[Football] Joey Barton

[Cordwainer]

He really is the gift that keeps on giving..classic thicko schtick..uses way too many words to convey his idiotic thoughts, doesn’t know the difference between their, there etc. Just a continuation of his obnoxious to the core personality, which has been evident throughout his ‘career’.

 

[Springal]

posting at 5:55am on a Sunday ….
Hmmmm

 

[schmunk]

Poor comparison.

Huge difference to a player making a single big mistake in a split second in the middle of a proper game.

Aluku knew exactly what she was being asked to do and managed to monumentally f*** it up multiple times in a short period. Regardless of editing etc

It's worth noting that this is also Eni Aluko, scoring multiple goals in actual pressure situations...

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I agree with this in principle but I differ slightly regarding “ the fools who read and repeat conspiracy theories”. The ones I have come across seem thick and gullible and unable to (critically) think for themselves, as opposed to have mental health issues. Genuine question, is there a focus on critical thinking directly or indirectly in UK schools?

I can tell you that at a supposedly elite university here, we play lip service to it but most of the training and assessment is rote learning. I suspect that critical thinking is itself taught mostly as a recipe. I try to teach critical thinking at level 7 (MSc) and at PhD level, and am pleased that more than half the students can approach the exercises reasonably well, but it is all quite alien to them at first. And the other half simply don't engage.

In life in general it is more than possible to get by with little more than a superficial understanding of everything beyond the skill set needed to earn a crust, feed and clothe ones self and pay the bills. I know people who clam up or mock any engagement with thinking, and all opinions are second hand and superficial. I know someone (who buys the Daily Star) who once told me they were 'against' the EU, but it took me literally 20 seconds to persuade them to vote remain. A horribly large number of people don't really know and don't really care about most things.

To be fair, it is quite good fun leading off with an unsubstantiated opinion, but it is much better if you are prepared to consider evidence that may show that you are wrong. The very idea of this is anathema to many. Maybe most.

 

[Baldseagull]

I laid it on a bit thick in my post to make a point. I wasn't ever actually racist. In my line of work, academic drug research, it is global. That said we are aware that people from a certain country have a reputation of being able to generate any data that fits in with what the boss 'wants' (which sadly makes them 'good workers' in the eyes of some). People from another country have a reputation for being unreliable and unproductive. We are talking about actual foreigners here, not British citizens of diverse heritage. I personally only employ Brits (of diverse heritage). My experience with Brits is that heritage is irrelevant. And simply as a consequence of who has applied, 95% of my former PhD students are women.

However the point I wanted to make is that it can be very easy to develop antibodies in response to the way someone talks. When I started my PhD, we had regular guest lecturers. When one bloke started his talk, his English was quite poor, and I sort of slumped in my seat. Afterwards my supervisor called me an 'arrogant ****' with the good fortune of having his own language as the lingua franca of science. I gave my head a wobble and have tried ever since to listen to what people are saying rather than how they are saying it. I do carry some confirmation biases, but it is possible to learn to override them.

In my workplace recruitment is done by the book, with set questions at interview and, for studentships, even removal of trigger data (such as the identity of the applicant's previous institution so we don't let the oxbridge bias influence shortlisting). We once tried to create schemes to recruit students (into BSc programmes) from deprived backgrounds, but this was dropped when those students failed to thrive. One, unfortunately, went to the press accusing my institute of racism. She had failed her exams multiple times. She brought no case against my institution, and simply went to the press. Not very helpful. I favour access for all, but at a certain point you cross the rubicon that separates 'different' from 'underqualified'. To quote Peter Cook, "You have almost all the attributes to play the part of Tarzan. Your left leg is a wonderful leg. I have nothing against it. The problem is, neither do you" .

