I don't think it's anything to celebrate tbh, I don't like a lot of the stuff Joey Barton says, but, Jeremy Vine purposely looks to antagonise members of the public/drivers for Internet clout. It's two insufferable people in a face-off, and neither should be celebrated or rooted for in my eyes.
I also think it's quite dangerous territory that something as petty as calling someone a 'bike nonce' or whatever other weird comment he has made towards him, which literally doesn't make any sense, has warranted a fine of 75 thousand pounds. I have seen people suffer far less for way worse.
There were actually several other messages as well as the "bike nonce" one, it wasn't a one off thing there was definitely the deliberate attempt to call Vine a paedophile without actually saying it - and this is not just my opinion, it was a court ruling.
More importantly Barton's defence was more or less "it's just banter" (except wrapped up in suitably legalese terminology) and it was quite rightly slapped down as nonsense, which is a precedent that needed setting.
I'm no fan of Vine at all but you don't get to do what Barton did just because the other person is a dickhead, that's not how it works.
Irrespective, they're just words, and if they aren't true, who cares. 75k is absolutely nonsense over some playground remarks made between two adults.
I also truthfully couldn't care for what's ruled in courts, there have been plenty of occasions where courts have been completely wrong, and not served true justice imo, speaking as a victim and witness. I don't take what is ruled in court as gospel or a correct decision for every outcome, that would be naive of me.
It's an absurd amount of money and opens up for people like Vine, to antagonise the general public knowing they have full protection of any counter measures, even childish insults.
We are seeing a growing trend of people using platforms like tiktok, YouTube and Instagram to do antagonising or attention seeking acts on members of the public for online trend, court rulings like this just encourage those types more imo with that level of protection. That's my concern.
You wouldn't care if someone commented again and again on your YouTube videos, making accusations as serious as the ones Barton posted about?
It's a lot more harmful than "they're just words" and "playground remarks".
Why would I let a comment that isn't the truth bother me? It's a word on the Internet. I've been called slurs because of my alias, all sorts, none of it bothers me as it isn't the truth.
A serious accusation is someone saying something along the lines of they've seen me doing x activity and providing that information to the law or in the eyes of the public. Someone coming on my YouTube video and typing something like 'football vlog nonce' would just be ridiculous and nonsense.
It's kind of besides my original point now anyway and going off track, which is that IF people who go around sticking cameras in people's faces and creating a rod can decide how offending a comment is, it gives them serious power to do what they want on a camera (to an extent) to members of the public with 0 repercussions.
Complicated subject, but my belief is it doesn't warrant a 75k fine, and could lead down a very tricky path.
Sorry but this an absolutely incorrect take. Just wildly out of step with reality and law. Jeremy Vine is a public figure, he has 786,000 followers on Twitter, has 6.8 million people listen to his radio show and had over 13.3m viewers of his Channel 5 show. It's not just words and playground remarks when you're that famous, if you don't address the comments then perception becomes reality in people's minds and it can affect you personally, socially and monetarily. Defamation law requires that a person be defamed in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or damages their reputation. Barton calling Vine a 'raving bacon' and saying 'if you see this fella by a primary school call 999' as well as asking 'Did you, Rolf-aroo and Schofield go out on a tandem bike ride?' is a serious accusation. He wrote 'Elvis was a Nonce As well' and '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.' There's lots more, all in all Barton wrote 14 defamatory tweets all based on some pretty horrific untrue claims that any reasonable person would see as defamatory. He linked Vine to Jimmy Savile and Jeffrey Epstein for God's sake. The tweets got increasingly libellous and had the serious possibility of massively reducing Vine's reputation and with it his viewership and therefore his job prospects if he didn't challenge those posts. Barton has 2.8m Twitter followers, do you seriously think that if Vine stayed quiet and just rolled his eyes there wouldn't be plenty of people who would accept the unchallenged view put forward by Barton? Of course they would. Also, I don't think we need to worry about a very tricky path. Defamation law has been a thing since the 1200s, Barton getting done for being openly libellous and suffering the consequences isn't going to cause even a ripple in the wider framework of the law, just look at Colleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy for an example about just how difficult it is to win a case where you can't prove proper damages or truth as a total defence. The only wider discussion to come from this really is the fact it's been reported so widely as just a case where Barton called Vine 'bike nonce' rather than the horrendous accusations he made about him being more thoroughly reported on.
