Joey Barton found guilty of sending offensive posts | Given suspended sentence

What does this tell us about the sentence given to Huw Edwards, guilty of possessing indecent images of children?

Huw Edwards had no previous.
In sentencing Barton the judge referenced previous character.

Criminal investigations and convictions​

In 2006, Merseyside Police investigated after Barton exposed his buttocks to Everton supporters following a game on 30 September. On 4 October, they announced that they would be taking no further action.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-212"><span>[</span>212<span>]</span></a>

On 13 March 2007, Barton was arrested on suspicion of assault and criminal damage following an altercation with a taxi driver in Liverpool on 4 March.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-auto2-55"><span>[</span>55<span>]</span></a> He was cleared of this charge in May 2008, after his cousin, Joshua Wilson, admitted to causing the damage.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-auto-56"><span>[</span>56<span>]</span></a>

On 1 May 2007, Barton assaulted his teammate Ousmane Dabo during a training session. Dabo was hit several times, left unconscious, and hospitalised with head injuries, including a suspected detached retina.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-auto5-60"><span>[</span>60<span>]</span></a> On 16 May, Barton was arrested and questioned by Greater Manchester Police,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-auto11-62"><span>[</span>62<span>]</span></a> and was later charged with assault.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-auto3-65"><span>[</span>65<span>]</span></a> He initially pleaded not guilty, but later changed his plea to guilty.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-auto7-66"><span>[</span>66<span>]</span></a> On 1 July 2008, Barton was sentenced to a four-month suspended prison sentence plus 200 hours of community service and ordered to pay £3,000 compensation and Dabo's court costs.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-ABHConviction-5"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a>

In the early hours of 27 December 2007, Barton was arrested on suspicion of assault in Liverpool city centre. Barton punched a man twenty times, causing him to lose consciousness, before attacking a teenage boy.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-auto6-82"><span>[</span>82<span>]</span></a> At the time, Barton was on bail for two previous arrests, and he was denied bail for the third arrest.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-auto10-83"><span>[</span>83<span>]</span></a> Barton pleaded guilty to the offence, and, on 20 May 2008, he was sentenced to six months in jail. Barton's cousin, Nadine Wilson, and his brother Andrew Barton also pleaded guilty to their part in the assaults and received suspended sentences.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-Joey_Barton_is_jailed_for_assault-3"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a>

In August 2008, Jamie Tandy pursued a civil claim against Barton. Barton had stubbed out a lit cigar in Tandy's eye in 2004 while Tandy was a youth player at Manchester City. Tandy said that the incident caused a "major psychiatric deterioration in his health that has destroyed any chance he may have had of playing professional football at a high level."<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-213"><span>[</span>213<span>]</span></a> In November 2009, Barton agreed to pay Tandy £65,000 as part of an out-of-court settlement.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-214"><span>[</span>214<span>]</span></a>

On 4 June 2012, Barton was arrested alongside three other men after a fight outside a nightclub in Liverpool.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-215"><span>[</span>215<span>]</span></a> Barton claimed that he had been "sucker punched" in the incident. The following month, all four men were told they would face no further police action.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-216"><span>[</span>216<span>]</span></a>

On 13 April 2019, South Yorkshire Police launched an investigation after Barton was alleged to have assaulted opposition manager Daniel Stendel in the Oakwell tunnel following a game between Fleetwood Town and Barnsley.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-auto9-190"><span>[</span>190<span>]</span></a> In July 2019, Barton was charged with causing actual bodily harm and bailed until 9 October 2019.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-auto4-191"><span>[</span>191<span>]</span></a> He pleaded not guilty.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-auto8-192"><span>[</span>192<span>]</span></a> On 6 December 2021, Barton was found not guilty of the charge.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-auto1-196"><span>[</span>196<span>]</span></a>

