Joey Barton spared jail over grossly offensive social media posts

Ex-footballer Joey Barton has been spared jail after sending grossly offensive social media posts about broadcaster Jeremy Vine and TV football pundits Lucy Ward and Eni Aluko.

Last month a jury at Liverpool Crown Court found Barton, 43, had “crossed the line between free speech and a crime” with six posts on X, formerly Twitter.

Following a televised FA Cup tie in January 2024 between Crystal Palace and Everton he likened Ward and Aluko to the “Fred and Rose West of football commentary” and went on to superimpose their faces on to a photograph of the serial murderers.

In another post about Aluko, Barton said: “Only there to tick boxes. DEI is a load of shit. Affirmative action. All off the back of the BLM/George Floyd nonsense.”

Barton repeatedly referred to Vine as “bike nonce” and asked him: “Have you been on Epstein Island? Are you going to be on these flight logs? Might as well own up now because I’d phone the police if I saw you near a primary school on ya bike.”

The ex-Manchester City, Newcastle United and Marseille player – now a social commentator with 2.7 million followers on X –  also tweeted: “Oh @the JeremyVine Did you Rolf-aroo and Schofield go out on a tandem bike ride? You big bike nonce ya.”

Barton was convicted over two further tweets about Vine in which he referred to him as “bike nonce” and said: “If you see this fella by a primary school call 999,” and “Beware Man with Camera on his helmets cruising past primary schools. Call the Cops if spotted.”

He was found not guilty of six other allegations that he sent a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety between January and March 2024.

Jurors cleared Barton, of Widnes, Cheshire, over the commentary analogy with the Wests but ruled the superimposed image was grossly offensive.

Giving evidence, Barton, who managed Fleetwood Town and Bristol Rovers, said he believed he was the victim of a “political prosecution” and denied his aim was “to get clicks and promote himself”.

At Liverpool Crown Court on Monday, Judge Andrew Menary KC sentenced Barton to six months in custody, suspended for 18 months.

Sentencing, the Honorary Recorder of Liverpool, Judge Andrew Menary KC told Barton: “Robust debate, satire, mockery and even crude language may fall within permissible free speech.

“But when posts deliberately target individuals with vilifying comparisons to serial killers or false insinuations of paedophilia, designed to humiliate and distress, they forfeit their protection.

“As the jury concluded, your offences exemplify behaviour that is beyond this limit – amounting to a sustained campaign of online abuse that was not mere commentary but targeted, extreme and deliberately harmful.”

Barton must also complete 200 hours of unpaid work in the community and pay prosecution costs of £23,419.

Two-year restraining orders were issued against each of his victims which includes publishing any reference to them on any social media platform or broadcast medium.

Judge Menary said Barton launched a “racially charged and sexist attack” on Aluko which asserted that a black female broadcaster held her position solely due to her race.

He said the defendant’s comparison of “two respected professional with notorious murderers” was designed to “provoke, outrage, humiliation and fear”.

Barton went on, he said, to target Vine with a “deliberate and escalating campaign” that falsely portrayed the TV and radio presenter as a paedophile and actively encouraged others to regard him as an immediate risk to children.

Judge Menary said: “All of these posts were obviously grossly offensive and it is plain that each of your victims experienced very substantial distress and anxiety as a direct consequence of your actions.”

In a victim personal statement read by prosecutors to the court, Aluko said the comparison with Fred and Rose West was “disgusting and malicious” and that she had been afraid to leave her home since the posts.

It had led to her cancelling engagements and hiring security in fear for the safety of herself and her family, she said.

Ward said she had been “deeply affected” and the “incessant bullying” by the defendant had “nearly destroyed me doing the job I love”.

She added: “The emotional toll suffered is profound. I have lost sleep and been overwhelmed by anxiety and shame even though I have done absolutely nothing wrong.”

In his victim personal statement, Vine said Barton had “launched attack after attack on my good name because of some imagined slight”.

He too feared for his safety and that of his family, could not sleep for months and felt he needed to “issue some corrective” to colleagues and friends about the accusations.

Vine said: “It took a long time before I could laugh and hold my head up again.

“He (Barton) is a small man who feeds off the pain of others.

“I would describe his actions as profoundly traumatising.”

Simon Csoka KC, defending, said a pre-sentence report had detailed how Barton had showed a “substantial amount of insight into his behaviour and a substantial amount of contrition”.

He said: “The defendant now understands how powerful and damaging words are.

“He fully understands the restraining orders are there for a good reason. He also understands that they will serve as a constant reminder to him of going too far on social media.”

Character references were provided to the court for the father-of-four by his wife, mother, grandmother and sister which “paint a very different picture of Mr Barton”, said his barrister.

Mr Csoka added: “Perhaps they show an appreciation by his family of what he has achieved despite a difficult upbringing.

“They show the man he often is but, I accept, not the man he always is, but it does show how he can learn and develop.”

Judge Menary noted that Barton had told the author of the pre-sentence report he had taken steps to “moderate” his online behaviour.

He told the defendant: “In light of the steps you have taken I am persuaded that there is some prospect of rehabilitation, that an immediate custodial sentence is not required to protect either the public or the victims, and that a suspended sentence order may itself operate as a deterrent against any future offending.”