He compared her to serial killer Rose West, then later doubled down and said she was in the 'Joseph Stalin category' for 'murdering hundreds of thousands of ears'.
Joey Barton | Podcaster and Domestic Abuser
- Thread starter kentafuji
- Start date
Yes, they’re all twats. But that’s a matter for Twitter, who can take that platform away whenever they like if he’s broken their rules. The state shouldn’t be getting involved because someone said something that hurt someone’s feelings.
Again, it’s a matter for twitter, not the police, unless he’s tweeting actual hate speech. His comments on Aluko don’t fall under that, otherwise literally everybody on twitter should’ve been arrested on election night alone.
He’s done in football, nobody is having him back after this, which is saying something after everything he’s done in the past. He’s thrown his career away because he wants to be an edge lord.
Yeah with Musk it seems nothing is against their rules anymore.
That's your opinion, but it isn't true of what the law and CPS guides and says regarding communication offences.
Joey Barton & Matt le Tissier podcast, I can feel it coming
Doesn't he have his own podcast channel? There's a lot of money in that so I assume he knowingly threw his tv career away because of all the traction his online comments would receive. He saw how big the likes of Andrew Tate became through attracting incels and he fancied himself to do something similar.
What has this poor word done to the internet for it to be abused this way.
Well yeah since they’ve charged him, my point was that they shouldn’t have done.
The malicious communications law is also a really broad bit of legislation, written over 20 years ago that is applied selectively to whoever they fancy. It needs updating really, or things like this will keep happening. The difference is this time round nobody is bothered because it’s Joey Barton and everyone thinks he’s a fecking melon.
Considering they left her feeling threatened enough that she felt anxious about working or leaving the house, yeah, i think it's quite an efficient use. But kudos to you for wanting to stick up for him. Weird.
No idea, he definitely seems to be cultivating that sort of crowd though. Thing is, I don’t know if he’s as smart as some think, shrewdly planting those seeds to grow his audience, or if he’s actually just thick as mince and is ‘just tellin’ it as it is mate’ to whoever is listening.
literally nothing
I don't have time for the Barton's and Tates of this world but the way some of you on here talk, is it any better? Calling people who think a certain way incels and all other things, acting superior. This is how they think too but in the other extreme. Just ignore them, I don't pay attention to folks like them but the obsession on here to ridicule what you obviously don't like and should be ignoring is weird.
Sigh. Why do you think I’m sticking up for him? Barton is a cnut, and what he said was offensive. I’m sticking up for everyone’s right to talk shit and not have the police lock you up for it.
Probably because of your posts about the situation and not understanding it isn't as simple as just talking shit.
Mate I'm the same - I ignore the likes of Joey Barton and Andrew Tate and I'm content with how my social media algorithm has turned out now that I no longer see any of their idiotic posts. Out of sight, out of mind.
I wasn't saying that all of the people who follow them are incels. I was saying that Barton comes out with statements like "female commentators are the Joseph Stalin of football punditry" to attract a certain crowd: incels being one of them.
it already exists
Quote one of my posts where I stuck up for him?
Barton was talking shit - it’s what he does. The fact Aluko had her feelings hurt by it sucks, but that doesn’t mean the police need to get involved. Which part of this isn’t going in?
Most of them.
The fact that you're reducing it down to just talking shit says it all really but you do you.
Of course it does
I might give it a go - morbid curiosity you might call itIs it really against the law what he said? I am far, far from being his fan. However in my opinion you should be allowed to criticise people unless We are talking about breaking the law. So what did he break?
the malicious communications act (allegedly)
he compared her to fred and rose west which isn't really a criticism is it?
Does he still quote Nietzsche these days, or no?
He and his fans stick to Reich these days.
It's easy to say "just ignore them" when you're not the target of their comments.
Absolutely.
This isn't a joke down the pub some seem to think this is, he is using his fame and following to public attacking people and their reputations for further gain. He is actually profiting off of this, which takes it into a whole new realm of accountability.
Having read over this back and forth, I can see what 2 man midfield is saying. You seem to want others to follow your train of thought and criticise them if they don't agree. Just like the other guy calling people incels because they don't have an extreme left approach.Most of them.
The fact that you're reducing it down to just talking shit says it all really but you do you.
For the record though I don't agree with Barton, but I do think people should be allowed to have their own opinion as long as it doesn't break the law
...but it is...because it's not just voicing an opinion or talking shit. It's more than that. It's actively causing a person distress and anxiety, it's causing your minions to then go and give this person grief, it's being homophobic and misogynistic. It's much more than just opinion and shit talking. I think that's what people aren't understanding. Malicious communication offences aren't just about the content of the communication, but the surrounding impact and context of them.
Last edited:
It clearly does potentially break the law though. Why else do you think it's going before a judge?
Also, who's "you" in this case? Actually don't answer that, the use of the term "extreme left approach" in relation to the incel movement says everything we need to know about how much you've actually read on any of this. Do you actually think that's just a left wing insult?
Do yourself a favour, read again. Then read some more.
Horrible person, horrible comments but to be charged for these comments seems a bit nuts to me.
Which one....
The Communications Act is pretty clear on these points.
Wtf are you on about? Re-read my post. I mentioned nothing about left or right wing ideologies, nor did I say that all of Barton's followers are incels. I merely suggested that his horrible comments towards women are likely to attract a few incels to watch his podcast. If you disagree with my suggestion then that's fine, but I'd prefer it if you didn't sensationalise my comments in an attempt to win an argument with someone else.
He always seems quite angry doesn't he
Not a fan of censorship in general but thugs (twice convincted of violent crime and that's only half his rap sheet) like Joey Barton don't deserve to have a platform
Glad to see he's been done for libel so got hit in the pocket and now has to face court too - has done jail time in the past and obviously didn't learn from it
Glad to see he's been done for libel so got hit in the pocket and now has to face court too - has done jail time in the past and obviously didn't learn from it
One in the eye for those who said he was an unoriginal, brainless footballer. He’s the first footballer to come up with a completely new way to lose all of his money after his career ended.
The impact of people like Barton et al is having very real consequences for women and girls.
Seems a bit nuts to me everyone can’t see this.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...y-england-wales-police?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Yeap, it’s incredible people don’t see that words lead to action. Actually I think most do know it but refuse to acknowledge it because free speech™ is somehow more important than safety of the people who are being targeted.
Words do lead to actions but that is a very slipper slope because there are a lot of idiots out there and convicting people for putting ideas in their heads however vague is madness. Directly inciting violence towards someone is another matter. Making twattish remarks that are clearly utterly ridiculous probably shouldn't result in a conviction.
This is where the platforms should probably be doing something rather than the law. Calling someone a paedophile, yes, thats something you can't do. Comparing a football commentator to a serial killer is just barmy and any right thinking human knows that hes just being a knob.
This is where the platforms should probably be doing something rather than the law. Calling someone a paedophile, yes, thats something you can't do. Comparing a football commentator to a serial killer is just barmy and any right thinking human knows that hes just being a knob.
Just to be absolutely clear: free speech doesn't cover direct and explicit insults. Whether these insults are criminally prosecutable or not is another matter. But this is not a debate about free speech. Insults are categorically not protected by it, either by the spirit or the letter of the law.
Free speech isn't a thing in the UK, anyway.