So it's ok to call people a nonce, as long as they're not famous? What do followings etc have to do with anything generally speaking, if we are talking about freedom of speech. Defamation by its definition doesn't only apply to people with a big following, so why the need to mention both parties followings. I understand you're probably using the numbers, to show the impact it could have on a wider audience, compared to two ''normal'' people, but that in itself seems like a bit of selective outrage to me. Would Vine be as bothered had it been a ''no profile'' making the same remarks? Probably not. Would the spectators care as much if it was a random twitter profile, probably not.
Quite ironic anyway, as most people on here clearly think Barton is a moron, a lot of people on social media do, and know most of what he says probably isn't true, yet his words seems to carry so much weight and significance that Vine had no choice but to take it to court, and now people are celebrating his court loss?
Anyway, I'll take a step back from this thread, I am spending too much of my time talking about two blokes I don't care about, and what my original view was, has been completely lost. Which was can this be heavily exploited in this day and age depending on someones financial situation/social media clout. Especially with the access to engage among celebrities. Anyway, there's no outcome here where my opinion on this can change, and vice versa, so it's not a good use of time.
No more replies from me on this topic, without sounding arrogant, enjoy your day all
Edit: & just to be clear, I genuinely understand the majority of every quoted post at me, I just have a different train of thought is all and don't want to bicker about it all.
I don't think Garymanilow really said that, did he?
I don't think it's anything to celebrate tbh, I don't like a lot of the stuff Joey Barton says, but, Jeremy Vine purposely looks to antagonise members of the public/drivers for Internet clout. It's two insufferable people in a face-off, and neither should be celebrated or rooted for in my eyes.
I also think it's quite dangerous territory that something as petty as calling someone a 'bike nonce' or whatever other weird comment he has made towards him, which literally doesn't make any sense, has warranted a fine of 75 thousand pounds. I have seen people suffer far less for way worse.
There were actually several other messages as well as the "bike nonce" one, it wasn't a one off thing there was definitely the deliberate attempt to call Vine a paedophile without actually saying it - and this is not just my opinion, it was a court ruling.
More importantly Barton's defence was more or less "it's just banter" (except wrapped up in suitably legalese terminology) and it was quite rightly slapped down as nonsense, which is a precedent that needed setting.
I'm no fan of Vine at all but you don't get to do what Barton did just because the other person is a dickhead, that's not how it works.
Irrespective, they're just words, and if they aren't true, who cares. 75k is absolutely nonsense over some playground remarks made between two adults.
I also truthfully couldn't care for what's ruled in courts, there have been plenty of occasions where courts have been completely wrong, and not served true justice imo, speaking as a victim and witness. I don't take what is ruled in court as gospel or a correct decision for every outcome, that would be naive of me.
It's an absurd amount of money and opens up for people like Vine, to antagonise the general public knowing they have full protection of any counter measures, even childish insults.
We are seeing a growing trend of people using platforms like tiktok, YouTube and Instagram to do antagonising or attention seeking acts on members of the public for online trend, court rulings like this just encourage those types more imo with that level of protection. That's my concern.
You wouldn't care if someone commented again and again on your YouTube videos, making accusations as serious as the ones Barton posted about?
It's a lot more harmful than "they're just words" and "playground remarks".
Why would I let a comment that isn't the truth bother me? It's a word on the Internet. I've been called slurs because of my alias, all sorts, none of it bothers me as it isn't the truth.
A serious accusation is someone saying something along the lines of they've seen me doing x activity and providing that information to the law or in the eyes of the public. Someone coming on my YouTube video and typing something like 'football vlog nonce' would just be ridiculous and nonsense.
