liverpool is a bit small for some players. Quite a few live in Manchester. Lescott did when playing for us, for example. As a player you must crave anonymity due to the sheer amount of bell ends that hassle you, and in London you are much less likely to get hassled and there's just so much to do.

I cant remember where I read it but apparently Stephen Hughes (there's a blast from the past for you), the flop from Arsenal, disliked Liverpool as he found it too small and found it irritating that he couldn't go anywhere, such as out for a meal with his girlfriend, without someone bothering him and banging on about "the shite".

If I was a professional footballer I'd just swerve town entirely. But I'm 40 and would say that. If I was Barkley's age, and on the dollar he's on, I'd be on the front page of every tabloid in the country in various states of ale and MDMA induced madness. But Ross will learn its just not worth the hassle. Remember Fowler getting digged outside "The Wonder Bar" (now The Shipping Forecast I think) years ago and even then thinking "why did you even bother?!"

Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”

The people crowded around him were so touched by their own consciences, they began to put down their stones and depart.

Suddenly a brick did twatteth the woman in the grid and Jesus turned to see the lobber.

On seeing the culprit he shouted "Oh fuck off, Mick #149."

Hearing the rumours, and have also been told he can be a bit of a div when bevied (who can't?) and has been given a couple of walkovers in the past, so maybe this might just help the kid to wise-up?

Don't think any charges will be pressed because this would only cause the kid more long term damage (and the shithouse never even knocked me out) so it's just got to be put down to "living in the city and part of growing up" unfortunately!

I used to spend some evenings back in very early seventies in the Babalou on Seel Street. A sometime favourite haunt of certain footballers of the day.

Two in particular who spring to mind were Red John Toshack and Blue (at that time) David Johnson who always appeared as a pair. Never saw them getting punched, rather the opposite as they were popular with the ladies and, after bopping to Ride a White Swan, it was off into the night they rode.

The case went to court and the lad got a walkover.

Point 1 – Err no, Kevin was making 2 + 2 = 5. I was challenging him for reading stuff into a grainy video – the exact opposite of what you said.

Point 2 – Ross's lawyers issued a statement saying there was a completely unprovoked attack. That hasn't been challenged at all.

Point 3 – What I was saying was that I saw one young man in a grainy CCTV video talking to another young man, possibly making some contact and getting close, which is often what happens in loud nightclubs. Second man then starts punching the first man in a manner. No reasonable provocation for that response, whatever alternative facts people may want to peddle here.

The lad can enjoy the notoriety among his maleducated ilk and reminisce on it as the highlight of his pitiful little life until he's old enough to regret it for his few remaining years of old age maturity.

Meanwhile Ross Barkley will live out his dreams in blue creating so many incredible memories that he will have forgotten about this little twerp in a couple of weeks.

Wanker.

It's more fun arguing with you when I know what you're on about!

Nobody has the foggiest idea what happened; and in fact, who the fuck cares.

Sooner he leaves and we get £60m for him, the better; and he can take the lazy sulker with him if we get £80m for him too.

"Nobody has the foggiest idea what happened"

Do they not? I thought video evidence emerged showing an Everton player getting twatted on a night out for no obvious reason and then, the following day, an Everton fan went out of his way to post "he probably deserved it".

What more is there to know and why the seemingly deep-seated need for some to dissect a fart and delve into concocted 'motive', 'reason', 'provocation', and 'I heard Ross is a right cock' justification for a jelly head nobody on here should give two shits about (unless they actually know the guy) sneakily cracking him in the jaw?

What relevance was that to the incident? Fucking irresponsible newspapers virtually condoning violence by making fun of it.

Brian Williams at 32, again speculation.

Stay to the facts, ie not making personal references to the person who makes a response, ie 'are you for real you're naïve'...'led a sheltered life, et al. These are emotional responses and or ad hominem (personal), or putting it another way a distraction from the point being made.

