Ah, the old 'yeah I know I lost but it doesn't count because all laws here are invalid anyway mate' defence. The grifter's equivalent of a 7 year old shouting 'FORCEFIELD' when someone would catch them in tag. I'd love to see a balance sheet of what Barton has made off his attempts to reinvent himself as a controvery commenter and what he's lost in costs. I bet it would be very, very red.
One thing I find puzzling is that as he’s back with his wife why does he need to appeal? Presumably she could just say he didn’t assault her?
She knows he did (presumably), so what is she saying?
I suspect he's being prosecuted because she filed a report. She can't then later rescind that and say it didn't happen and stop a decision which may have been made to charge him.
One thing I find puzzling is that as he’s back with his wife why does he need to appeal? Presumably she could just say he didn’t assault her?
She knows he did (presumably), so what is she saying?
She made a report to the police and then it was the police/CPS who bought charges, not her. If she changes her mind/story it might weaken the case but it won't automatically drop it.
One thing I find puzzling is that as he’s back with his wife why does he need to appeal? Presumably she could just say he didn’t assault her?
She knows he did (presumably), so what is she saying?
She made a report to the police and then it was the police/CPS who bought charges, not her. If she changes her mind/story it might weaken the case but it won't automatically drop it.
Could also potentially cause problems for her, if she now claims it didn’t happen.
One thing I find puzzling is that as he’s back with his wife why does he need to appeal? Presumably she could just say he didn’t assault her?
She knows he did (presumably), so what is she saying?
Lots of reason I guess but its not unusual for the abused to want things to return to normal even if that normal isn't normal by most standards. Barton probably saying he has plans to appeal might just be talk, I think I'm correct in saying, you can't just appeal because you don't like the verdict, you need grounds to appeal. Its more and likely whizzed around his head having a criminal record for beating his wife may hinder his future prospects or maybe it could be as simple as it will hurt his ego that everyone he meets will regard him for what most think he has always been.
One thing I find puzzling is that as he’s back with his wife why does he need to appeal? Presumably she could just say he didn’t assault her?
She knows he did (presumably), so what is she saying?
Lots of reason I guess but its not unusual for the abused to want things to return to normal even if that normal isn't normal by most standards. Barton probably saying he has plans to appeal might just be talk, I think I'm correct in saying, you can't just appeal because you don't like the verdict, you need grounds to appeal. Its more and likely whizzed around his head having a criminal record for beating his wife may hinder his future prospects or maybe it could be as simple as it will hurt his ego that everyone he meets will regard him for what most think he has always been.
True - it's very difficult to break the abuse cycle. Especially if he's the 'provider' - just because they might not be in what people think of as the traditional situation (eg: they've probably got a lot more money), doesn't mean she won't feel trapped in the relationship.
One thing I find puzzling is that as he’s back with his wife why does he need to appeal? Presumably she could just say he didn’t assault her?
She knows he did (presumably), so what is she saying?
Lots of reason I guess but its not unusual for the abused to want things to return to normal even if that normal isn't normal by most standards. Barton probably saying he has plans to appeal might just be talk, I think I'm correct in saying, you can't just appeal because you don't like the verdict, you need grounds to appeal. Its more and likely whizzed around his head having a criminal record for beating his wife may hinder his future prospects or maybe it could be as simple as it will hurt his ego that everyone he meets will regard him for what most think he has always been.
Could still get a job as a Reform MP like Mc Dermott?
One thing I find puzzling is that as he’s back with his wife why does he need to appeal? Presumably she could just say he didn’t assault her?
She knows he did (presumably), so what is she saying?
Lots of reason I guess but its not unusual for the abused to want things to return to normal even if that normal isn't normal by most standards. Barton probably saying he has plans to appeal might just be talk, I think I'm correct in saying, you can't just appeal because you don't like the verdict, you need grounds to appeal. Its more and likely whizzed around his head having a criminal record for beating his wife may hinder his future prospects or maybe it could be as simple as it will hurt his ego that everyone he meets will regard him for what most think he has always been.
Could still get a job as a Reform MP like Mc Dermott?
Thats completely different. He was sorry and Reformed.
One thing I find puzzling is that as he’s back with his wife why does he need to appeal? Presumably she could just say he didn’t assault her?
She knows he did (presumably), so what is she saying?
Lots of reason I guess but its not unusual for the abused to want things to return to normal even if that normal isn't normal by most standards. Barton probably saying he has plans to appeal might just be talk, I think I'm correct in saying, you can't just appeal because you don't like the verdict, you need grounds to appeal. Its more and likely whizzed around his head having a criminal record for beating his wife may hinder his future prospects or maybe it could be as simple as it will hurt his ego that everyone he meets will regard him for what most think he has always been.
