Joey Barton, a former professional footballer, has issued a public apology to Jeremy Vine, a well-known TV presenter, and agreed to pay £75,000 in damages to settle a High Court libel claim. Barton’s apology comes after a judge ruled that 11 out of 14 online posts he made, which included calling Vine a “bike nonce” and a “pedo defender”, could defame the presenter.
The controversy began when Barton made a series of abusive tweets about Vine in early January, leading to the hashtag #bikenonce trending on the social media platform. The posts accused Vine of having a sexual interest in children, which is a serious and distressing allegation. Barton has since acknowledged that these allegations were “untrue” and that he does not believe Vine has a sexual interest in children.
In his statement, Barton acknowledged that his actions were “a very serious allegation” and that he has caused “distress” to Vine. He also accepted that he had misinterpreted a video clip of Vine’s TV programme, which had been edited to give a misleading impression of the presenter’s views on forced vaccination during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Barton’s apology is a significant step towards making amends for his actions, and it is clear that he has taken responsibility for the harm he caused. However, the fact that he was involved in a “calculated and sustained attack” on Vine, as described by the presenter’s lawyers, suggests that his apology is somewhat late in coming.
The case highlights the importance of taking claims of defamation seriously and the need for individuals to think carefully before making serious allegations against others. It is also a reminder of the urgent need for social media companies to do more to prevent the spread of harmful and offensive content.
Joey Barton (Via Joey Barton/Twitter)
In addition to his apology, Barton has agreed to pay Vine £75,000 in damages and his legal costs. This settlement is a significant financial burden for Barton, but it is a necessary step towards ensuring that he is held accountable for his actions.
The case is also a testament to the important work of judges like Mrs Justice Steyn, who have the difficult task of going complex issues of defamation and free speech. Her ruling that 11 of Barton’s posts could defame Vine is a clear indication that the courts will take allegations of defamation seriously and will not tolerate abuse and harassment.
Ultimately, Barton’s apology is a positive step towards healing and rebuilding, but it is clear that the wounds caused by his actions will take time to heal. As the case comes to a close, it is essential that social media companies, individuals, and institutions all reflect on the harm caused by Barton’s actions and take steps to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