Adam Scott (the teacher) at 17: Ross has the right to go out to celebrate his win, or at the weekend, however it's likely he will encounter trouble. Ross, has a duty of a professional in his position so you're quite correct insofar as Ross has a special duty of care than other less high profile persons who are not celebrities. He (as a celebrity footballer) ought to know not lay his hands on any person – especially where he (Ross) and the other lad were at the least likely to be drinking or drunk (to an extent). The other lad may or may not have been taking drugs but alcohol would have been sufficient to cause the same response. In short, Ross should have walked away where they were both either influenced or potentially affected by drink.

It's like this if Ross would have hit him back, Ross would probably have got sued – as a millionaire is worth suing.

Other assumptions were made by persons on this forum that the lad who punched Barclay may have been on drugs. Only the facts can determine that.

Ross should not have touched the lad; he should not have put his hands on the lad's person, ie, shoulders or anywhere else. This could be a provocation defence for the lad if the prosecution were to bring charges. I doubt they would owing to Ross touching him first and it does not seem that CCTV evidence will stand up in court by itself, so it will be Ross's word against the lad's.

The lad could sue Ross for assault as the lad laid hands on him first.

John, you were doing great until you said Ross could get done for assault "as the lad laid hands on him first". If that's assault then what Duncan did to the burgler could be considered mass murder.

Hope they catch the little prick like, Tony Bellew could use a new punch bag!

No it couldn't.

Not speculation at all, John. National crime figures back up the statement I made. Every weekend in lots of cities around the UK there are unprovoked attacks on individuals.

Criminal law

Criminal: Assault and battery:

Assault happens before battery. Assault does not require someone to be touched/ in contact, even behaving in a threatening manner could amount to assault. Battery is where the assault leads to a following contact: a punch for instance, which leaves a bruise or actual bodily harm, or grievous bodily harm (broken jaw/ other). This is why it is called assault and battery.

Other types of Criminal assault

If you lay your hands on a woman it could be assault in criminal law if it is likely the woman would not have permitted it, or there was no express permission, for the laying of hand(s) on her person. If you touch a woman, even on her leg, this could be a sexual offence in some circumstances.

Tort law

Acting in said threatening manner could amount to assault and cause a person to be sued as the person owes others a duty of care (legal responsibility). It will be difficult to win the case unless there were good evidence, ie, reliable witnesses.

I studied law a while ago now but no, not a lawyer per se.

It is not what happened but whether those facts can be exaggerated. The only material evidence, apparently, is grainy, and, by all accounts, black and white images.

What was certain though, Ross had his hands on the lad's shoulders (which is still contact where there should be none). The lad, his lawyer could argue, whispered something in his ear – or had spoken so quietly to provoke him. There was obviously something said, again according to the comments on this forum. Was the environment unusually loud where no-one else could hear what was said to the lad?

Alternatively, the witnesses in the place viewed the physical contact by Ross but may not have been close enough to dispute the lad's lawyer's claims. I am not saying this would happen... but it could happen.

"I studied law a while ago now but no, not a lawyer per se".

I study the horses on a regular basis but I am a twat of a gambler per se.

Come on, mate, pack it in. It's almost as if you want Ross charged.

Wonder if there's a movie in this? Perhaps change law after Brexit – The Drunk Knobhead Act? Maybe the Protection of Our Midfielders Act.

Let it go. Bet Ross has.

"The lad could sue Ross for assault as the lad laid hands on him first."

Belter this!!

Much prefer the picture of Koeman and Jagielka going to see Seamus Coleman, that John G, has posted. Although he probably doesn't feel like it now, Barkley was very lucky, whereas our inspirational "Captain of Ireland" was the complete opposite.

I genuinely hope he can make a complete recovery and hopefully lead his country out in Russia 2018!

Thanks for the refresher, but why are you claiming Ross momentarily placing a hand on a shoulder "could be a provocation defence for the lad if the prosecution were to bring charges."?

