On BBC site been charged by Cheshire Police for malicious communications on tweets on X re Eni Aluko an ex footballer from Nigeria who does some TV commentating apparently. Alleged offences date from Jan 1st -18th 2024.

As others have found, you don't mess with Eni Aluko. She's a lady who has worked her way into a privileged position over the years, and she knows how to use it.

He’ll spend the rest of his life in and out of court rooms.

A man in a constant rage.

I grew to like him while he was with us, but seeing his social media ... my word, what a tool!

Billyblah wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:03 pm

As others have found, you don't mess with Eni Aluko. She's a lady who has worked her way into a privileged position over the years, and she knows how to use it.

Sorry, can you say that again? Couldn't hear you over the sound of a lot of dogs barking.

The only time in his life when he has been anything other than a prick was when he was employed at Burnley. And maybe even that's just Claret tinted specs, but genuinely thought he was a real leader, generally rose above huge provocation every week, got the best from those around him and didn't do or say anything horrendous.

Sadly reverted to type pretty quickly.

It's widely known how silly Barton can be on social media but it seems that unless more information is put out there we don't know exactly what he's being charged with and why?

He compared her to Rose West which was just plain daft. But is he really being prosecuted for comparing her to Rose West?

If so, that's a very dangerous route for a state to go down. This isn't a private prosecution we're talking about, this is public charge. Barton has already been judged on this in the court of public opinion.

What exactly is he being charged with and are we going to be entitled to know?

Plissken wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:14 pm

Sorry, can you say that again? Couldn't hear you over the sound of a lot of dogs barking.

?????

What on earth are you on about?

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:33 pm

?????

What on earth are you on about?

It’s a reference to “dog whistle” type comment

Seems to have been on a path to self destruction
ever since he left us.

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:29 pm

The only time in his life when he has been anything other than a prick was when he was employed at Burnley. And maybe even that's just Claret tinted specs, but genuinely thought he was a real leader, generally rose above huge provocation every week, got the best from those around him and didn't do or say anything horrendous.

Sadly reverted to type pretty quickly.

The rest of the squad should take a lot of credit. It sounded like they had to put up with him for the good of the team

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:33 pm

What exactly is he being charged with and are we going to be entitled to know?

We'll find out sooner or later. Courts are public, and the press will be there, in numbers too.

Rick_Muller wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:34 pm

It’s a reference to “dog whistle” type comment

Yes but it's best that the poster in question comes out and states this. It's very poor form to make this kind of comment for a number of reasons:

1. An accusation is (or at least was[ something very serious. If you're going to make the allegation you should do it properly and explicitly.
2. In contrast, an insinuation of racism is cowardly and weak.
3. It undermines the campaign against racism if accusations are thrown around without any firm evidence or based completely on subjectivity.
4. Even IF (with a capital I and a capital F) there actually was some kind of racist intent in the post and our online racism-sniffer has correctly identified the intent but nobody else did, then that makes him the dog in question.

There are many good reasons not to make vague and subjective insinuations of racism and very few good reasons to do so.

Clovius Boofus wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:52 pm

We'll find out sooner or later. Courts are public, and the press will be there, in numbers too.

Surely if Joey Barton has been charged this information should already be in the public domain? He can hardly be charged with 'malicious communications' if the police don't tell him what precisely it was he said that they believe is 'malicious'?

Shouldn't this have been reported in the article?

Can anybody clarify this?

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:55 pm

Surely if Joey Barton has been charged this information should already be in the public domain? He can hardly be charged with 'malicious communications' if the police don't tell him what precisely it was he said that they believe is 'malicious'?

Shouldn't this have been reported in the article?

Can anybody clarify this?

If you've read the article, you'll see there's a clear reference to the information it relates to. It's there in black and white.

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:57 pm

If you've read the article, you'll see there's a clear reference to the information it relates to. It's there in black and white.

Do you have a link?