I have read a large enough amount of your posts to know you are generally a fair minded person.
There is a problem with higher education in that you can't just parachute a kid that has had a poorer education in, or a kid that has not done much independent learning before, and expect them to catch themselves up.
Do you think that those kids from deprived backgrounds were of insufficient intelligence to thrive, or were just too far behind at that point to thrive, or maybe needed a little more help financially, so they were as well supported as those kids whose parents could pay their rent, make sure they had enough to eat etc?
I know sometimes people see racism where there was none, but I also know people don't always see it where it exists. The girl that complained to the press clearly went about it in the wrong way, but I wouldn't like to say that means she didn't experience any, or was not a part of why she failed.
I do understand that not every person has the intellect to attain the highest qualifications, and that some lack the work ethic, just because that is their nature and not because they have never been encouraged. I refuse to believe that someone that has had a poor start can't be helped though.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

It might be brinkmanship, but legal action would appear to be what he actually wants. He also seems to be developing something of a siege mentality.

This is his Sunday message, complete with veiled threats ('I don’t want to have to exhume some bodies'), but ends with a presumably disingenuous #namaste.

If I understand Barton’s message correctly, he believes he has knowledge of some extra-marital affairs, between footballers/ ex-footballers and women working in sports media - and that he thinks pointing this out should warn off people from challenging his misogyny, and other unpalatable views?

Given nothing he seems to be accusing anyone of is against the law, is he not literally threatening to commit blackmail?


Also - who are his ‘employers’?

 

[Eric the meek]

posting at 5:55am on a Sunday ….
Hmmmm

Indeed. It would have taken him a while to draft that, edit it a few times, put the finishing touches to it etc, so he was probably up in the wee small hours.

He is very wound up, and has brought it all on himself.

 

[Eric the meek]

If I understand Barton’s message correctly, he believes he has knowledge of some extra-marital affairs, between footballers/ ex-footballers and women working in sports media - and that he thinks pointing this out should warn off people from challenging his misogyny, and other unpalatable views?

Given nothing he seems to be accusing anyone of is against the law, is he not literally threatening to commit blackmail?


Also - who are his ‘employers’?

You could be right about the blackmail, but I really have no idea; I'll leave that up to legal experts.

As for his employers (and sponsors), I would imagine they are endangered species.

 

[Seagull58]

If I understand Barton’s message correctly, he believes he has knowledge of some extra-marital affairs, between footballers/ ex-footballers and women working in sports media - and that he thinks pointing this out should warn off people from challenging his misogyny, and other unpalatable views?

Given nothing he seems to be accusing anyone of is against the law, is he not literally threatening to commit blackmail?


Also - who are his ‘employers’?

"employer's" to be totally accurate
Who are his "sponsors"?

 

[Algernon]

posting at 5:55am on a Sunday ….
Hmmmm

Might just be a night owl or possibly might even be coked off his tits.
We'll never know.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

“I don’t want to have to exhume some bodies. I also, don’t blame you using your sexuality to get an advantage. It’s a big tool and everyone should use all there tools wisely in the game of life.”

I’ve lost all respect for him.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

It might be brinkmanship, but legal action would appear to be what he actually wants. He also seems to be developing something of a siege mentality.

This is his Sunday message, complete with veiled threats ('I don’t want to have to exhume some bodies'), but ends with a presumably disingenuous #namaste.

That post is just strange.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

That post is just strange.

Barton disappearing down a rabbit hole of his own making. Clearly having a psychotic episode. Badly needs help, for the protection of himself and others

 

[GloryDays]

He sounds like an incel.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I have read a large enough amount of your posts to know you are generally a fair minded person.
There is a problem with higher education in that you can't just parachute a kid that has had a poorer education in, or a kid that has not done much independent learning before, and expect them to catch themselves up.
Do you think that those kids from deprived backgrounds were of insufficient intelligence to thrive, or were just too far behind at that point to thrive, or maybe needed a little more help financially, so they were as well supported as those kids whose parents could pay their rent, make sure they had enough to eat etc?
I know sometimes people see racism where there was none, but I also know people don't always see it where it exists. The girl that complained to the press clearly went about it in the wrong way, but I wouldn't like to say that means she didn't experience any, or was not a part of why she failed.
I do understand that not every person has the intellect to attain the highest qualifications, and that some lack the work ethic, just because that is their nature and not because they have never been encouraged. I refuse to believe that someone that has had a poor start can't be helped though.

We have moved away from discussing what some call positive discrimination. Very good questions and points though. In short, yes, we did effectively parachute them in, giving them an extra foundation year, and hoping for the best.