The defence of 'provocation' was done away with under the Coroners and Justice Act (to be replaced by 'loss of control') and it was only ever a partial defence to a charge of murder (invoked in order to reduce said charge to manslaughter) anyway. Sure, it might be taken into account in other instances, but merely as mitigation at sentencing.

I doubt his lawyer could argue with much conviction about Ross whispering in the guy's ear. What does that prove? If whispered, who heard it?

"or had spoken so quietly to provoke him"...

...'You're not talking loudly enough, Ross. We're in a club. You gotta shout.". Biff.

I don't make stories up: I actually heard this a long time ago, and asked on here if anyone had heard any rumours, but no one replied.

I am a fan of Ross (when he's trying and playing to his potential) and I'm the last person who'd wish any harm on the lad, but when he's going out only hours after a game (and putting himself in the firing line from red top rag reporters, jealous boyfriends, juiced up kopites etc), instead of relaxing and allowing his body to recuperate.

I can't be bothered checking back through TW but were you one of those who (rightly) rebuked Gibson for his twilight activities? If so, can't you see that Ross should be showing more maturity for a man of 23 who's been in the national spotlight for 4 or 5 years now, and learning lessons from previous local footballers like Gerrard, Jeffers, Fowler, Barton & Co??

The thug needs locking up so he can't do it to anyone else.

Two answers came up. An American Basketball player and a character from Coronation St. Can't help you with which one the reference was to. 👍

I'll bet you an Ayrton Senna it's rhyming slang.

Judge: What do you have to say for yourself before I pass sentence?

Defendant: Fuck all!

Judge (shocked, and turning to the Clerk of Court): What did the defendant say?!

Clerk of Court: "Fuck all", your worship.

Judge: How very odd, I could have sworn he said something!

As they say on TW, I'll go and get my coat.

Just acting the James Hunt....

The Defence Solicitor might make points in mitigation about provocation (which is how the offender sees it, not the victim) but this only means the sentence could be reduced, and usually only slightly.

He would only have a defence if he was to say that he got in a pre-emptive strike in self defence, but there's nothing on the CCTV to support that, and the second and third punches he at least tried to get off, contradicts that.

For those questioning the punch, The Marquis died over 100 years ago.

Grammar... 'If I 'were' ... not, 'If I was'. 'If' means hypothetical. Provocation was a defence up to recently. However, the modern law is mainly statute whereas case law practice would be more relevant, notwithstanding Parliament's statutory intent (statutory interpretation).

It would also likely be the counsel for the defence, not 'defence solicitor'. So, you say, "which is how the offender sees it, not the victim." No shit, Sherlock! I presumed that it would be the victim who decides whether there was provocation. Of course not, as it would defy the accused's constitutional right which is based on the moral and legal dimension of the rule of law, notwithstanding the constitutional statutes and its emanating constitutional case law, in addition to ordinary statute and ordinary emanating case law.

Now, mitigation is rather different to substantive defences. If there were provocation it may no longer be a statutory defence but it will still be a part defence, reliant on earlier precedents will R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816.

On the contrary, the defence could be available where he acts to protect himself or others (at common law). There would not need to be a pre-emptive strike to avail a relevant defence as this would mean that the other person's jaw could be broken if he were to wait upon the pre-emptive strike, before he could defend himself. Stop talking shit.

Things will probably balance out down the line.

I take it back.. let the thread roll on. The quality of frontier gibberish on show above is top notch. Highly entertaining.

You don't wait for a pre-emptive strike before you defend yourself. You throw a pre-emptive strike when you feel threatened, and before the aggressor assaults you. Steve was stating that this would not be a defence in this situation as Ross was not acting in a threatening manner, and at no point would the other guy have felt that he was about to be attacked.

If a guy approaches you in an aggressive manner with his fists clenched, then you would be able to strike him first as an act of self-defence. You argue that the pre-emptive strike was necessary to eliminate the threat of immediate assault. That is a recognised and acceptable defence for chinning someone, but would not be a defence for the defendant in Barkley's case.