I can't see anything in the article at all. It talks about 'messages'. Is it something he sent privately?

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:57 pm

If you've read the article, you'll see there's a clear reference to the information it relates to. It's there in black and white.

For clarity, this is the article I have:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgxqgxyv1kpo

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:00 pm

For clarity, this is the article I have:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgxqgxyv1kpo

https://news.sky.com/story/joey-barton- ... sf-twitter

claretlegend wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:10 pm

I grew to like him while he was with us, but seeing his social media ... my word, what a tool!

He was always someone you put up with. But he does make some very valid points.

ElectroClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:35 pm

Seems to have been on a path to self destruction
ever since he left us.

More so since he lost his job at Bristol Rovers - he’s just had to settle out of court after posting about Jeremy Vine.

Sad to see - I thought he was a credit to us during his time at Burnley.

I've found what might be the 'messages' in question from an article in the Metro:

The Metro wrote:
‘How is she even talking about men’s football? She can’t even kick a ball properly,’ Barton posted on X in January.

‘Your coverage of the game EFC last night, took it to a new low. Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward, the Fred and Rose West of football commentary.’

Barton then wrote that Aluko was ‘clearly in the Joseph Stalin category’ for ‘murdering hundreds of thousands of fans’ ears’

https://metro.co.uk/2024/07/22/joey-bar ... -21272989/

If this constitutes a criminal offence as opposed to being a matter for the public to decide for themselves how clever or tasteful it is then I am firmly of the opinion the law needs changing.

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:03 pm

https://news.sky.com/story/joey-barton- ... sf-twitter

Yep that article doesn't state the tweets either.

The Metro article I found does quote some tweets and I am rather at a loss to imagine that these are actually the words the could potentially be found to constitute a criminal offence? Can anyone confirm these are the words he's being charged with using?

Frankly, I find this extremely sinister and worrying. It's a license for the state to go after and shut up people they don't agree with. If this is really the cause of all this I really hope this is thrown out of court. It's a spectacular waste of time and money other than anything else.

The Mail online had the context just now and then I lost it.

The charges relate to Aluka and another woman commentator, Lucy? and the ITV coverage of FA Cup.

He described it as a new low for TV football coverage, as Aluka couldn't even kick a ball properly (which could be judged with evidence and expertise on ball kicking). He end by comparing them to Fred and Rose West, which to me translates as the most unwelcome people you would want on your screen.

Not sure there is anything in that! It is only if you conteclct it as him calling them F&R, which would be a case. His reference relates to their contribution, or lack of, to the event he watched. Bit extreme but I have seen worse.

Here is a Daily Mail link. Says the same.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... Aluko.html

Barton is just a nasty racist bully imo

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:12 pm

The Mail online had the context just now and then I lost it.

The charges relate to Aluka and another woman commentator, Lucy? and the ITV coverage of FA Cup.

He described it as a new low for TV football coverage, as Aluka couldn't even kick a ball properly (which could be judged with evidence and expertise on ball kicking). He end by comparing them to Fred and Rose West, which to me translates as the most unwelcome people you would want on your screen.

Not sure there is anything in that! It is only if you conteclct it as him calling them F&R, which would be a case. His reference relates to their contribution, or lack of, to the event he watched. Bit extreme but I have seen worse.

Here is a Daily Mail link. Says the same.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... Aluko.html

Thanks Ian.

If that's what he is being charged for, in a criminal court then we need to have a big national debate about what the law is and what we want it to achieve and we need to be having the debate urgently and in public.

Taking the law in this direction is putting us on the wrong path. This is what people used to be charged with in dictatorships, totalitarian regimes and tinpot countries.

Trying to make an example out of Joey will transform him from a plonker to a martyr in the eyes of the casual observor.

If this is what he is being charged with then today is a bad day for freedom of speech and common sense.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:06 pm

More so since he lost his job at Bristol Rovers - he’s just had to settle out of court after posting about Jeremy Vine.