It's kind of besides my original point now anyway and going off track, which is that IF people who go around sticking cameras in people's faces and creating a rod can decide how offending a comment is, it gives them serious power to do what they want on a camera (to an extent) to members of the public with 0 repercussions.
Complicated subject, but my belief is it doesn't warrant a 75k fine, and could lead down a very tricky path.
Sorry but this an absolutely incorrect take. Just wildly out of step with reality and law. Jeremy Vine is a public figure, he has 786,000 followers on Twitter, has 6.8 million people listen to his radio show and had over 13.3m viewers of his Channel 5 show. It's not just words and playground remarks when you're that famous, if you don't address the comments then perception becomes reality in people's minds and it can affect you personally, socially and monetarily. Defamation law requires that a person be defamed in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or damages their reputation. Barton calling Vine a 'raving bacon' and saying 'if you see this fella by a primary school call 999' as well as asking 'Did you, Rolf-aroo and Schofield go out on a tandem bike ride?' is a serious accusation. He wrote 'Elvis was a Nonce As well' and '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.' There's lots more, all in all Barton wrote 14 defamatory tweets all based on some pretty horrific untrue claims that any reasonable person would see as defamatory. He linked Vine to Jimmy Savile and Jeffrey Epstein for God's sake. The tweets got increasingly libellous and had the serious possibility of massively reducing Vine's reputation and with it his viewership and therefore his job prospects if he didn't challenge those posts. Barton has 2.8m Twitter followers, do you seriously think that if Vine stayed quiet and just rolled his eyes there wouldn't be plenty of people who would accept the unchallenged view put forward by Barton? Of course they would. Also, I don't think we need to worry about a very tricky path. Defamation law has been a thing since the 1200s, Barton getting done for being openly libellous and suffering the consequences isn't going to cause even a ripple in the wider framework of the law, just look at Colleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy for an example about just how difficult it is to win a case where you can't prove proper damages or truth as a total defence. The only wider discussion to come from this really is the fact it's been reported so widely as just a case where Barton called Vine 'bike nonce' rather than the horrendous accusations he made about him being more thoroughly reported on.
So it's ok to call people a nonce, as long as they're not famous? What do followings etc have to do with anything generally speaking, if we are talking about freedom of speech. Defamation by its definition doesn't only apply to people with a big following, so why the need to mention both parties followings. I understand you're probably using the numbers, to show the impact it could have on a wider audience, compared to two ''normal'' people, but that in itself seems like a bit of selective outrage to me. Would Vine be as bothered had it been a ''no profile'' making the same remarks? Probably not. Would the spectators care as much if it was a random twitter profile, probably not.
Quite ironic anyway, as most people on here clearly think Barton is a moron, a lot of people on social media do, and know most of what he says probably isn't true, yet his words seems to carry so much weight and significance that Vine had no choice but to take it to court, and now people are celebrating his court loss?
Anyway, I'll take a step back from this thread, I am spending too much of my time talking about two blokes I don't care about, and what my original view was, has been completely lost. Which was can this be heavily exploited in this day and age depending on someones financial situation/social media clout. Especially with the access to engage among celebrities. Anyway, there's no outcome here where my opinion on this can change, and vice versa, so it's not a good use of time.
No more replies from me on this topic, without sounding arrogant, enjoy your day all
Edit: & just to be clear, I genuinely understand the majority of every quoted post at me, I just have a different train of thought is all and don't want to bicker about it all.
No, it's not ok to call people a nonce if they're not famous, but as you can quite clearly see I didn't say that so not quite sure why you've written it. Anyway. Followings have everything to do with the issue of defamation, which is what the case is about. As I quoted before, whether or not something is defamatory is defined based on its potential to cause loss of reputation and/or loss of earnings. When you're a person whose viewership is dependent on you keeping your job - Vine's shows will be cancelled if no-one tunes in because they think he's a paedophile based on Barton's statements and he won't get future jobs in media - then both those tests are met. Barton having a huge number of followers means that the likelihood of his posts being seen and potentially being believed is exponentially greater than if he had 1, which means it's more likely Vine will suffer reputational or financial loss as a result of them. That's just basic defamation law. If you called me a nonce on here then given that I'm not very identifiable and I wouldn't really be able to prove that I've suffered any reputational loss in my personal life or any financial loss as a result of it either I'd be unlikely to win any damages at all. Would still be quite rude though.
