A preliminary hearing in a claim for defamation and harassment brought by TV pundit Eni Aluko against Joey Barton was heard today at London’s High Court.
It is alleged that for around seven months — between January 5 and August 1 2024 — Barton repeatedly harassed former England women’s footballer Aluko on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Aluko’s civil claim over harassment relates to 46 posts by Barton on X, where he has 2.8 million followers. Her defamation claim is in response to two posts by Barton on X, one on January 17 and the second on January 19.
The claimant’s skeleton argument said Barton launched a social media campaign in response to the involvement of women in men’s football. It said Barton “objects to this phenomenon as a matter of principle…he attributes it to a ‘box ticking’ culture, related to the pursuit of an agenda based on diversity, equity and inclusion.”
The judge today was being asked to decide the “natural and ordinary” meaning of the posts.
The first post related to information about Aluko in the headline of a 2017 Guardian article in which she had made racism and bullying claims when she was a player with the England national team.
The claimant’s skeleton argument said Barton put his own spin on this with the words “surprise, surprise” along with three clown emojis.
It added: “The clown emojis are not subtle, or open to nuanced semantic analysis. No reference to the ‘emojipedia’ is required. They convey not that there is a ‘situation’ which is ‘laughable’, as [Barton] contends, but that [Aluko], the person who is clearly the subject of the post, is not a serious person.”
The skeleton argument added how, just a few hours earlier, Barton had criticised Aluko for a video post where she had spoken out about her experience of online abuse.
Barton had accused her of playing the “victim card”, adding “cry me a f***ing river.”
William McCormick KC, representing Barton, said his comments should not be taken at face value. He described the claims against his client as “strained, forced and utterly unreasonable.”
In the defendant’s skeleton argument, it claimed the “words are not critical of [Aluko], focusing (insofar as the reader can tell) on the calls (made by others) for the FA to investigate an earlier process prompted by complaints made by [Aluko].”
The January 19 post related to a BBC story where Aluko apologised for a series of tweets which appeared to criticise people placed on furlough during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Referencing that, Barton called her “poor, little Eni Aluko” before commenting on her background, upbringing and lifestyle. He wrote that she grew up in a “massive house”, where she had “3 Rolls Royce’s” and went to private school, before becoming a lawyer. He also alleged she had benefited from “dodgy money” and was a “race card player.”
The claimant’s skeleton argument read: “An allegation of ‘playing the race card’ is highly pejorative and defamatory. Not only is it an allegation of dishonesty, but it indicates that the person in question has cynically exploited those widely understood sensitivities for their own ends.”
In response, Mr McCormick claimed the points made in Barton’s second tweet were “classic opinion” and he says the posts are not defamatory of Aluko at all.
Aluko attended today’s hearing, while Barton did not.
The hearing in front of Justice Lavender finished today and a decision in writing will be given at a later date.
(George Wood/Getty Images)