In July 2021, Barton was charged with the assault by beating of a woman at an address in Kew, London in June 2021.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-217"><span>[</span>217<span>]</span></a> In March 2022, a court heard that Barton was accused of kicking his wife in the head and grabbing her throat while drunk, the case being adjourned to 23 June due to a late arrival of emails.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-218"><span>[</span>218<span>]</span></a> The case was further delayed until the end of October, Barton's defence team being set a deadline of two weeks to provide the list of witnesses that they would be presenting and say whether or not the alleged victim would be called as a defence witness.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-219"><span>[</span>219<span>]</span></a> The case was dismissed on 31 October on grounds of the impossibility of Barton receiving a fair trial because prosecutors would not call the alleged victim to testify,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-220"><span>[</span>220<span>]</span></a> but the acquittal was reversed on appeal by the prosecution.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-221"><span>[</span>221<span>]</span></a> In March 2025, Barton was found guilty of assault and handed a 12-week suspended prison sentence.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-222"><span>[</span>222<span>]</span></a>

In April 2024, Cheshire Police announced it was investigating Barton after "reports of offences under the Communications Act". The force said it could not comment further about which posts had been reported.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-223"><span>[</span>223<span>]</span></a>

Defamation claims​

Jeremy Vine sued Barton for libel over posts on X, where Barton had repeatedly called Vine a "bike nonce". In a preliminary ruling, judge Mrs Justice Steyn, in the High Court, held that the tweets were defamatory at common law, since Barton had combined the term 'nonce', British slang for paedophile, with images of notorious paedophiles such as Jimmy Savile and Jeffrey Epstein, which had the defamatory effect of falsely insinuating that Vine is a paedophile.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-224"><span>[</span>224<span>]</span></a> In settlement, Barton offered to pay £75,000 in damages and to pay Vine's legal expenses.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-225"><span>[</span>225<span>]</span></a> However, Vine stated that the £75,000+costs was an offer made at an earlier stage, and subsequently Barton went on to make further defamatory statements, and that the legal process continues in respect of these.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-226"><span>[</span>226<span>]</span></a> To settle the libel claim with Vine, Barton was ordered to pay an additional £35,000.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-227"><span>[</span>227<span>]</span></a>

In January 2024, ITV responded with condemnation to Barton's referring to Eniola Aluko and Lucy Ward as "the Fred and Rose West of football commentary" after they appeared as pundit and co-commentator on an ITV match broadcast.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-228"><span>[</span>228<span>]</span></a> In July 2024 Barton was charged with making malicious communications related to tweets he made concerning Aluko, between 1 and 18 January 2024.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-229"><span>[</span>229<span>]</span></a> Barton had said on his Twitter feed that Aluko had only been hired as a pundit for an England game for "diversity and inclusion quotas".<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-230"><span>[</span>230<span>]</span></a> These posts, along with others targeting Vine, led to Barton being found guilty in November 2025 at Liverpool Crown Court of six counts of sending "grossly offensive" messages via social media.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-231"><span>[</span>231<span>]</span></a>

In December 2024, Barton was additionally charged with malicious communication relating to social media posts referring to Jeremy Vine and Lucy Ward.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-232"><span>[</span>232<span>]</span></a>

On 9 April 2025, Aluko won the first stage of a High Court libel claim against Barton. She had appeared to criticise people placed on the government's furlough scheme, for which she apologised. In response, Barton had posted comments suggesting that her private education made her a "hypocrite" and that her late father had been financially corrupt.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-233"><span>[</span>233<span>]</span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Barton#cite_note-234"><span>[</span>234<span>]</span></a>
 
He’s a ****, and although I don’t want to see him hung, drawn and quartered, I’d personally kick the shit out of the little, bullying, misogynistic, racist gimp (my thoughts only).
 
I understand the point you’re making mate but they’ve hardly “clamped down” on him. He’s been given a suspended. Won’t be getting bummed in HMP whilst his liberty is restricted. It’s a “stop being naughty” slap on the wrist.
I guess that if that puts off one person from doing similar then job done. Personally, I struggle to see how he is in any way relevant but then I'm just an FOC.
 
What does this tell us about the sentence given to Huw Edwards, guilty of possessing indecent images of children?
It tells us absolutely nothing as they are completely different offences. It’s like asking what does City’s recent form tell us about Harlequins.