Sad to see - I thought he was a credit to us during his time at Burnley.

I think we probably didn't read between the lines at times to be fair. There were numerous times where the players mentioned Barton going mad at half time. It sounds like they and Dyche had to accommodate that side of him, it hadn't disappeared.
It could quite easily have gone the other way, not many would come in and acting like that. He probably tried the same and Rangers and found a less accommodating environment.

I’m old enough to remember certain posters telling others we should wait until all the details come out in court cases before we judge.

Ah well.

He's such an idiot. Comparing someone to a degenerate who raped and murdered girls and young women is definitely a no-no, but the thing is, the malicious communications act is wide-reaching. When we press send on social media, it is no different, in law, from posting a letter to someone. If you post a letter to someone comparing them to Rose West, then I guess it would be viewed as a malicious act should the recipient go to the police. Like I said, the act is wide-reaching.

Free speech only allowed for certain narratives it seems

DAVETHEVICAR wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:16 pm

Barton is just a nasty racist bully imo

Hi Dave!

I really think people should refrain from making accusations of racism that aren't backed up with firm evidence. You're free to believe this, but what's the proof you have of this accusation?

Barton was equally distasteful in his remarks that were aimed at the other female pundit. She is white.

He later compared her to Stalin in a muddy metaphor about 'murder'. Stalin is was also white.

It really isn't news to anybody that Joey Barton, who has a carge sheet as long as his arm, is nasty or a bully but the evidence that he is 'racist' is thin on the ground.

If we go around splashing about serious allegations in an un-serious manner then we're going to undermine the accusation entirely. Many might think that we've already passed that point.

Bordeauxclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:19 pm

I’m old enough to remember certain posters telling others we should wait until all the details come out in court cases before we judge.

Ah well.

Yes but if a charge has been made relating to certain messages and the charge is that these messages are 'malicious' then the specific words should be in the public domain.

There's unlikely to be any information revealed in the court case that isn't in the public domain. The case will hinge on whether the prosecution can persuade that the words meet the criteria specified in the malicious communications act.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:11 pm

Yep that article doesn't state the tweets either.

The Metro article I found does quote some tweets and I am rather at a loss to imagine that these are actually the words the could potentially be found to constitute a criminal offence? Can anyone confirm these are the words he's being charged with using?

Frankly, I find this extremely sinister and worrying. It's a license for the state to go after and shut up people they don't agree with. If this is really the cause of all this I really hope this is thrown out of court. It's a spectacular waste of time and money other than anything else.

Like with the recent convictions and charges of the just stop oil protesters you mean?

I genuinely think he is ill and needs specialist help.

He’s a gobshite, but clearly the reference was made in the respect that the 2 ladies murdered the coverage, not that they were actual murderers. Another example of him trying to be clever. (Although I do find Eni Aluko rubbish)

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:25 pm

Like with the recent convictions and charges of the just stop oil protesters you mean?

No. They weren't charged under the same act. Their case is not the same as this.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:33 pm

It's widely known how silly Barton can be on social media but it seems that unless more information is put out there we don't know exactly what he's being charged with and why?

He compared her to Rose West which was just plain daft. But is he really being prosecuted for comparing her to Rose West?

If so, that's a very dangerous route for a state to go down. This isn't a private prosecution we're talking about, this is public charge. Barton has already been judged on this in the court of public opinion.

What exactly is he being charged with and are we going to be entitled to know?

Classic Rowls.

1) let’s not be too harsh on Joey as we don’t know what he’s being charged with and why

2) I’ll ignore the point I just made about not knowing what he’s been charged for and point out that if it’s because of comparing her to Rose West then that’s the end of democracy as we know it….etc etc !!

bfcjg wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:28 pm

I genuinely think he is ill and needs specialist help.

I don’t think it’s fair to speculate about Rowls’ health.

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:37 pm

Classic Rowls.

