Nurse Sandie Peggie wins part of claim against NHS Fife

A nurse who objected to sharing a female changing room with a transgender doctor has won a claim for harassment in her employment tribunal case against a health board, but other allegations of discrimination were dismissed.

Sandie Peggie was suspended by NHS Fife after complaining about having to share a changing room with Dr Beth Upton at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy on Christmas Eve 2023.

She was placed on special leave after Dr Beth Upton, a transgender medic, made an allegation of bullying and harassment, and cited concerns about patient care.

Ms Peggie had lodged a claim against NHS Fife and Dr Upton, citing the Equality Act 2010, including sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination, and victimisation.

The employment tribunal hearings took place in Dundee before Judge Sandy Kemp earlier this year.

On Monday, in a written judgment, the harassment claim was upheld but allegations of discrimination, indirect discrimination and victimisation were dismissed.

Ms Peggie welcomed the decision and said the past two years had been “agonising”, while her solicitor praised her as “tenacious and courageous”.

The tribunal found that NHS Fife had harassed Ms Peggie by failing to revoke the grant of permission to Dr Upton on an interim basis after Ms Peggie complained, for the period until different work rotas took effect so that they would not work together and said that, as a result, Dr Upton was in the changing room when the claimant was present on two occasions.

It also found that the board had harassed Ms Peggie by taking an unreasonable length of time to investigate the allegation, and by making reference to patient care allegations against her on March 28 2024; and giving an instruction to her not to discuss the case, until a further message a little over two weeks later which confirmed that that applied only to the investigation.

The judgment dismissed the claim made against Dr Upton, who was named as a respondent in the case.

Ms Peggie said: “I am beyond relieved and delighted that the tribunal has found that my employer, Fife Health Board, harassed me after I complained about having to share a female-only changing room with a male colleague.

“The last two years have been agonising for me and my family. I will have much more to say in the coming days once I’ve been able to properly consider the lengthy judgment and discuss it with my legal team.

“For now, I am looking forward to spending a quiet few days with my family.

“I’m so grateful to my incredible legal team: Naomi Cunningham, lead counsel; Dr Charlotte Elves, junior counsel; and my solicitor, Margaret Gribbon. There are many others I would like to thank and will do so in the coming days.”

Ms Gribbon added: “The tribunal’s finding that Fife Health Board harassed Sandie Peggie is a huge win for a tenacious and courageous woman standing up for her sex-based rights.

“This has been an extraordinarily lengthy and complex legal case. After hearing evidence for over a month from some 21 witnesses and considering just under 3,000 pages of productions, the tribunal has today delivered a 318-page judgment.”

She said the team will not be in a position to make substantive comments on the ruling until later this week.

A spokesperson for NHS Fife said: “NHS Fife recognises that this has been a complex and lengthy process and acknowledges the careful consideration of Judge Kemp and the tribunal panel.

“The employment tribunal unanimously dismissed all of the claimant’s allegations against Dr Upton and all of the allegations against the board, apart from four specific aspects of the harassment complaint.

“We will now take time to work through the detail of the judgment alongside our legal team to understand fully what it means for the organisation.

“We want to recognise how difficult this tribunal has been for everyone directly and indirectly involved.

“Our focus now is to ensure that NHS Fife remains a supportive and inclusive environment for all employees and our patients and to deliver health and care to the population of Fife.”

The tribunal judgment said it disagreed with the findings of an internal investigation, and that Ms Peggie had likely “harassed” Dr Upton during the changing room incident.

It said that Ms Peggie’s actions in the changing room indicated “she did not feel a sense of threat from the presence of a male”, but that her concerns “had been brushed off rather than adequately considered” by her employers.

The judgment said there was no evidence of a “conspiracy” against Ms Peggie, or that Dr Upton had deleted phone notes as alleged.

It also found there was no “group disadvantage” to female staff, as it calculated that about 6% of female workers shared Ms Peggie’s views.

However it said that the internal investigation “should have been conducted far more quickly”.

Maya Forstater, chief executive of sex-based rights charity Sex Matters, which supported Ms Peggie, said: “We are pleased that Sandie Peggie has won her claim of harassment against NHS Fife, and that the hospital trust was criticised for its terrible handling of the complaint against her.

“Overall, we are disappointed in the tribunal’s approach, which sought to reach a spurious balance between a woman’s right to undress with privacy and dignity, and the right of an employee with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment not to be discriminated against.”

Scottish Conservative shadow equalities minister Tess White MSP said: “NHS Fife shamefully tried to silence a nurse who stood up for women’s rights, then squandered a fortune of taxpayers’ money defending their harassment of her.

“The health board have serious questions to answer – and so does John Swinney and Neil Gray, who backed the discredited management team at every turn.”

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “While these are matters for the health board, the Scottish Government respects the outcome of the employment tribunal and will take the time to consider the judgment in full.”

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch posted on social media: “I’m delighted Sandie Peggie has finally won her case against NHS Fife.

“It’s ridiculous it took two years to reach a verdict that was so obvious from the start.”

‘At 13 I thought my leukaemia was incurable. Now I’m cancer-free’

Palliative care felt like the only option left for 13-year-old leukaemia patient Alyssa Tapley, until she became the first person in the world to take a treatment that edits healthy immune cells to fight cancer.

The teenager from Leicester was diagnosed with T-cell leukaemia in May 2021, after a long period of what her family thought were colds, viruses and general tiredness.

