Former footballer Joey Barton said his trial for allegedly sending offensive social media posts was a highly political prosecution and a free-speech showdown with the crown because of his strong views.
The 43-year-old compared female commentators Lucy Ward and Eni Aluko to serial killers Fred and Rose West in a series of posts to his 2.6million followers on X last year in a bid, he claimed, to make things better and emphasise his belief that they were not good enough to commentate on mens top-level football.
When TV and radio presenter Jeremy Vine responded to the controversy by speculating whether Barton had suffered a brain injury, he turned on him and labelled him a bike nonce, using a slang term for paedophile. He went on to ask him whether he had been to Epstein Island and urged his followers to call police if they saw him cycling by a primary school.
At Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday, Barton expressed remorse for the impact of his posts on Ward and Aluko, saying he would probably not do it again if he had his time again but had felt the pair were strong enough to deal with his criticism after their work on an FA Cup game between Crystal Palace and Everton shown on ITV in January 2024.
But prosecutor Peter Wright KC said the reality was that the former Manchester City and Newcastle United midfielder targeted and bullied them.
He said Barton had crossed the line between exercising a democratic right to freedom of expression and a crime by sending messages of an extreme, degrading and dehumanising character.
It was not some robust exchange of firmly held views or, as he would like you to believe, an attempt to generate an online debate, said Wright. It was undiluted bullying.
It was a campaign of such bullying by the deployment of grossly offensive messages with the intention of sending them to cause distress, anxiety or humiliation.
Barton, who denies 12 counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety between January and March last year, has repeatedly insisted he was being provocative in order to start a serious debate.
In reference to why he posted about under-qualified, under-prepared and tokenistic people after ITV released a statement supporting Aluko and Ward, he described his frustration at broadcasters DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) woke standards for hiring co-commentators.
People like me who have put their bodies on the line for the game cant get opportunities because theyre white and they dont tick boxes, he said.
Asked by Wright to reflect on that remark, he added: I believe society in general is starting to slightly discriminate against white people.
On the posts about Vine, he told the jury that his banter and hurty words had got out of hand but accused the 60-year-old of having main character syndrome and putting himself right in the middle of it to get attention.
Explaining his habit of referring to meritocracy, or the best person getting the job after his tweets, he said: I knew I would be here one day. That is why I kept putting meritocracy rules and the crown (emoji) because of the way free speech has gone in this country since Covid.
Then on his decision not to comment during initial police interviews in the case, he added: This was the state, in my opinion, trying to squeeze me into the ground and stop my free speech.
Its a spat between celebrities online. I believe this is a highly politicised case.
Mr Wright said: I will suggest you were going to remain silent because you had no explanation to give that would up to any scrutiny.
During his evidence on Thursday morning Barton was repeatedly told to answer the prosecution questions by Judge Andrew Menary, KC.
Warning him to stop grandstanding and making speeches to the jury, Menary said: One of the criticisms of you is you dont listen and arrogantly carry on with your own point of view. For your benefit I am trying to moderate and to get you to concentrate on the question and answer it.
Barton, who asked for a break in proceedings to take paracetamol because he was in pain from grinding his teeth overnight, produced his diary and offered to let the jury read it for added context around the road map for his campaign to improve broadcasting standards.
He told Wright: This is a game to you isnt it? This is my life. Ive got my life in your hands here and this is a game to you.
He added: I cannot believe I am on trial for words on a social media site. Its wrong what youre doing. I have been in trouble in the past, I have. But this time I was trying to make a serious point.
Freedom of speech is a bedrock of society.
In another exchange Wright replied to one of Bartons answers and said: Mr Barton, its just a nonsense isnt it?
Did you call me a nonce? asked Barton.
You would be sensitive about that, replied Wright, believing that was the remark being said to you when it was not, and took offence it would appear.
When asked about a photograph he posted on X of paperwork which he had been served for a civil libel action by Vine, which showed the Channel 5 hosts home address, Barton said: That was done by mistake.
I took a photo to say to my following: Can you believe that, for this little bike nonce spat that everyone was laughing at Jeremy about, he has now come and put libel on me?
The letter (also) had my address on. I was getting sent Bibles and Qurans, you can imagine. I doxxed myself, in essence. One of the assistants at my solicitors phoned me and said I better take that down now because you could see the address. Within an hour it was taken down.
The high court case, which took place last year, resulted in Barton paying Vine £110,000 in damages plus his legal costs, and posting an apology on his X account.
In his closing speech Wright addressed Bartons insistence that his posts were black humour.
Black humour? he said. We ask rhetorically who is laughing now?
He (Barton) is not some form of political prisoner in relation to his conduct, no matter how much he would like to paint that out. He is just a little bully who has been found out.
This is a man who likes to blame anyone and everybody apart from himself. We say it is time he took responsibility for his own actions.
In his summary of the case to the jury, Judge Menary said they must be sure that Mr Bartons intention in that purpose was to cause distress or anxiety to another person. If so your verdict must be guilty, if not it must be not guilty.
The trial continues.
This article originally appeared in The Athletic.
Manchester City, Newcastle United, Queens Park Rangers, England, Premier League, Soccer, Women’s Soccer
2025 The Athletic Media Company