True - it's very difficult to break the abuse cycle. Especially if he's the 'provider' - just because they might not be in what people think of as the traditional situation (eg: they've probably got a lot more money), doesn't mean she won't feel trapped in the relationship.
You only have to look at Greenwood when he was Man Utd, to see what people will put up with.
One thing I find puzzling is that as he’s back with his wife why does he need to appeal? Presumably she could just say he didn’t assault her?
She knows he did (presumably), so what is she saying?
Lots of reason I guess but its not unusual for the abused to want things to return to normal even if that normal isn't normal by most standards. Barton probably saying he has plans to appeal might just be talk, I think I'm correct in saying, you can't just appeal because you don't like the verdict, you need grounds to appeal. Its more and likely whizzed around his head having a criminal record for beating his wife may hinder his future prospects or maybe it could be as simple as it will hurt his ego that everyone he meets will regard him for what most think he has always been.
True - it's very difficult to break the abuse cycle. Especially if he's the 'provider' - just because they might not be in what people think of as the traditional situation (eg: they've probably got a lot more money), doesn't mean she won't feel trapped in the relationship.
You only have to look at Greenwood when he was Man Utd, to see what people will put up with.
Yes and it's a serious point. Those who stay in abusive situations aren't weak or stupid people (regardless of gender, sexuality etc as it can happen to anyone). Systematic abuse happens over a long time and is extremely pervasive and damaging. From the outside it might seem ridiculous that anyone would put up with it but to them that is their reality.
One thing I find puzzling is that as he’s back with his wife why does he need to appeal? Presumably she could just say he didn’t assault her?
She knows he did (presumably), so what is she saying?
She made a report to the police and then it was the police/CPS who bought charges, not her. If she changes her mind/story it might weaken the case but it won't automatically drop it.
Exactly this. They prosecuted based on her original 999 call and the fact she repeated her complaint when police went to their house. Just because she then withdrew the complaint (and even defended him in court) doesn't mean it didn't happen, and the judge basically didn't believe her.
Judge Paul Goldspring found Barton guilty of assault, saying he believed the former footballer and his wife had lied to the court about what happened that night.
“I believe the veracity of the first account and it is supported by other evidence”, he said. “The account on the telephone in the 999 call and to the attending officer is true. I reject the account by Mrs Barton over eight months later and repeated in the witness box by her.”
He said a later explanation put forward by Mrs Barton that the injuries were suffered accidental was “unbelievable”. The judge said the couple had contradicted themselves during their evidence in trial, because “they were not being truthful about what happened”.
Am I right in thinking Aluko studied Law as well? When I saw him in a pub in Wimbledon a few years back with my late friend. he didn't cause any trouble. had a few wines (I think) and left the pub without a fuss. I saw him chatting with "what looked like David Speedie" at the time, but don't how they are connected. This was in the evening after tennis.
Am I right in thinking Aluko studied Law as well? When I saw him in a pub in Wimbledon a few years back with my late friend. he didn't cause any trouble. had a few wines (I think) and left the pub without a fuss. I saw him chatting with "what looked like David Speedie" at the time, but don't how they are connected. This was in the evening after tennis.
Indeed she did, she is probably the worst possible choice if you going to target someone to try and score cheap points. But no-one is ever going to describe Barton as being particularly bright anyway...
Fucking love the fact that Widnes is in Cheshire. For anybody fortunate enough to have never been, it is quite possibly the absolute arsehole of the world. People in St Helens, Wigan and even Leigh (Leigh, ffs!) look down on it - which gives you an idea of how much it's got to offer 🤣
Fucking love the fact that Widnes is in Cheshire. For anybody fortunate enough to have never been, it is quite possibly the absolute arsehole of the world. People in St Helens, Wigan and even Leigh (Leigh, ffs!) look down on it - which gives you an idea of how much it's got to offer 🤣
Fucking love the fact that Widnes is in Cheshire. For anybody fortunate enough to have never been, it is quite possibly the absolute arsehole of the world. People in St Helens, Wigan and even Leigh (Leigh, ffs!) look down on it - which gives you an idea of how much it's got to offer 🤣
Oi! Leigh is the 'posh' end of Wigan! 😁
I somehow missed this reply. Having been unfortunate enough to live in Leigh for 8 months, I can very much confirm that - whilst there is a posh end of Wigan - it's about 7 miles Northwest of Leigh (Haigh). Leigh is an absolute, utter hole of a place, and Leythers are some of the oddest people on Earth.
