Joey Barton Sparks Outrage With Posts About Aluko Ward

Former footballer Joey Barton has been given a suspended prison sentence for sending grossly offensive X posts to TV pundits Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward and broadcaster Jeremy Vine.

Barton, 43, was sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court on Monday to six months in prison, suspended for 18 months, for sending six grossly offensive social media posts.

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

Restraining orders of two years were issued against Barton in relation to his three victims, which also prevents him from publishing any reference to them on any social media platform or broadcast medium.

He was convicted last month following a trial, which heard he had "crossed the line between free speech and a crime".

Barton was convicted over six posts he made on X, formerly Twitter, between January and March 2024, but cleared on six other counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

Barton played for Manchester City and Newcastle United during his playing career and managed Fleetwood Town and Bristol Rovers

Yahoo News UK examines what Barton said in his posts.

Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward

After an FA Cup tie between Crystal Palace and Everton in January 2024 that was televised by ITV, Barton posted on X about pundits Ward and Aluko.

He likened them to the “Fred and Rose West of football commentary”, before going on to superimpose the faces of the two women on to a photograph of the serial murderers.

Barton also posted that Aluko was in the “Joseph Stalin/Pol Pot category”, saying that she had “murdered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of football fans’ ears”.

While jurors found Barton not guilty on the comparison to the Russian and Cambodian dictators, nor the analogy with the Wests, the superimposed image was ruled grossly offensive.
He was also convicted over a post in which he said of Aluko: “Only there to tick boxes. DEI is a load of s**t. Affirmative action. All off the back of the BLM/George Floyd nonsense”.

Jeremy Vine

Barton is said to have suggested Vine had a sexual interest in children after the TV and radio presenter sent a message querying whether Barton had a “brain injury”.

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.”

Barton was convicted over the Epstein post and a post in which he said: “Oh @the JeremyVine Did you Rolf-aroo and Schofield go out on a tandem bike ride? You big bike nonce ya”.

Barton was also found guilty of other tweets in relation to 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 cleared over three remaining tweets referring to Vine.

Giving evidence at the trial, Vine had told the jury he was made to feel “physically unsafe” by Barton's posts.

What did the sentencing hear?

Victim impact statements were read out in court on Monday, with Vine saying Barton's actions against him were "profoundly traumatising", adding: "I felt my reputation was sullied. Joey Barton is a small man who feeds off the pain of others.
In her statement, Ward said: "I am now constantly afraid, not just of the defendant, but the people he has incited against me and his history only heightens my fear. This fear has seeped into every aspect of my life."

Aluko said in her impact statement that Barton's comments were “abhorrent and the most offensive criticism she has experienced" in her life, and has taken steps to increase her security.

The Honorary Recorder of Liverpool, Judge Andrew Menary KC told Barton during sentencing: “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.”