Joey Barton has issued an apology to Jeremy Vine and agreed to pay the radio presenter £75,000 in damages over a legal action related to posts on social media.
The broadcaster, 59, sued the former footballer, 41, for libel and harassment in the High Court over online posts in which he used a number of slurs and made unfounded allegations.
As well as the damages, Barton has agreed to pay Vine’s legal costs.
Posting on X, Barton said: “Between 8 and 12 January 2024 I published 11 posts which accused Jeremy Vine of having a sexual interest in children, and created a hashtag which made the same allegations, which were viewed millions of times.
“I recognise that this is a very serious allegation. It is untrue. I do not believe that Mr Vine has a sexual interest in children, and I wish to set the record straight.”
The former Manchester City player said he also published posts during the same period in which he referred to Vine as having “advocated forced vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic, based upon a video clip of his TV programme”.
Read more from Sky News:
Three young children missing found safe
‘Chance of heatwave developing by next week’ in UK
Love Island star claims he ‘could have died’ after allergic reaction
Barton added: “I accept that he did not advocate this policy and that the video clip has been edited to give a misleading impression of what he was in fact saying. I then taunted and abused Mr Vine for bringing a legal complaint against me.
“I have agreed not to make the same allegations again about Mr Vine and I apologise to him for the distress he has suffered. To resolve his claims against me in defamation and harassment, I have agreed to pay Mr Vine £75,000 in damages and his legal costs.”
‘Calculated and sustained attack’
In court, lawyers for Vine said the abusive posts about the broadcaster were part of a “calculated and sustained attack” and Barton even used one particular phrase as part of a hashtag which led to trending on the platform.
William McCormick KC, representing Barton, said at an earlier hearing that the posts contained “vulgar abuse” but did not libel Vine, and represented “someone who is posting in the heat of the moment”.
But Mrs Justice Steyn ruled on Tuesday that 11 of the posts could defame Vine.
She said a reader would not have perceived the posts as “meaningless abuse ‘shouted’ in the heat of the moment, as there is nothing in the post that would give that impression”.
Source Agencies