1) let’s not be too harsh on Joey as we don’t know what he’s being charged with and why

2) I’ll ignore the point I just made about not knowing what he’s been charged for and point out that if it’s because of comparing her to Rose West then that’s the end of democracy as we know it….etc etc !!

1) It's not been stated unequivocally what statement he's been charged with. If it's the tweets in the public domain then I'm shocked that something like that can be considered a matter for the law. If it's something else then we don't know what he's being charged with and why.

2) See point 1. It's just that I'm struggling to believe what is essentially a playground insult is deemed a matter worthy of police and CPS time and expense.

You're being daft saying "that's the end of democracy as we know it". My words are all there for everybody to read. I've done my best to be considered in the way I describe it but it is something that worries me considerably. We apparently have a law in this country that makes it a crime to insult somebody or poke fun at somebody else.

If that's the case, can't you see how this could be used to make a criminal out of almost anybody? Have you spent your entire life without ever insulting somebody or causing somebody distress? Can't you see how low this bar is being set?

The CPS seem to think there is strong enough evidence that Joey Barton breeched the Malicious Communications Act in line with the Online Safety Act so if it turns out he's broken the law then he needs being brought to justice and facing the consequences and that will rightly be decided via a trial in court.

His actions caused the victim to receive horrendous online abuse and made her fear for her safety so I can understand why the police are keen to take this case on and charge Barton.

I think there is a real problem with online abuse but unfortunately due to anonymity it is very hard to tackle and hold people to account so when someone with such a high profile potentially openly commits a crime like this then we need to take it seriously and make sure that the rule of law and order is followed and upheld

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:41 pm

I don’t think it’s fair to speculate about Rowls’ health.

Congratulations Rileybobs!

You're the first (on this thread) to make it personal!

Everybody else was on tenterhooks not to do this because of the very obvious ramifications.

If you can to make explicit what you're implying here then you're potentially committing a criminal offence under this law. We can all see how this works and how low the bar is being set.

FWIW I'm happy for you to insult me till the cows come home. I don't think it should be a matter for the plod.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:31 pm

No. They weren't charged under the same act. Their case is not the same as this.

I am surprised that you didn’t think the state went after people they didn’t like, and shut them up….. genuinely, really surprised. I thought you were the freeedom fighter for freedom of speech for all. How have I got you this wrong all these years? Well I’m suitably embarrassed now. I’ve made a fool of myself.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:51 pm

Congratulations Rileybobs!

You're the first (on this thread) to make it personal!

Everybody else was on tenterhooks not to do this because of the very obvious ramifications.

If you can to make explicit what you're implying here then you're potentially committing a criminal offence under this law. We can all see how this works and how low the bar is being set.

FWIW I'm happy for you to insult me till the cows come home. I don't think it should be a matter for the plod.

Thanks, not a problem. See you in court!

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 1:53 pm

Yes but it's best that the poster in question comes out and states this. It's very poor form to make this kind of comment for a number of reasons:

Ah, the Michael Gove tactic of mock throwing your hands up in horror at the tone of the question, in a way to not actually deny the question.

Joey B charged with making comments. Poster goes straight to Eni Aluko, and saying "worked her way into a privileged position over the years" and "she knows how to use it". Didn't mention Lucy Ward at all. It doesn't need spelling out, all I did was use the same tactics.

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:45 pm

The CPS seem to think there is strong enough evidence that Joey Barton breeched the Malicious Communications Act in line with the Online Safety Act so if it turns out he's broken the law then he needs being brought to justice and facing the consequences and that will rightly be decided via a trial in court.

I know you're normally a novelty account but given you've posted seriously, everything you've posted above is correct. That's what the law says, and if the law says that then it needs enforcing.

However, if this is the law and merely insulting somebody online is now deemed to fall under the definition of the Malicious Communications Act, then we might want or need to review the law. I was surprised to see the law was passed in 1988. It was probably something to do with "poison pen" letters back then. It certainly will not have been drafted with social media or even the internet in mind.