I think what you are saying is, you get your retaliation in first before you take a smack.

Get yer coat!

It worked okay for "Stevie G La".

Okay, mate, I can accept you are not making stories up, but on another thread you are recycling 40-year-old rumours about former players.

This judgemental "no smoke without fire" shite drives me fucking nuts.

Evidence, Mick... Put up or shut up,

Gylfi fucking Sigurdsson? Are you sure???

The guy couldn't hack it at Spurs, we really do need to ditch this small-time thinking.

A slightly bigger fish in an exceptionally small pond is not what we need right now.

Quality... Top quality... Nothing else will do.

Please stop this foolishness.

Now there's a film/play waiting to be made.

Provocation is not, and has not been a defence to assault. Provocation could be a defence to murder due to the strict test for intent. But this is a matter of either s4 threatening behaviour or common assault, at worst, and provocation is not a defence to them. They are also summary only offences and will be dealt with by Solicitors.

A distinct defence to what, John? (I'm seriously starting to doubt it was the Shining that drove Danny to daub all over that fucking door now):

Link

" If there were provocation it may no longer be a statutory defence but it will still be a part defence, reliant on earlier precedents will R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816. On the contrary, the defence could be available where he acts to protect himself or others (at common law)."

I shall name you...err... 'self-defence'.

---------------------

INT: THE OVERLOOK HOTEL KITCHEN

Dick Hallorann: I can remember when I was a little boy. My grandmother and I could hold conversations entirely without ever opening our mouths. She called it "blagging". And for a long time, I thought it was just the two of us that had the 'blag' to us. Just like you probably thought you was the only one. But there are other folks, though mostly they don't know it, or don't believe it. How long have you been able to do it? Why don't you want to talk about it?

Danny Torrance: I'm not supposed to.

Dick Hallorann: Who said you ain't supposed to?

Danny Torrance: J-Willy

Dick Hallorann: Who's 'J-Willy'?

Danny Torrance: J-Willy is the bloke that lives in my mouth.

Dick Hallorann: Is J-Willy the one who gives you legal advice?

Danny Torrance: Yes, but he's not a lawyer 'per se'. 

Dick Hallorann: How does he tell you things?

Danny Torrance: Incorrectly/incoherently usually. It's like I go to sleep, and he shows me things, but when I wake up, I can't remember everything. Which is weird, because he was well into his law books at one time.

Banter aside... what kind of low-life are such people? I was shocked; glad I was young when I was.

You and me both. The level of viciousness and lack of respect for just about everything is frightening!

Best thing to do is score the winner next game and do a Cahill type celebration, brush it off. Happy days. Onwards and upwards. Lives and learns.

The accused is guilty of ABH. How Ross Barkley passes the ball to team mates is as relevant to this issue as whether aliens made funny patterns in Nazca.

One of our lads got punched. Not smacked a DJ. Would some here feel different if Tom Davies got walloped ?

I think Rex senior died some years back but his lad took over the business.

The ratio decidendi (ie the ratio principle) is what is relevant in binding precedent: 'point of law', and not the facts: 'Finding of Fact, which brings me to the law. Lord Lane C.J. (Lord Chief Justice) in R v Bird [1985] EWCA Crim 2 ('Bird') was discussing a 'reasonable force' defence, where he stated that a person does not have to run away from a fight but must demonstrate that he/ she does not have an inclination to fight in the first instance: Lord Lane in Bird. This Court of Appeal judge is saying if one were being provoked to fight at first instance but he/ she indicates there was no intention (mens rea) to fight - albeit a risk of it leading to a fight - then the person has the right to fend off any threat using 'reasonable force:' Bird [1985, CA].