Vine sued Barton for libel and harassment over several posts on X, formerly Twitter, including one in which he falsely called the BBC Radio 2 presenter a “big bike nonce” and a “pedo defender”.
The pair settled the claim in 2024 after Barton posted two apologies on the same social media platform and paid a total of £110,000 in damages to Vine, as well as his legal costs.
On Tuesday, a specialist costs court heard that Barton had agreed to pay £160,000 of Vine’s costs from the main legal action.
Costs Judge Colum Leonard also ordered Barton to pay a further £43,172.30 arising from the negotiation of the £160,000 figure, meaning he will pay a total of £203,172.30 of Vine’s costs following the legal action.
In an agreed statement read out at the High Court in October 2024, barrister Gervase de Wilde, for Vine, said that the broadcaster “was deeply alarmed, distressed and upset” by Barton’s actions, which included a “persistent and highly damaging campaign of defamation, harassment and misuse of private information”.
Lawyers for Vine told the High Court in May 2024 that Barton’s posts amounted to a “calculated and sustained attack”.
Barton – who played for teams including Manchester City, Newcastle United, Rangers, and French side Marseille during his career – also began using “#bikenonce” on X, which led to it trending on the platform.
After Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that some of the posts could defame Vine, Barton apologised to the journalist in June last year, stating that the allegations he made were “untrue”.
He said that he would pay Vine £75,000 in damages, but solicitors for Vine later said Barton would pay a further £35,000 as part of a “separate settlement” for claims published after legal action began.
Mr De Wilde told the October hearing that Barton made four undertakings as part of the settlement, including not to harass Vine or encourage others to do so.
Vine said following that hearing that Barton “needs to find himself a different hobby”.
The hearing on Tuesday was told that Barton agreed to pay £160,000 of Vine’s legal costs earlier this month, and that Vine was claiming around £60,000 in costs for negotiating that figure.
Suzanne Holmes, for Barton, said this was “excessive” and “disproportionate”, and should be reduced.
Kevin Latham, representing Vine, said Barton had “repeatedly failed to engage in proper negotiation” throughout proceedings and “has to bear the consequences of that approach”.
Neither Barton nor Vine attended the hearing in London.
The thing about Joey Barton, is that he's a professional (unt. Once you accept that about him, it's much easier to ignore every single piece of evidence that he exists and just get on with your life.
I deleted Twitter because I genuinely felt it was bad for my mental health. Barton’s account was symptomatic of how ridiculous that platform has become, I’m glad there have been real world consequences for his behaviour.
I deleted Twitter because I genuinely felt it was bad for my mental health. Barton’s account was symptomatic of how ridiculous that platform has become, I’m glad there have been real world consequences for his behaviour.
Same. Finally got rid of it about this time last year. It's absolutely vile - completely unpoliced. I'm genuinely surprised the EU at least didn't ban it after the moderation team (already tiny in comparison to the (still feeble) safety provisions in place at Facebook) were cut completely.
Got rid of Facebook at the end of last year as well - the only thing I miss about it is not being able to see whatever my mum posts, as she lives abroad, but I still have Messenger and Instagram to keep in contact with her. Instagram at least is still relatively free of shithousery - at least from the political perspective.
I did sign up for Bluesky, which was pretty good (albeit quiet) early on, but - just like Threads - it's becoming another 4chan
Vine sued Barton for libel and harassment over several posts on X, formerly Twitter, including one in which he falsely called the BBC Radio 2 presenter a “big bike nonce” and a “pedo defender”.
The pair settled the claim in 2024 after Barton posted two apologies on the same social media platform and paid a total of £110,000 in damages to Vine, as well as his legal costs.
On Tuesday, a specialist costs court heard that Barton had agreed to pay £160,000 of Vine’s costs from the main legal action.
Costs Judge Colum Leonard also ordered Barton to pay a further £43,172.30 arising from the negotiation of the £160,000 figure, meaning he will pay a total of £203,172.30 of Vine’s costs following the legal action.
In an agreed statement read out at the High Court in October 2024, barrister Gervase de Wilde, for Vine, said that the broadcaster “was deeply alarmed, distressed and upset” by Barton’s actions, which included a “persistent and highly damaging campaign of defamation, harassment and misuse of private information”.
Lawyers for Vine told the High Court in May 2024 that Barton’s posts amounted to a “calculated and sustained attack”.
Barton – who played for teams including Manchester City, Newcastle United, Rangers, and French side Marseille during his career – also began using “#bikenonce” on X, which led to it trending on the platform.
After Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that some of the posts could defame Vine, Barton apologised to the journalist in June last year, stating that the allegations he made were “untrue”.