I think the sentence was about right. The courts should be very reluctant to send people to prison for this offence, except in the most extreme of circumstances, which this certainly was not.

A suspended sentence is, in fact, a custodial sentence just not one that carries an immediate term of imprisonment. Community Order or fine would have sent the wrong message, but so would sending him to prison in a democratic society. There have to be some constraints on what people can say, but the punishment should fit the crime and I’d say that a suspended sentence here does that, given his antecedent record which is poor.

And again, some people are missing the point that this offence is 35 years old, not some recent legal development. It was introduced and passed by a Thatcher government, not this one. And let’s not forget he was unanimously convicted by a jury of the offences for which he was sentenced .
 
This is going to sound extremely trivial but it was a bit weird and intrigued me.

Barton arrived at court with a hold-all, this was pointed out on the BBC news, implying that he was expecting a custodial sentence. However when he walked out of court he was empty handed and there was no hold-all to be seen. It wasn’t being carried by anyone walking with him so did he donate it to the court service?



As I said trivial. :-)
 
It tells us absolutely nothing as they are completely different offences. It’s like asking what does City’s recent form tell us about Harlequins.

I think the sentence was about right. The courts should be very reluctant to send people to prison for this offence, except in the most extreme of circumstances, which this certainly was not.

A suspended sentence is, in fact, a custodial sentence just not one that carries an immediate term of imprisonment. Community Order or fine would have sent the wrong message, but so would sending him to prison in a democratic society. There have to be some constraints on what people can say, but the punishment should fit the crime and I’d say that a suspended sentence here does that, given his antecedent record which is poor.

And again, some people are missing the point that this offence is 35 years old, not some recent legal development. It was introduced and passed by a Thatcher government, not this one. And let’s not forget he was unanimously convicted by a jury of the offences for which he was sentenced .
Thanks mate - always good to have your professional perspective.
 
What does this tell us about the sentence given to Huw Edwards, guilty of possessing indecent images of children?
This is where people lose the plot a bit.

Huw Edwards pled guilty and had previously good character and no previous record. That isn't to say what he did is excusable, it isn't but he was sentenced within the sentencing guidelines.

Joey Barton meanwhile pled not guilty, he tried to defend his actions as innocent and failed which worsens his sentence. He also has a history of smashing people's heads in, putting cigars out in people's eyes, assaulting his wife, losing defamation cases and has been in prison before.

It therefore doesn't tell you anything, it tells us that actually Barton is very lucky and his sentence was arguably extremely lenient.
 
Last edited:
This is where people lose the plot a bit.

Huw Edwards pled guilty and had previously good character and no previous record. That isn't to say what he did is excusable, it isn't but he was sentenced within the sentencing guidelines.

Joey Barton meanwhile pled not guilty, he tried to defend his actions as innocent and failed which worsens his sentence. He also has a history of smashing people's heads in, putting cigars out in people's eyes, assaulting his wife, losing defamation cases and has been in prison before.

It therefore doesn't tell you anything, it tells us that actually Barton is very lucky and his sentence was arguably extremely lenient.
I think the sentence was about right. Now, if the person he labelled as a paedo got hurt because of what Barton said about him, because they thought he was a paedo, then that all changes.

A bit like the woman who incited violence and the burning of hotels. That happened, she went to prison.
 
This is going to sound extremely trivial but it was a bit weird and intrigued me.

Barton arrived at court with a hold-all, this was pointed out on the BBC news, implying that he was expecting a custodial sentence. However when he walked out of court he was empty handed and there was no hold-all to be seen. It wasn’t being carried by anyone walking with him so did he donate it to the court service?



As I said trivial. :-)
Was probably carrying @mosssideblue in it.

;)
 
I think the sentence was about right. Now, if the person he labelled as a paedo got hurt because of what Barton said about him, because they thought he was a paedo, then that all changes.

A bit like the woman who incited violence and the burning of hotels. That happened, she went to prison.

Just saying someone is a pedo is not “inciting violence”. If you said “he’s a pedo and everyone should immediately find him and kick fuck out of him”, that would be.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top