Applying law to facts

It is the point of law which is material, not the point of fact but we shall move forward on facts. Steven says this: "Provocation is not, and has not been a defence to assault. Provocation could be a defence to murder due to the strict test for intent." This is erroneous understanding of the law. Provocation as a specific defence and provocation - an inference on the facts - are two independent concepts, one being argued to be a point of law and the other said to be a point of fact.

Steven's English was not clear as to what he meant by pre-emptive strike. Another respondent suggests that Steven meant a pre-emptive strike would stand if there were an aggressor. This wrong as the law states that the would be defender must show his inclination to avoid a fight at first instance so if he were to use a pre-emptive form of defence without demonstrating first a clear indication of his avoidance to fight, any 'reasonable force' defence would fail.

Murder; serious assault. It is not known the amount of reasonable forces which is necessary until the defender his or her self has an opportunity to weigh the level of threat posed, which may not be rigid as the level of threat can change in real time. It is also very difficult to weight up real time events. There is also perception as it may appear to the defender that there is a real threat when there was none. For this reason normally a defence may not have to be reasonable in the court's eyes but merely his own - as only he is qualified to know what is going on before him.

In any event, it does not matter if it were a man, a woman, a boy, or a girl. It neither matters whether it was summary, an either way offence, or an indictable offence. Note you also did not cite the case appropriately, ie you did not use the neutral citation but merely used a reported citation (WLR..LR stand for Law Report as a clue). It shows you really have no clue about law except what is regurgitated to you.

Did I say there was a specific offence called 'provocation?' Before any further comment I'll delay any response on this point. Hmm, didn't I mention the civil and criminal assault, and now you have the audacity to regurgitate back to me? Before I comment further on this point I'll also delay the answer.

On broad point of law, there is no such thing as being 'guilty by association.' So if there were a gang and you were there - this is called circumstantial. Ergo, it does not automatically mean presence alone equates to the same level of criminal liability, which would normally require proof of the actual offence (actus reus) intention (mens rea), and causation. A-level law indeed, you cheeky sod.

On the subject of 'Pre-emptive Strikes'.

Steve's explanation was clear to anyone who knew what one actually was.
You have obviously since gone and looked it up.

If an attack is imminent or immediate then you can use a pre-emptive strike for the purpose of defence. You only need to demonstrate an 'unwillingness to fight' if the situation allows the opportunity. If someone comes at you aggressively and the opportunity to move to a place of safety doesn't present itself, then you don't need to show any 'unwillingness to fight'.

For what it's worth, simply stepping back and raising your hands to signal non-aggression complies with the law completely. So if the aggressor doesn't back down, you can then step forward and bang him out.

If you are in a tight spot, such as a busy bar, then you wouldn't necessarily be able to avoid the confrontation and could therefore throw a pre-emptive strike without showing any kind of avoidance or 'unwillingness to fight'.

I know what a pre-emptive strike is; I am just not particularly au fait with interpreting pigeon English. I did not know what Steven meant as his sentence structure was not exactly commensurate with the thing he endeavoured to convey.

Am guessing my vocabulary is a tad higher than the average graduate – never mind the average lay person's on here.

"...which entails to accessing statutory and case law".

Entails to? Entails to? I've never seen a literate person write that before.

What's pathetic about my name, John?

Huge vocabulary. Just keeps putting the wrong words in the wrong places that's all. An "I" before "am" would be a good start too but hey, babyspeak's fine with me, who am I to judge?

Your vocabulary may be "a tad higher than the average graduate never mind the average lay person's on here." but I think you'll find it's "Pidgin English" as opposed to Pigeon English. Not THAT clever, eh?

After all, I know for a fact that my dad's bigger than your dad.

Dave (#271), soft ollies doesn't think he's Rex Makin, he thinks he's Clarence Darrow.

Also a lot of rumour, speculation and plain old shit-stirring that the kid is... Scumbag... Wannabe gangster etc etc.

Complete opposite. A working lad just out with his girl having a drink.

There is no need to play the 'clique' game either, Mike Green at 262.