He said that he would pay Vine £75,000 in damages, but solicitors for Vine later said Barton would pay a further £35,000 as part of a “separate settlement” for claims published after legal action began.
Mr De Wilde told the October hearing that Barton made four undertakings as part of the settlement, including not to harass Vine or encourage others to do so.
Vine said following that hearing that Barton “needs to find himself a different hobby”.
The hearing on Tuesday was told that Barton agreed to pay £160,000 of Vine’s legal costs earlier this month, and that Vine was claiming around £60,000 in costs for negotiating that figure.
Suzanne Holmes, for Barton, said this was “excessive” and “disproportionate”, and should be reduced.
Kevin Latham, representing Vine, said Barton had “repeatedly failed to engage in proper negotiation” throughout proceedings and “has to bear the consequences of that approach”.
Neither Barton nor Vine attended the hearing in London.
Comments
Barton probably saying he has plans to appeal might just be talk, I think I'm correct in saying, you can't just appeal because you don't like the verdict, you need grounds to appeal. Its more and likely whizzed around his head having a criminal record for beating his wife may hinder his future prospects or maybe it could be as simple as it will hurt his ego that everyone he meets will regard him for what most think he has always been.
Systematic abuse happens over a long time and is extremely pervasive and damaging. From the outside it might seem ridiculous that anyone would put up with it but to them that is their reality.
Judge Paul Goldspring found Barton guilty of assault, saying he believed the former footballer and his wife had lied to the court about what happened that night.
“I believe the veracity of the first account and it is supported by other evidence”, he said. “The account on the telephone in the 999 call and to the attending officer is true. I reject the account by Mrs Barton over eight months later and repeated in the witness box by her.”
He said a later explanation put forward by Mrs Barton that the injuries were suffered accidental was “unbelievable”. The judge said the couple had contradicted themselves during their evidence in trial, because “they were not being truthful about what happened”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgppp6pmymo
Joey Barton has been ordered to pay more than £200,000 of Jeremy Vine’s legal costs after their High Court libel battle.
Vine sued Barton for libel and harassment over several posts on X, formerly Twitter, including one in which he falsely called the BBC Radio 2 presenter a “big bike nonce” and a “pedo defender”.
The pair settled the claim in 2024 after Barton posted two apologies on the same social media platform and paid a total of £110,000 in damages to Vine, as well as his legal costs.
On Tuesday, a specialist costs court heard that Barton had agreed to pay £160,000 of Vine’s costs from the main legal action.
Costs Judge Colum Leonard also ordered Barton to pay a further £43,172.30 arising from the negotiation of the £160,000 figure, meaning he will pay a total of £203,172.30 of Vine’s costs following the legal action.
In an agreed statement read out at the High Court in October 2024, barrister Gervase de Wilde, for Vine, said that the broadcaster “was deeply alarmed, distressed and upset” by Barton’s actions, which included a “persistent and highly damaging campaign of defamation, harassment and misuse of private information”.
Lawyers for Vine told the High Court in May 2024 that Barton’s posts amounted to a “calculated and sustained attack”.
Barton – who played for teams including Manchester City, Newcastle United, Rangers, and French side Marseille during his career – also began using “#bikenonce” on X, which led to it trending on the platform.
After Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that some of the posts could defame Vine, Barton apologised to the journalist in June last year, stating that the allegations he made were “untrue”.
He said that he would pay Vine £75,000 in damages, but solicitors for Vine later said Barton would pay a further £35,000 as part of a “separate settlement” for claims published after legal action began.
Mr De Wilde told the October hearing that Barton made four undertakings as part of the settlement, including not to harass Vine or encourage others to do so.
Vine said following that hearing that Barton “needs to find himself a different hobby”.
The hearing on Tuesday was told that Barton agreed to pay £160,000 of Vine’s legal costs earlier this month, and that Vine was claiming around £60,000 in costs for negotiating that figure.
Suzanne Holmes, for Barton, said this was “excessive” and “disproportionate”, and should be reduced.
Kevin Latham, representing Vine, said Barton had “repeatedly failed to engage in proper negotiation” throughout proceedings and “has to bear the consequences of that approach”.
Neither Barton nor Vine attended the hearing in London.
Got rid of Facebook at the end of last year as well - the only thing I miss about it is not being able to see whatever my mum posts, as she lives abroad, but I still have Messenger and Instagram to keep in contact with her. Instagram at least is still relatively free of shithousery - at least from the political perspective.
I did sign up for Bluesky, which was pretty good (albeit quiet) early on, but - just like Threads - it's becoming another 4chan