It's true that defamation law can be exploited, but this has been the case for decades; wealthy businessmen, newspapers and celebrities will regularly use the fact they can bleed someone dry with a drawn-out court case to silence people who point out bad things they have done knowing that they don't have the money to do anything other than acquiesce and publicly apologise. It's not anything new that's been brought on by the Barton case so I don't think this is exactly the one to take a hand-wringing stance on when in fact it's a cut and dried case of Barton libelling someone. I'm troubled that you feel your opinion can't be changed because the issue here is clearly that your knowledge of the law isn't really sufficient for you to really engage with why it's so important that Vine intervene here and why this is actually a perfectly good example of using defamation law for its intended purpose and absolutely nothing new in the world of libel. There's no slippery slope here, it's a bloke with a large following making specific, clear statements that are factually untrue about another person and causing him loss. There's just really nothing there that's 'dangerous territory', I think you just don't like Jeremy Vine very much. That's fine, you don't have to, but he still falls under the protections of tort law I'm afraid.
I don't think it's anything to celebrate tbh, I don't like a lot of the stuff Joey Barton says, but, Jeremy Vine purposely looks to antagonise members of the public/drivers for Internet clout. It's two insufferable people in a face-off, and neither should be celebrated or rooted for in my eyes.
I also think it's quite dangerous territory that something as petty as calling someone a 'bike nonce' or whatever other weird comment he has made towards him, which literally doesn't make any sense, has warranted a fine of 75 thousand pounds. I have seen people suffer far less for way worse.
There were actually several other messages as well as the "bike nonce" one, it wasn't a one off thing there was definitely the deliberate attempt to call Vine a paedophile without actually saying it - and this is not just my opinion, it was a court ruling.
More importantly Barton's defence was more or less "it's just banter" (except wrapped up in suitably legalese terminology) and it was quite rightly slapped down as nonsense, which is a precedent that needed setting.
I'm no fan of Vine at all but you don't get to do what Barton did just because the other person is a dickhead, that's not how it works.
Irrespective, they're just words, and if they aren't true, who cares. 75k is absolutely nonsense over some playground remarks made between two adults.
I also truthfully couldn't care for what's ruled in courts, there have been plenty of occasions where courts have been completely wrong, and not served true justice imo, speaking as a victim and witness. I don't take what is ruled in court as gospel or a correct decision for every outcome, that would be naive of me.
It's an absurd amount of money and opens up for people like Vine, to antagonise the general public knowing they have full protection of any counter measures, even childish insults.
We are seeing a growing trend of people using platforms like tiktok, YouTube and Instagram to do antagonising or attention seeking acts on members of the public for online trend, court rulings like this just encourage those types more imo with that level of protection. That's my concern.
You wouldn't care if someone commented again and again on your YouTube videos, making accusations as serious as the ones Barton posted about?
It's a lot more harmful than "they're just words" and "playground remarks".
Why would I let a comment that isn't the truth bother me? It's a word on the Internet. I've been called slurs because of my alias, all sorts, none of it bothers me as it isn't the truth.
A serious accusation is someone saying something along the lines of they've seen me doing x activity and providing that information to the law or in the eyes of the public. Someone coming on my YouTube video and typing something like 'football vlog nonce' would just be ridiculous and nonsense.
It's kind of besides my original point now anyway and going off track, which is that IF people who go around sticking cameras in people's faces and creating a rod can decide how offending a comment is, it gives them serious power to do what they want on a camera (to an extent) to members of the public with 0 repercussions.
Complicated subject, but my belief is it doesn't warrant a 75k fine, and could lead down a very tricky path.
