Jeremy Vine says Joey Barton ‘needs to find different hobby’ after libel settlement

Jeremy Vine received an apology in court on behalf of Joey Barton, after the former footballer falsely called the presenter a “big bike n****” on X.

Mr Vine sued former footballer Mr Barton for libel and harassment over nine posts online, including one in which he described the BBC Radio 2 presenter as a “pedo defender”.

The pair settled the claim after Mr Barton paid a total of £110,000 in damages to Mr Vine as well as his legal costs, alongside two apologies posted on X, formally Twitter.

Speaking outside court, broadcaster Mr Vine said: “Joey Barton has probably lost himself £450,000 with nine tweets so he needs to find himself a different hobby.”

Gervase de Wilde, representing Mr Vine, told the High Court on Friday that Mr Barton recognised he had made a “very serious” and “untrue” allegation in an agreed statement.

He added: “He has made clear that he does not in fact believe that the claimant has a sexual interest in children, and wishes to set the record straight.”

Enfys Jenkins, representing Mr Barton, said: “The defendant accepts everything said on the claimant’s behalf. The defendant wishes to apologise for the distress his publications caused.”

But Mr Vine’s barrister later referenced a post recently made on X by Mr Barton, where Mr Vine can be seen dancing and walking about an office in a pair of high-heeled shoes.

Alongside the video of Mr Vine, posted approximately six hours before the hearing, Mr Barton posted the caption “Perfectly normal. Nothing to see here” alongside several emojis, including a cyclist and a rainbow.

Mr de Wilde asked a judge to warn Mr Barton about the risk of contempt of court, which can be punished with up to two years in prison.

Mr de Wilde told the hearing that the new post “negates the vindication of a statement” being read, adding: “He is undermining the settlement he has reached with Mr Vine and further infringing his rights.”

The barrister said that Mr Barton had made four undertakings, including not to harass Mr Vine or encourage others to do so.

Mr de Wilde said: “The conduct this morning has gone right up to the line and in Mr Vine‘s view, it has gone across the line.”

Ms Justice Steyn said: “It does seem to me in light of the letter from the claimant’s solicitors ... that it is sensible to give the warning that Mr Barton would have received if he had given the undertakings in court.

“These are all serious commitments he has given to the court and any breach of them is potentially punishable as a contempt of court.”

In the statement, Mr de Wilde said Mr Vine “was deeply alarmed, distressed and upset by the defendant’s conduct” which included a “persistent and highly damaging campaign of defamation, harassment and misuse of private information”.

Ms Jenkins later said she had not spoken to her client about the recent video post.

Court reporting by PA