I think that the idea of lowering the entrance requirements to take into account social deprivation is an idea worth testing. My understanding of our scheme was to make it school-driven, particularly focused on local schools (Lambeth, Southwark and the other one). The premise was that the grade bar could be lowered (I think we require three As, two at A* level to get into medicine) if the school could make a case that the student was exceptional (see our entry requirements) and was failing to hit their expected grades because, for example, they had to work part time to support their single parent, or they had a chaotic home life because dad was an alcoholic and in and out of jail, etc.. Done on a case by case basis. I should note here that I teach different types of science student including medics who do an intercalated degree - I am a PhD not a medic.

This was not a scheme to target any specific minority (despite the way it was reported online and in some newspapers). The programme was specifically targetted at social deprivation.

So one problem is that there is an assumption that the student will thrive at uni despite having A level grades lower than the cohort. minimum. We have a mitigated circumstances system that allows students to apply to redo exercises, get more time in exams, delay submissions etc. The system certainly worked for some even if they did take 9 years to complete a 6 year programme.

I am quite conflicted over 'positive discrimination' for several reasons. Yes, I think that people should not be automatically excluded from a course/career because their social deprivation precludes meeting the entry requirements. However, with no record of attainment how can it be assumed the person will thrive? As you rightly intimate, the deprivation that hitherto precluded attainment must be resolved or we are setting the person up to fail.

I may also argue that ensuring everyone gets an equal opportunity is right and proper. But in his case should this not be the job of the schools and social services, creating an environment that means the student will get the necessary A level grades? The university initiative (and it came from my institution, not HMG) seems wrong headed in that it is lowering entry requirements based on social deprivation without any way of knowing that the student will improve attainment sufficiently to survive in the uni system once they get in. The extra help given is simply more time to complete the foundation training. Medical training is elite training and you need to be elite to get through the training. In the end, to be a safe practitioner you need to show you have met the standards set by the training and assessment. If the student enters the course without having ever met an elite standard....what chance have they of succeeding? Without the social deprivation being fixed I can't see how success can be expected.

I would also add that some people are simply not cut out for certain jobs. I didn't apply to study medicine because I knew I could not cope with the responsibility of a person's life in my hands. Especially a child's. I could not bare to face the pain and suffering of humans on a daily basis. Many years later I discovered I am autistic, and I am very comfortable with the knowledge, and not at all resentful that this excludes me from certain types of work. I find it very stressful being 'responsible' for PhD students, but despite that I have supervised more than a dozen and they all did well. However I do feel discriminated against to an extent, because the sort of management and communication cockwomblery that ends up on the bellcheeses at work thread stressed the crap out of me, and it could easily be circumvented if people prepared their communications better. After all we are controlled by law now to ensure that teaching material is accessible to the hard of hearing, colour blind and dyslexic student. What about the autistic, who can't untangle ambiguity in imprecise instructions, and who struggle completing big repetitive and pointless forms (like the ones I have to complete to capture all my hours in a time and motion exercise)? I accept I am not cut out for certain leadership roles, but there is no need for my life to be made a misery just so some other twat can say they have ticked a box.

 

[Berty23]

The research shows that kids who go to independent school who get the same grades as those from state school get worse degrees. It stands to reason that those from deprived backgrounds who don’t have access to personal tutors etc who just miss the grades have greater potential.

Some grammar schools in Birmingham set a lower mark for deprived kids at the eleven plus than for the others. The others typically get coached to pass the eleven plus (a thriving industry) so again it makes sense. Obviously the middle class parents complain because they say this is not acting as a meritocracy. Weirdly they can’t see that people who receive extra coaching might not be better, they just have help. If it was a true meritocracy then they would not need to pay thousands to get their kids coached because they would be good enough anyway. What they actually mean is that they should be able to buy an advantage for their kids so they can pretend their kids are better. The irony is that these parents then moan when kids from independent schools get access to opportunities they don’t as state school kids. Suddenly buying advantage is unfair. Odd.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

We have moved away from discussing what some call positive discrimination. Very good questions and points though. In short, yes, we did effectively parachute them in, giving them an extra foundation year, and hoping for the best.