Sorry but this an absolutely incorrect take. Just wildly out of step with reality and law. Jeremy Vine is a public figure, he has 786,000 followers on Twitter, has 6.8 million people listen to his radio show and had over 13.3m viewers of his Channel 5 show. It's not just words and playground remarks when you're that famous, if you don't address the comments then perception becomes reality in people's minds and it can affect you personally, socially and monetarily. Defamation law requires that a person be defamed in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or damages their reputation. Barton calling Vine a 'raving bacon' and saying 'if you see this fella by a primary school call 999' as well as asking 'Did you, Rolf-aroo and Schofield go out on a tandem bike ride?' is a serious accusation. He wrote 'Elvis was a Nonce As well' and '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.' There's lots more, all in all Barton wrote 14 defamatory tweets all based on some pretty horrific untrue claims that any reasonable person would see as defamatory. He linked Vine to Jimmy Savile and Jeffrey Epstein for God's sake. The tweets got increasingly libellous and had the serious possibility of massively reducing Vine's reputation and with it his viewership and therefore his job prospects if he didn't challenge those posts. Barton has 2.8m Twitter followers, do you seriously think that if Vine stayed quiet and just rolled his eyes there wouldn't be plenty of people who would accept the unchallenged view put forward by Barton? Of course they would. Also, I don't think we need to worry about a very tricky path. Defamation law has been a thing since the 1200s, Barton getting done for being openly libellous and suffering the consequences isn't going to cause even a ripple in the wider framework of the law, just look at Colleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy for an example about just how difficult it is to win a case where you can't prove proper damages or truth as a total defence. The only wider discussion to come from this really is the fact it's been reported so widely as just a case where Barton called Vine 'bike nonce' rather than the horrendous accusations he made about him being more thoroughly reported on.
So it's ok to call people a nonce, as long as they're not famous? What do followings etc have to do with anything generally speaking, if we are talking about freedom of speech. Defamation by its definition doesn't only apply to people with a big following, so why the need to mention both parties followings. I understand you're probably using the numbers, to show the impact it could have on a wider audience, compared to two ''normal'' people, but that in itself seems like a bit of selective outrage to me. Would Vine be as bothered had it been a ''no profile'' making the same remarks? Probably not. Would the spectators care as much if it was a random twitter profile, probably not.
Quite ironic anyway, as most people on here clearly think Barton is a moron, a lot of people on social media do, and know most of what he says probably isn't true, yet his words seems to carry so much weight and significance that Vine had no choice but to take it to court, and now people are celebrating his court loss?
Anyway, I'll take a step back from this thread, I am spending too much of my time talking about two blokes I don't care about, and what my original view was, has been completely lost. Which was can this be heavily exploited in this day and age depending on someones financial situation/social media clout. Especially with the access to engage among celebrities. Anyway, there's no outcome here where my opinion on this can change, and vice versa, so it's not a good use of time.
No more replies from me on this topic, without sounding arrogant, enjoy your day all
Edit: & just to be clear, I genuinely understand the majority of every quoted post at me, I just have a different train of thought is all and don't want to bicker about it all.
I don't think it's anything to celebrate tbh, I don't like a lot of the stuff Joey Barton says, but, Jeremy Vine purposely looks to antagonise members of the public/drivers for Internet clout. It's two insufferable people in a face-off, and neither should be celebrated or rooted for in my eyes.
I also think it's quite dangerous territory that something as petty as calling someone a 'bike nonce' or whatever other weird comment he has made towards him, which literally doesn't make any sense, has warranted a fine of 75 thousand pounds. I have seen people suffer far less for way worse.
There were actually several other messages as well as the "bike nonce" one, it wasn't a one off thing there was definitely the deliberate attempt to call Vine a paedophile without actually saying it - and this is not just my opinion, it was a court ruling.
More importantly Barton's defence was more or less "it's just banter" (except wrapped up in suitably legalese terminology) and it was quite rightly slapped down as nonsense, which is a precedent that needed setting.
I'm no fan of Vine at all but you don't get to do what Barton did just because the other person is a dickhead, that's not how it works.
Irrespective, they're just words, and if they aren't true, who cares. 75k is absolutely nonsense over some playground remarks made between two adults.