"Just keeps putting the wrong words in the wrong places that's all." He does not put his words in the correct place, is better English. It...must be another typo Brent.

Ciarán McClone, hush. Well, you were being a clone – not being able to think for yourself. Get off that proverbial bandwagon or may hurt yourself.

Ray Roche at 266. "but I think you'll find it's "Pidgin English" as opposed to Pigeon English. "Not THAT clever, eh?" You should not start your sentence with a conjunction. It is additionally inappropriate use of grammar where there are omissions of subject, verb, object content. '..I think you'll find that it's Pidgin English. In any event, here is the context: "1876, from pigeon English (1859), the reduced form of language."

I think the persons herein who contribute to the dialogue on this forum really ought to monitor their own grammatical performances prior to any third party critical analysis, especially where the grammar is in absentia in itself.

"The history of pidgin begins in the early 19th century in the South China city of Guangzhou. Chinese merchants interacting with English speakers on the docks in this port adopted and modified the word business in a way that, by century's end, had become pidgin. The word itself then became the descriptor of the unique communication used by people who speak different languages. Pidgins generally consist of small vocabularies (Chinese Pidgin English has only 700 words), but some have grown to become a group's native language. Examples include Sea Island Creole (spoken in South Carolina's Sea Islands), Haitian Creole, and Louisiana Creole. The word pidgin also gave us one particular meaning of pigeon — the one defined as "an object of special concern" or "accepted business or interest," as in "Tennis is not my pigeon."

Have you always been so far up yourself? You're wasted on this site. You should be on a site only you can access. Then you can tug yourself brainless at your own perfection.

I take it your Dad was a toolmaker

Please mate don't encourage him.

You really have made a fool out of yourself here. In trying to sound so clever, you've come across as a total plonker.

As M'Lud says, "It is additionally inappropriate use of grammar where there are omissions of subject, verb, object content".

You're benched, M'Lud.

Jay, please remind me what the significance of that place was. I know I came across it at school but age has erased it. Greek wars. Athens V someone. Damn it's gone. Help, Jay...

In the meantime... get on with it. Sign the damned contract and forget about the shitheads.

I'm not at all narcissistic; I merely presented an idea about Ross to make people look at the other side but it was not meant to be literal. Ross actually seems a nice fella. It is quite amusing though where people are wound up so easily. It is only chat on a screen.

Something is giving me this vibe

Link

I laughed so much I almost gave up my practising cert.

"Am guessing my vocabulary is a tad higher than the average graduate never mind the average lay person's on here."

I've just had to do the Buffalo Bill dance from Silence Of The Lambs to stop a little bit of pish leaking out there. 

Link

Still, I suppose you've at least succeeded in reminding people why it was so easy for anyone even the slightest bit streetwise to get laid on the LPC, when surrounded by a squad of tits so erroneously self-inflated that the only reason they packed umbrellas was probably to prevent Peter Andre popping off all over them.

Not that I don't get any now that I'm married (to a practising barrister: she 'levelled up', John). As Leon put it in 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' (CYE s5 Ep2) : "I gets mine, Larry. I brings the ruckus to the ladies"...err...ok, one lady.

J-Willy: 

Shouting about 'bringing the ruckus to the ladies' could be interpreted as a threatening, abusive and innately insulting representation and, if repeated, could render one prone to a possible public order offence. You primary school simpletons have probably never even heard of the POA though.

Pathetically named lay person:

POA? Planet Of The Apes? All I remember from that film is the big fuck off stone statue of some legal monkey holding a (level 6?) scroll. The Law-Giver! What was the name of that bloke who played him in Battle For The Planet Of The Apes again? John something? John.... John...

J-Willy:

Alright, I might not be Perry Mason per se, but there's no need to take the piss!

That's a hall of fame post right there.

By the way, a barrister is in practice not practise unless he or she were still not very good at what they do. Practise is defined as: "perform (an activity) or exercise (a skill) repeatedly or regularly in order to acquire, improve or maintain proficiency in it." Practice and practise are therefore entirely different.

