Jeremy Vine ‘labelled a nonce as part of sustained attack by Joey Barton’
Mr Vine is suing the former footballer for several online posts, including where Mr Barton called him a ‘pedo defender’.
Jeremy Vine was labelled a “nonce” as part of a “calculated and sustained attack” by former footballer Joey Barton, the High Court has been told.
Mr Barton is facing legal action from the TV and radio presenter over 14 online posts, including where he called Mr Vine a “big bike nonce” and a “pedo defender” on X, formerly Twitter.
Mr Vine is suing the ex-midfielder for libel and harassment, following a social media exchange over Mr Barton’s criticism of women’s involvement in men’s football.
At a hearing on Thursday, Mrs Justice Steyn was asked to decide several preliminary issues in the case, including the “natural and ordinary” meanings of the posts and whether they were statements of fact or opinion.
Lawyers for Mr Vine claim the posts contained “clear references to (Mr Vine) having a sexual interest in children” and had led to him being subjected to “paedophilic slurs”, while barristers for Mr Barton said that the publications “would obviously not” lead people to believe Mr Vine was “a paedophile”.
Gervase de Wilde, representing the BBC Radio 2 presenter, said: “Mr Barton had many options for engaging in the abuse of Mr Vine but he chose the one toxic word to do so, which means paedophile.
“It has moved into common, current use and its meaning would be well understood by the ordinary social media user.”
He continued: “There is an irreducible, defamatory meaning of the word nonce, however it is used. That does mean paedophile or child molester.”
Mr de Wilde told the court that the abuse began following Mr Barton’s comments on women involved in football, particularly in the media, from the end of 2023.
Following a social media post where Mr Barton compared female pundits Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward to serial killers Fred and Rose West, Mr Vine questioned the remarks and whether Mr Barton had a brain injury, Mr de Wilde said.
This led to Mr Barton launching a “calculated and sustained attack on Mr Vine” on January 6, including by repeating allegations that Mr Vine supported administering Covid-19 vaccinations by force.
Mr Barton published several posts over the following days to his 2.8 million followers, including labelling Mr Vine a “bike nonce”, a “pedo defender” and “a nonce”, and associated him with paedophiles including Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and Jeffrey Epstein, the court was told.
Mr de Wilde said that Mr Barton then began using “#bikenonce” on X, which led to it trending on the platform.
In written submissions, Mr de Wilde claimed Mr Barton’s “ongoing attacks” on Mr Vine were “on a very significant scale”, with some posts being seen by more than 2.5 million people.
Mr Barton’s career saw him play for teams including Manchester City, Newcastle United and French side Marseille, before going on to manage Fleetwood Town and Bristol Rovers.
He did not attend Thursday’s hearing in London.
His barrister, William McCormick KC, said the posts contained “vulgar abuse” but did not libel Mr Vine.
He said: “This is a classic example of someone who is posting in the heat of the moment to something they don’t like from Mr Vine, and it would be seen as such.
“No-one would take that literally. It is a classic statement where someone would say that is just abuse, he does not really mean it.”
Discussing one post published on January 8, which said Mr Vine was “aka Bike Nonce”, Mr McCormick said in written submissions: “The post would obviously not be taken as making an allegation that Mr Vine is a paedophile.
“Nobody would consider this to be what Mr Barton was intending to convey by giving Mr Vine the supposed alias ‘bike nonce’. Regardless of whether there is any link between ‘nonce’ and ‘paedophile’, the context in which ‘nonce’ is used here strips it of any such meaning.
“‘Nonce’ is used as part of ‘aka Bike Nonce’ which is an obvious attempt at humorous abuse of Mr Vine based in part upon his cycling activities, which would be known to all reasonable readers.”
Mrs Justice Steyn will give her judgment in writing at a later date.