I also truthfully couldn't care for what's ruled in courts, there have been plenty of occasions where courts have been completely wrong, and not served true justice imo, speaking as a victim and witness. I don't take what is ruled in court as gospel or a correct decision for every outcome, that would be naive of me.
It's an absurd amount of money and opens up for people like Vine, to antagonise the general public knowing they have full protection of any counter measures, even childish insults.
We are seeing a growing trend of people using platforms like tiktok, YouTube and Instagram to do antagonising or attention seeking acts on members of the public for online trend, court rulings like this just encourage those types more imo with that level of protection. That's my concern.
You wouldn't care if someone commented again and again on your YouTube videos, making accusations as serious as the ones Barton posted about?
It's a lot more harmful than "they're just words" and "playground remarks".
Why would I let a comment that isn't the truth bother me? It's a word on the Internet. I've been called slurs because of my alias, all sorts, none of it bothers me as it isn't the truth.
A serious accusation is someone saying something along the lines of they've seen me doing x activity and providing that information to the law or in the eyes of the public. Someone coming on my YouTube video and typing something like 'football vlog nonce' would just be ridiculous and nonsense.
It's kind of besides my original point now anyway and going off track, which is that IF people who go around sticking cameras in people's faces and creating a rod can decide how offending a comment is, it gives them serious power to do what they want on a camera (to an extent) to members of the public with 0 repercussions.
Complicated subject, but my belief is it doesn't warrant a 75k fine, and could lead down a very tricky path.
Sorry but this an absolutely incorrect take. Just wildly out of step with reality and law. Jeremy Vine is a public figure, he has 786,000 followers on Twitter, has 6.8 million people listen to his radio show and had over 13.3m viewers of his Channel 5 show. It's not just words and playground remarks when you're that famous, if you don't address the comments then perception becomes reality in people's minds and it can affect you personally, socially and monetarily. Defamation law requires that a person be defamed in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or damages their reputation. Barton calling Vine a 'raving bacon' and saying 'if you see this fella by a primary school call 999' as well as asking 'Did you, Rolf-aroo and Schofield go out on a tandem bike ride?' is a serious accusation. He wrote 'Elvis was a Nonce As well' and '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.' There's lots more, all in all Barton wrote 14 defamatory tweets all based on some pretty horrific untrue claims that any reasonable person would see as defamatory. He linked Vine to Jimmy Savile and Jeffrey Epstein for God's sake. The tweets got increasingly libellous and had the serious possibility of massively reducing Vine's reputation and with it his viewership and therefore his job prospects if he didn't challenge those posts. Barton has 2.8m Twitter followers, do you seriously think that if Vine stayed quiet and just rolled his eyes there wouldn't be plenty of people who would accept the unchallenged view put forward by Barton? Of course they would. Also, I don't think we need to worry about a very tricky path. Defamation law has been a thing since the 1200s, Barton getting done for being openly libellous and suffering the consequences isn't going to cause even a ripple in the wider framework of the law, just look at Colleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy for an example about just how difficult it is to win a case where you can't prove proper damages or truth as a total defence. The only wider discussion to come from this really is the fact it's been reported so widely as just a case where Barton called Vine 'bike nonce' rather than the horrendous accusations he made about him being more thoroughly reported on.
So it's ok to call people a nonce, as long as they're not famous? What do followings etc have to do with anything generally speaking, if we are talking about freedom of speech. Defamation by its definition doesn't only apply to people with a big following, so why the need to mention both parties followings. I understand you're probably using the numbers, to show the impact it could have on a wider audience, compared to two ''normal'' people, but that in itself seems like a bit of selective outrage to me. Would Vine be as bothered had it been a ''no profile'' making the same remarks? Probably not. Would the spectators care as much if it was a random twitter profile, probably not.
Quite ironic anyway, as most people on here clearly think Barton is a moron, a lot of people on social media do, and know most of what he says probably isn't true, yet his words seems to carry so much weight and significance that Vine had no choice but to take it to court, and now people are celebrating his court loss?