I do not think this law is fit to deal with the world as it has been since the arrival of social media. The risk is that this law becomes a tool for the state or serial complainants to silence people they do not like.

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:45 pm

His actions caused the victim to receive horrendous online abuse and made her fear for her safety so I can understand why the police are keen to take this case on and charge Barton.

This is where we vear apart. I agree with your first sentence. However, what you're talking about here would be "incitement to violence". Not only is Barton not being charged with this, his tweets clearly do not meet the criteria for incitement.

If his words have emboldened others into some kind of "pile on" then these messages need looking at. Are these other messages threatening violence or breaking any laws? If they are then the sender needs to be held to account. Not Joey Bartgon.

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:45 pm

I think there is a real problem with online abuse but unfortunately due to anonymity it is very hard to tackle and hold people to account so when someone with such a high profile potentially openly commits a crime like this then we need to take it seriously and make sure that the rule of law and order is followed and upheld

Yes, there are grave problems with online abuse.

However, we should not be treating famous people differently under the law. This works both ways. They don't get a free pass but neither are they held to a different standard to us plebs. Private organisations might well have rules binding their members to higher standards than the general public but that is not something befitting of the law.

Crimes can be considered aggravated but people cannot.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:45 pm

1) It's not been stated unequivocally what statement he's been charged with. If it's the tweets in the public domain then I'm shocked that something like that can be considered a matter for the law. If it's something else then we don't know what he's being charged with and why.

2) See point 1. It's just that I'm struggling to believe what is essentially a playground insult is deemed a matter worthy of police and CPS time and expense.

You're being daft saying "that's the end of democracy as we know it". My words are all there for everybody to read. I've done my best to be considered in the way I describe it but it is something that worries me considerably. We apparently have a law in this country that makes it a crime to insult somebody or poke fun at somebody else.

If that's the case, can't you see how this could be used to make a criminal out of almost anybody? Have you spent your entire life without ever insulting somebody or causing somebody distress? Can't you see how low this bar is being set?

I'm astonished that you've made it this far in life without understanding what "incitement" is.

Barton has tried the tactic of begging Elon Musk for help.
Again.

Plissken wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:59 pm

Ah, the Michael Gove tactic of mock throwing your hands up in horror at the tone of the question, in a way to not actually deny the question.

Joey B charged with making comments. Poster goes straight to Eni Aluko, and saying "worked her way into a privileged position over the years" and "she knows how to use it". Didn't mention Lucy Ward at all. It doesn't need spelling out, all I did was use the same tactics.

Unless the poster comes out and says, "yeah I was motivated by casual racism" then the best either you or I can do is guess at their motivations. We might be wrong.

By you're own description here, you read a comment, decided that the poster was motivated by racism and then lowered yourself to their level.

I'm saying we should not follow this path if we want to tackle racism and show it up for the kind of bone-headed thinking it represents.

dandeclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 2:54 pm

I am surprised that you didn’t think the state went after people they didn’t like, and shut them up….. genuinely, really surprised. I thought you were the freeedom fighter for freedom of speech for all. How have I got you this wrong all these years? Well I’m suitably embarrassed now. I’ve made a fool of myself.

I'm really struggling to understand what point you're making here. The posters were found guilty of conspiring to commit public nuiscance. The evidence against them is overwhelming and is not an issue of free speech. The judges summary is here:

https://crimeline.co.uk/stop-oil-protes ... g-remarks/

It's all a bit OT and I'm not sure what point you're making here. I don't see any parallel.

Bordeauxclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 3:03 pm

Barton has tried the tactic of begging Elon Musk for help.
Again.

I need to see this. Can you send me the link?

Plissken wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 22, 2024 3:02 pm

I'm astonished that you've made it this far in life without understanding what "incitement" is.

I'm confident that I understand the meaning of the word.

Probably best not to confuse racism and colour prejudice.