I don't know what it is with persons who seem to have an enormous chip on their shoulder. It's as though one cannot say something on ToffeeWeb where the 'clique' congregate its forum, pissing to mark out their territory.

When persons allude or expressly state that he or she has studied law, why is there this foreseeable but, of course, largely unjustifiable over reaction? Are people really so superficial that the veneer of their person is so easily shattered, or causing them such personal offence or so affected which leads to a disproportionate over reaction? It is only law for heaven's sake.

'My wife is a barrister in practice.' I mean, who gives a shit ? – she may be a barrister but you're clearly not. This is like me saying I can't fight but my dad can.

Maybe they just like winding you in...

Were you ever a contributor for "Pseuds' Corner" in Private Eye? I used to enjoy that as well. ;-)

I don't think the bourgeois are equipped to have any humour, are predictably so easily offended and instead are likely to behave like spoilt little school children.

Brexit was an obvious example of this but the bourgeois were so out of touch that they could not possibly fathom why the average Joe Blogs would want out of what likely felt like an elite club. I studied EU law – it benefits business and not the average 'working class' communities.

Are you seriously so ill informed that you don't even know a barrister is required to possess an annual Practising Certificate, which they can renew online via an Authorisation to Practise and are required to pay a Practising Certificate Fee?

I mentioned my 'very good at what she does' wife (in the words of your spiritual twin who bedded down in a travel tavern, said "A-Ha" a lot and failed to scrawl a chalk cock on his own back where you admirably just succeeded) purely "for the purposes of a joke".

Otherwise, I could have just pulled a 'J-Willy' and fessed up to having a fucking law degree myself, completing the legal practice course and walking out on a training contract fourteen years ago to (in the words of me arl fella) "wank his life away like the half-arsed Hunter S Thompson of Huyton". Had a foul mouth on him for a 'middle class' member of the 'bourgeoise' didmy old man

"I don't know what it is with persons who seem to have an enormous chip on their shoulder"

Come on now, John. A 'level 6' lid would have to be Stephen fucking Hawking not to spot the dinosaur schlong sized 'DJ Spuddy' dangling off their left shoulder.

A ceiling fan turns slowly, ladies in the public gallery fan themselves.

Clarence Darrow has John Wilson 'on the stand.'

CD: "Could we first clear up the fact that when you use the word 'persons' you mean 'people'?

JW: 'Er...yes, I supp..'

CD: "So why not just SAY people?"

JW: "Well, I..um.."

CD: "Let's move on, in post 299 you state 'No, I suspect it's their middle class/ bourgeois sensitive personalities'?

JW: "Yes."

CD: "So in other words, their sensitive natures make them react, or to be precise, to overreact..correct?"

JW: "Well ye.."

CD: (turns to jury) "So it is they who are oversensitive!"

JW: (tugs collar) "y.e.s"

CD: "Could you speak up Mr Wilson?'

JW: "Yes!"

CD: "So they are sensitive (ponders)...Mr Wilson, who said..'It's as though one cannot say something on ToffeeWeb where the 'clique' congregate its forum, pissing to mark out their territory'?"

JW: "Well look..."

CD: "And remind us who said 'When persons allude or expressly state that he or she has studied law, why is there this foreseeable but of course, largely unjustifiable over reaction'?"

JW: "All I meant..."

CD: (turns to judge) "Your honour this man is making a mockery of this court and I suggest..."

Judge (angrily bangs gavel): "Case dismissed!"

I'll say it again: who gives a shit. I would hope your wife was excellent at what she does – not just good.

I couldn't give a shit for the vocational requirements of your wife or your obsession with yourself and your failure to be a lawyer. All this is just distraction – useless, non sequitur.

Plus I pulled off and replaced some of the stickers...

Generally, the 'hexperts' go on to make a right twat of themselves.

However, time to head off to the match.