Anyway, I'll take a step back from this thread, I am spending too much of my time talking about two blokes I don't care about, and what my original view was, has been completely lost. Which was can this be heavily exploited in this day and age depending on someones financial situation/social media clout. Especially with the access to engage among celebrities. Anyway, there's no outcome here where my opinion on this can change, and vice versa, so it's not a good use of time.
No more replies from me on this topic, without sounding arrogant, enjoy your day all
Edit: & just to be clear, I genuinely understand the majority of every quoted post at me, I just have a different train of thought is all and don't want to bicker about it all.
Legally the followers make a huge difference, a nobody with 0 influence wouldn’t be able to cause and real damage.
Yeah
If I say Brazillance is a palace fan in the pub to two people then not much damage to his reputation.
If i say it to 20k+ people on Charlton Life it might impact on his reputation and his vlogs.
I can't understand why anyone would be quite content to be called a paedophile to the rest of the world. I don't think they would if it actually happened.
I can't understand why anyone would be quite content to be called a paedophile to the rest of the world. I don't think they would if it actually happened.
I can't understand why anyone would be quite content to be called a paedophile to the rest of the world. I don't think they would if it actually happened.
It’s a tough choice between that and being called a palace fan.
Barton behaviour is pretty disgraceful. It would be good if this settlement and the grovelling apology discouraged other keyboard warriors from making libellous statements on social media but I fear that most of them are too thick to appreciate that the burden of proof falls squarely upon them to establish any spurious allegations and that they usually have not a scintilla of evidence to do so. Others are happy to push their luck because they know that most people have neither the inclination or financial resources to pursue legal action.
Jeremy Vine is essentially the same animal that Joey Barton is. Both chucking red meat out to a known audience and if anything Vine is worse for the idiotic videos he posts when he is cycling and the faux outrage and disingenuous ways he broadcasts. At least with Barton you know what you are getting and he is a lot more.... clumsy isn't the right word but let's say raw. He clearly doesn't have much of a brain or a filter like Vine does but they essentially do the same thing.
Barton calling people paedophiles because they disagree with him is the same as Vine posting videos about cycling and presenting a radio show?
Don't see it myself.
Comparing those 2 specifics, no of course it isn't the same as a an exact example. Where they are two cheeks of the same arse, two peas in the same pod is they know their audience and know what that audience laps up. Jeremy Vines audience is a lot more gentile than the one Joey Barton is after.
For what its worth I dont like either of them personally. Vine for the reasons I've given and Barton because I just don't like him constantly playing the victim when the problems he has got himself into are entirely his own doing.
Jeremy Vine is essentially the same animal that Joey Barton is. Both chucking red meat out to a known audience and if anything Vine is worse for the idiotic videos he posts when he is cycling and the faux outrage and disingenuous ways he broadcasts. At least with Barton you know what you are getting and he is a lot more.... clumsy isn't the right word but let's say raw. He clearly doesn't have much of a brain or a filter like Vine does but they essentially do the same thing.
Barton calling people paedophiles because they disagree with him is the same as Vine posting videos about cycling and presenting a radio show?
Don't see it myself.
Comparing those 2 specifics, no of course it isn't the same as a an exact example. Where they are two cheeks of the same arse, two peas in the same pod is they know their audience and know what that audience laps up. Jeremy Vines audience is a lot more gentile than the one Joey Barton is after.
For what its worth I dont like either of them personally. Vine for the reasons I've given and Barton because I just don't like him constantly playing the victim when the problems he has got himself into are entirely his own doing.
I hope the whole of the world takes turns in rinsing Barton in court. Not sure there are many more people deserving of going completely broke than that cretin.
I have to say some credit is due to Aluko too, it was the police/CPS who must have decided go to court but she has shown a fair amount of courage in standing up to Barton and his ilk in the first place. As soon as she dared to push back at the little twerp in the first place she guaranteed that the usual bunch of mouth breathing morons are going to double down and be even more abusive than before.
I have to say some credit is due to Aluko too, it was the police/CPS who must have decided go to court but she has shown a fair amount of courage in standing up to Barton and his ilk in the first place. As soon as she dared to push back at the little twerp in the first place she guaranteed that the usual bunch of mouth breathing morons are going to double down and be even more abusive than before.