I think that the idea of lowering the entrance requirements to take into account social deprivation is an idea worth testing. My understanding of our scheme was to make it school-driven, particularly focused on local schools (Lambeth, Southwark and the other one). The premise was that the grade bar could be lowered (I think we require three As, two at A* level to get into medicine) if the school could make a case that the student was exceptional (see our entry requirements) and was failing to hit their expected grades because, for example, they had to work part time to support their single parent, or they had a chaotic home life because dad was an alcoholic and in and out of jail, etc.. Done on a case by case basis. I should note here that I teach different types of science student including medics who do an intercalated degree - I am a PhD not a medic.

This was not a scheme to target any specific minority (despite the way it was reported online and in some newspapers). The programme was specifically targetted at social deprivation.

So one problem is that there is an assumption that the student will thrive at uni despite having A level grades lower than the cohort. minimum. We have a mitigated circumstances system that allows students to apply to redo exercises, get more time in exams, delay submissions etc. The system certainly worked for some even if they did take 9 years to complete a 6 year programme.

I am quite conflicted over 'positive discrimination' for several reasons. Yes, I think that people should not be automatically excluded from a course/career because their social deprivation precludes meeting the entry requirements. However, with no record of attainment how can it be assumed the person will thrive? As you rightly intimate, the deprivation that hitherto precluded attainment must be resolved or we are setting the person up to fail.

I may also argue that ensuring everyone gets an equal opportunity is right and proper. But in his case should this not be the job of the schools and social services, creating an environment that means the student will get the necessary A level grades? The university initiative (and it came from my institution, not HMG) seems wrong headed in that it is lowering entry requirements based on social deprivation without any way of knowing that the student will improve attainment sufficiently to survive in the uni system once they get in. The extra help given is simply more time to complete the foundation training. Medical training is elite training and you need to be elite to get through the training. In the end, to be a safe practitioner you need to show you have met the standards set by the training and assessment. If the student enters the course without having ever met an elite standard....what chance have they of succeeding? Without the social deprivation being fixed I can't see how success can be expected.

I would also add that some people are simply not cut out for certain jobs. I didn't apply to study medicine because I knew I could not cope with the responsibility of a person's life in my hands. Especially a child's. I could not bare to face the pain and suffering of humans on a daily basis. Many years later I discovered I am autistic, and I am very comfortable with the knowledge, and not at all resentful that this excludes me from certain types of work. I find it very stressful being 'responsible' for PhD students, but despite that I have supervised more than a dozen and they all did well. However I do feel discriminated against to an extent, because the sort of management and communication cockwomblery that ends up on the bellcheeses at work thread stressed the crap out of me, and it could easily be circumvented if people prepared their communications better. After all we are controlled by law now to ensure that teaching material is accessible to the hard of hearing, colour blind and dyslexic student. What about the autistic, who can't untangle ambiguity in imprecise instructions, and who struggle completing big repetitive and pointless forms (like the ones I have to complete to capture all my hours in a time and motion exercise)? I accept I am not cut out for certain leadership roles, but there is no need for my life to be made a misery just so some other twat can say they have ticked a box.

TL;DR (and nowt to do with the subject of the thread ie the philosopher and art historian Joseph 'Joey' Barton)

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

TL;DR (and nowt to do with the subject of the thread ie the philosopher and art historian Joseph 'Joey' Barton)

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Eric the meek]

Take a look at the incredible tidying mouse in the clip below. This mouse has a life lesson for Joey Barton.

He/she is more productive, has a greater sense of community and is more at ease with his/her place in this world, than Joey Barton will ever experience.
Note that there is no bitterness towards other animals who create the mess or who are better at tidying up. That mouse is a happy mouse.

Mouse filmed tidying up man's shed every night

Retired postman Rodney Holbrook never expected to capture a Ratatouille-style scene in his own shed.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Rookie]

Might just be a night owl or possibly might even be coked off his tits.
We'll never know.

No big conspiracy, he’s on holiday. Quite why he wants to be wasting his time on Twitter while on holiday with his family is another question though