Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

Lucy Ward destroys Joey Barton’s KC with one line.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0exrgl217jo

”Simon Csoka KC, defending, said: "So far as being able to offer your own expertise on the men's game, you can only do that if you were in the men's game?"

Ms Ward said: "Not necessarily. Football is football.

"You don't have to have done it if you know what you are talking about."

Mr Csoka said: "There is a vast difference between the men's and women's game."

Ms Ward said, to laughter in the court: "Yes, the women win things."”

YLTSI

This will bring the toxic masculinity freaks out. 

He walked himself into a joke so obvious, it could have been from a 1990s ITV sitcom.  Was there canned laughter in court?

Walked into that knowing the answer he would obviously get to that question.  Lad has not done well there.

It was a daft question and great response.

It's a ridiculous question and one that gets trotted out by the Barton like misogynists on a regular basis, which has no justification in the world of football commentating or sports commentating generally.  Most of the best / well known football commentators of the recent past did not play, let alone play professionally in the mens' game - think Alan Green, Clive Tyldesley, Guy Mowbray, Alan Parry and Motty, or at the wider sports (and football) level, people like David Coleman or Des Lynham. 

There are many others as well, but all of those named above were journalists, or sports commentators, not professional sportmen, let alone footballers.

To say that you can't, or shouldn't commentate if you haven't played the professional game is nonsense.

John Arlott was asked whether playing first-class cricket on a regular basis might have provided him with greater insight as a cricket writer. He replied: "My word, I know what the problems are. I've failed at everything."

Imagine if before every winter Olympics we had to find people who'd participated in all of the sports to be able to provide commentary instead of Andrew Cotter just doing a bit of research.

It's the same game with the same rules so why would there be any difference?  Hopefully if Joey takes the stand they'll ask him if he thinks that only under 21's who've played should be able to comment on under 21 internationals.

Aside from JB being an idiot, what are the criminal charges about?  Can't really tell from the coverage

He was rude to her on the internet.

PS you r a bumhead

Having now actually read the article, while I hold the view that Barton is a Nimitz class bellend of the first order, and also that you don't need to have played football at a high level (or at all) to commentate on it (or be a man), I am scratching my head as to how photoshopping someone's head onto a picture of Fred West is an actual crime.

I got my car nicked and the police didn't bother to even come out as the CCTV didn't actually show the blokes face, and yet tens of thousands of state resources are being spent on this.

Like, how TF have we got ourselves in a position where non threatening social media posts are taking up the court's time?

"Mr Barton, 43, who has 2.7m followers on the platform, is on trial at Liverpool Crown Court accused of 12 counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety "

"sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety "

Seems likely that he's guilty of that

Not really my point, but in any event I'd be interested to know what is the criteria for something being grossly offensive.

The Test for “Grossly Offensive”

The term “grossly offensive” is not statutorily defined but interpreted through case law as an objective test applied by the court as a question of fact. The leading authority is DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40, a House of Lords decision involving abusive, racist voicemails left for an MP.

Key Elements of the Test from DPP v Collins

•  Objective Standard: The message must be judged against “contemporary standards of an open and just multi-racial society.” It is whether the message is “liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates,” not merely offensive, distasteful, or shocking. As Lord Bingham stated: “The court must apply what might fairly be called community standards: standards applicable to the reasonable person who is neither unduly sensitive nor thick-skinned in the light of the context and circumstances.”

•  Context is Crucial: “Context is everything when it comes to judging whether a message is grossly offensive.” This includes the circumstances of sending (e.g., political discussion vs. unsolicited abuse), the relationship between sender and recipient, and any facts known to the sender about the recipient. For example, the same words might be acceptable in banter among friends but grossly offensive in a targeted rant.

•  Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): The sender must either intend the message to be grossly offensive to those it concerns or be aware that it might reasonably be taken as such. This is not a strict liability offence; culpability requires an “intention to insult those to whom the message relates or… a risk of doing so must have been recognised by the sender.”

In Collins, the messages (using racial slurs like “w&&&” and “N&&&&&” in complaints about immigration) were deemed grossly offensive because they were “highly abusive, insulting, [and] pejorative” without mitigation, exceeding societal tolerances despite the political context.