Yep. You saw it during the Euros, any time a woman was on screen speaking who wasn't a host they'd trend on Twitter and every single post was insulting them. I don't particularly rate Aluko as a pundit (I do like Carney) but I don't rate Keown, Murphy, Jenas or Dixon either. You rarely seem them trending just for daring to open their mouths though. As you say, Aluko opened herself up to even more targeted abuse and that's pretty tough. It's not her first time either, she was slapped down for accusing Mark Sampson of racism years ago but he was revealed as a racist wrong un in the end. Good on her for standing up for herself
What a disgraceful individual Barton is. He appears to be trying to promote himself in a similar way to that clown who calls himself Tommy Robinson.
I don’t think his response to the charges is likely to engage the sympathy of the court, nor assist any plea in mitigation in the event that he’s found guilty.
I have to say some credit is due to Aluko too, it was the police/CPS who must have decided go to court but she has shown a fair amount of courage in standing up to Barton and his ilk in the first place. As soon as she dared to push back at the little twerp in the first place she guaranteed that the usual bunch of mouth breathing morons are going to double down and be even more abusive than before.
Yep. You saw it during the Euros, any time a woman was on screen speaking who wasn't a host they'd trend on Twitter and every single post was insulting them. I don't particularly rate Aluko as a pundit (I do like Carney) but I don't rate Keown, Murphy, Jenas or Dixon either. You rarely seem them trending just for daring to open their mouths though. As you say, Aluko opened herself up to even more targeted abuse and that's pretty tough. It's not her first time either, she was slapped down for accusing Mark Sampson of racism years ago but he was revealed as a racist wrong un in the end. Good on her for standing up for herself
Nail on the head - how many pundits offer genuine , articulate and knowledgable insight ? Very few , male or female, but the men get away with it because people tune in and listen and it’s what people are used to.
Comments
It's true that defamation law can be exploited, but this has been the case for decades; wealthy businessmen, newspapers and celebrities will regularly use the fact they can bleed someone dry with a drawn-out court case to silence people who point out bad things they have done knowing that they don't have the money to do anything other than acquiesce and publicly apologise. It's not anything new that's been brought on by the Barton case so I don't think this is exactly the one to take a hand-wringing stance on when in fact it's a cut and dried case of Barton libelling someone. I'm troubled that you feel your opinion can't be changed because the issue here is clearly that your knowledge of the law isn't really sufficient for you to really engage with why it's so important that Vine intervene here and why this is actually a perfectly good example of using defamation law for its intended purpose and absolutely nothing new in the world of libel. There's no slippery slope here, it's a bloke with a large following making specific, clear statements that are factually untrue about another person and causing him loss. There's just really nothing there that's 'dangerous territory', I think you just don't like Jeremy Vine very much. That's fine, you don't have to, but he still falls under the protections of tort law I'm afraid.
If I say Brazillance is a palace fan in the pub to two people then not much damage to his reputation.
If i say it to 20k+ people on Charlton Life it might impact on his reputation and his vlogs.
But I have a defence in law ie it is true
For what its worth I dont like either of them personally. Vine for the reasons I've given and Barton because I just don't like him constantly playing the victim when the problems he has got himself into are entirely his own doing.
Ex-footballer Joey Barton has been charged with making malicious communications.
The former Manchester City and Burnley player is due to appear in court on July 30.
On his X account, Mr Barton, 41, said he had been charged over tweets relating to broadcaster Eni Aluko.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgxqgxyv1kpo
I don’t think his response to the charges is likely to engage the sympathy of the court, nor assist any plea in mitigation in the event that he’s found guilty.
Let’s hope when Aluko gets a settlement offer it’s someone else ‘doing the maths’
https://x.com/joey7barton/status/1814221425797956064?s=46&t=A-w3Eq0EWWpjMxring904Q
Him and many others just want the clicks and headlines.
Katy Hopkins, Laurence Fox, Barton, Brand, Owen Jones et al, all grifters having to get ever more extreame to get the outrage they literally feed off.