Joey Barton has apologised to Jeremy Vine on social media following comments he made on X.
Barton, 41, had labelled Vine, 57, a "bike nonce" and "pedo defender". A high court judge ruled Barton's comments as defamatory after the former footballer was sued by the radio and TV presenter for libel and harassment.
Barton posted: "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.
READ MORE: Joey Barton loses 'bike nonce' case to Jeremy Vine as judge slams 'pedo' remark
READ MORE: Joey Barton starts GoFundMe after calling Jeremy Vine 'bike nonce' – with unlikely backer
"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.
"I also published posts during the same period in which I referred to Mr Vine having advocated forced vaccination during the Covid 19 pandemic, based upon a video clip of his TV programme.
"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."
Barton lost the case last month, and in the judgement, Mrs Justice Steyn said: "While I do not consider that the hypothetical reader, who would read the post quickly and move on, would infer a causative link, ie that the claimant defends paedophiles because he shares the same propensity.
"The juxtaposition of the words 'nonce' and 'pedo' is striking and would reinforce the impression that the former was used in the sense of 'paedophile'."
William McCormick, KC, representing Barton, said the posts contained “vulgar abuse” but did not libel Vine and represented “someone who is posting in the heat of the moment,” and the term “bike nonce” was an "obvious attempt at humorous abuse of Mr Vine".
To which the judge replied: "In my judgment, the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader would understand the post as taunting, scorning and ridiculing the claimant for his alleged proclivity.
"The jocular tone might be seen by the ordinary reasonable reader as in bad taste, given the subject matter, but it would not lead them to understand that no allegation of having a sexual interest in children was seriously being made.
"Nor would the reader perceive it as meaningless abuse 'shouted' in the heat of the moment, as there is nothing in the post that would give that impression."