Refinements in Subsequent Case Law

•  DPP v Kingsley Smith [2017] EWHC 359 (Admin): Confirmed the mens rea element, emphasising awareness of potential gross offensiveness by a reasonable reader.

•  DPP v Bussetti [2021] EWHC 2140 (Admin): Clarified that the message must go beyond “offensive” or “shockingly bad taste” to be “grossly offensive.” A tweet comparing a politician to Hitler was not grossly offensive in context, as it was hyperbolic political satire.

•  Chambers v DPP [2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin): A tweet joking about blowing up an airport was not grossly offensive or menacing, as it was not a credible threat and lacked intent to cause alarm.

Prosecution Guidance

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) applies a two-stage test under the Code for Crown Prosecutors:

Evidential Stage

There must be a realistic prospect of conviction, proving:

•  The actus reus (sending a grossly offensive message via a public network).

•  Mens rea (intent or awareness as above).

•  Assessment per Collins: Would reasonable members of the public find it grossly offensive in context?

Public Interest Stage

Prosecution must be in the public interest, balancing freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Proceed only if the message is more than:

•  Satire, humour, or rude banter.

•  Unpopular opinions or casual conversation.

•  Shocking but not grossly offensive content.

Factors favouring prosecution include sustained campaigns, targeting vulnerable groups, or hate crime elements (potentially disengaging Article 10 protections under Article 17 ECHR). For social media cases involving public figures, higher thresholds apply to protect debate.

Fair enough. I have views but this is presumably sub judice 

Does anyone seriously think that the jury at Liverpool Crown Court would have convicted Mr Barton if he had played for Liverpool or Everton?

I hope that Barton appeals the verdict.

I would have had some sympathy with Jeremy Vine but he seems to have contributed significantly - including directly a tweet at Barton asking if he has a brain injury.

That's a fair question given Barton's obvious issues. You don't want to go at someone for saying wicked retarded things and then find out they had a tumour or a brain worm and it isn't their fault. 

It’s a totally circular definition, even when the courts have attempted to clarify it.  It amounts to “you’ll know it when you see it” and the CPS decision to charge is entirely arbitrary.


There must be tens of thousands of tweets a day either as bad or worse than his, but he’s chosen for prosecution.

I hate the khvnt, but it is an utterly ridiculous law.  We have laws for incitement to hatred and libel.  IMO this law is insufficiently clear that it chills free speech, and nobody should have the right not to be offended.  

Numerous BB posts would clear this hurdle easily.

No Facers, BB as we all know is the absolute grand-master of satire…

It seems from the reporting that loveable rogue joey tweeted that Vine had been on Epstein island and that if anyone saw him near a primary school they should phone 999.  Seems pretty clear that the conviction is a sound one

The vine conviction on the face of the law seems sound. I’m not convinced about the Fred west one and think this generally seems an overreaching law

Bike nonce?

All of ROF would be in gaol FFS.

How is it criminal behaviour to say someone is obsessed by bikes to a large extent? 

It’s clearly a joke, and doesn’t suggest in any way the person is a paedo.

Nonce after anything is an insult that you like that thing too much.  It’s so GROSSLY offensive is it that you can go to fvcking jail for saying it?  Mental

com’on then pinko, which trans activist have u been relentlessly abusing online such that ur so worried ur gonna get pinged?

He also said to ring the police if you saw him near a playground, so in the context of the offence, it seems sound. But my views on the offence itself are up the thread already. And hasn’t Vine already won a defamation claim on these facts as well?

Where was the bit where she destroyed the KC with one line?

He also said to ring the police if you saw him near a playground, so in the context of the offence, it seems sound.

Vine has a libel action, if indeed it is credible that anyone would ACTUALLY think Joey Cvnting Barton saying this meant Vine may be a paedo.  The crime is the amount of offense (gross) Vine reasonably took.

It should not be a crime to communicate electronically things which are several orders of magnitude clearly less offensive than something probably hundreds of thousands of people - for example - have shouted at Arsene Wenger, in public, without anyone even suggesting they might be pursued for.

Face imagine for a moment if someone with a very popular twitter account frequented by people on the outskirts of the right tweeted that you were a Peado and included your address.  Would your view change?

Who was it on here who used to refer to another roffer as sweating near a playground? Awks eh

Join the discussion

Login Register