She did not respond to chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, and thought her cancer was “incurable” until the research opportunity was proposed.

When Alyssa received the therapy in 2022, she remained cautiously optimistic after her leukaemia became undetectable.

But three years later, aged 16, the treatment has proven to be life changing. She has been discharged to long-term follow up and has dreams of becoming a research scientist herself.

“I chose to take part in the research as I felt that, even if it didn’t work for me, it could help others. Years later, we know it worked and I’m doing really well. I’ve done all those things that you’re supposed to do when you’re a teenager,” Alyssa said.

“I’ve gone sailing, spent time away from home doing my Duke of Edinburgh Award but even just going to school is something I dreamed of when I was ill. I’m not taking anything for granted.

“Next on my list is learning to drive, but my ultimate goal is to become a research scientist and be part of the next big discovery that can help people like me.”

A further eight children and two adults with an aggressive form of leukaemia that “seemed incurable” have since undergone the treatment at Great Ormond Street Hospital (Gosh) and King’s College Hospital (KCH).

Almost two thirds of patients with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (T-ALL) involved in the clinical trial of the treatment – known as BE-CAR7 – now remain cancer-free.

BE-CAR7, which was developed by scientists at Gosh and University College London (UCL), is a ground breaking treatment which works by editing healthy immune cells to fight cancer.

Ordinarily CAR T-cell therapy involves a doctor collecting T cells from a patient, which are then modified in a lab with proteins called chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) placed on the surface to recognise and kill cancer.

These immune cells are then fed back into the patient’s bloodstream via a drip.

But using this concept for leukaemia, which has developed from abnormal T cells, is more complicated.

For BE-CAR7 researchers used healthy T cells from a donor and tweaked them using a method called base editing – which can be used to change single letters of DNA code inside living cells.

It allows T cells to work after chemotherapy and disarms them to prevent attacks against normal cells.

When base-edited CAR T-cells are given to the patient they rapidly find and destroy all T-cells in the body, including leukaemia T-cells.

If the leukaemia is eradicated within four weeks, the patient’s immune system is then rebuilt from a bone marrow transplant over a period of several months.

Following this theory a clinical trial explored whether BE-CAR7 could clear leukaemia ahead of a planned bone marrow transplant in the hopes it could prevent the cancer returning.

For the study, nine children and four adults with T-ALL were treated with BE-CAR7 and just over half (64 per cent) are now disease free.

Deep remission was achieved by 82 per cent of participants who were able to go on to get a stem cell transplant without disease.

Although there were side effects, such as low blood count and rashes, these were manageable, according to researchers.

Waseem Qasim, a professor of cell and gene therapy at UCL and honorary consultant immunologist at Gosh, said: “We previously showed promising results using precision genome editing for children with aggressive blood cancer and this larger number of patients confirms the impact of this type of treatment.

“We’ve shown that universal or ‘off-the-shelf’ base-edited CAR T-cells can seek and destroy very resistant cases of CD7+ leukaemia.”

Dr Rob Chiesa, study investigator and bone marrow transplant consultant at Gosh, said: “Although most children with T-cell leukaemia will respond well to standard treatments, around 20 per cent may not.

“It’s these patients who desperately need better options and this research provides hope for a better prognosis for everyone diagnosed with this rare but aggressive form of blood cancer.”

The results of the clinical trial have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the 67th American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting in Florida.

Slot breaks silence on Salah after omitting forward from Liverpool’s Champions League squad

Arne Slot has responded to Mohamed Salah’s extraordinary tirade in which the Egyptian forward accused Liverpool of making him a scapegoat for their troubled season.

Slot admitted he was “surprised” at Salah’s outburst but would not commit when pushed over whether the Reds legend had played his last game for the club.

Salah, who has lost his place in the Liverpool team, said on Saturday that his relationship with the manager had broken down, and accused the club of breaking their promises to him. He said he would “say goodbye” to Liverpool fans at Anfield after Saturday’s Premier League match with Brighton, before leaving for the Africa Cup of Nations with his future unclear.

Salah trained on Monday, but has been left out of Liverpool’s Champions League squad for their visit to the San Siro to face Inter Milan on Tuesday night. The Independent understands Liverpool’s hierarchy, in conjunction with Slot, decided to withdraw Salah from the team’s plans for a short period ahead of the winger’s departure for the Africa Cup of Nations next week.

Speaking publicly for the first time about Salah’s comments, Slot addressed the winger’s concerns and whether the player thinks the Dutch coach is the person trying to push him out of the club: “The only one who can answer that is Mo himself, I can guess, but I don’t think that’s the right thing to do at this time. It’s hard for me to know who he means.”

Having dropped Salah from the matchday squad for the Inter Milan clash on Tuesday, Slot revealed: “We let him know that he’s not travelling with us. That was the only communication there from us to him.

“Before Saturday, the two of us have spoken a lot – sometimes longer, sometimes shorter. It’s not the way I feel, but he has the right to feel how he feels things, I haven’t felt that for sure on Saturday evening. I didn’t play him any more.

“Usually, the players don’t like the manager much, but he was very respectful to the coaches and teammates, so it was a surprise to me that he gave the comments that he gave, but it’s not the first or last time that a player doesn’t play.

“I’m not sure if he was emotional or not, but he said something similar to what he did. We are sitting here on an evening before a big game, a big fixture for us, Inter Milan. There is only 36 hours from conceding the 3-3 against Leeds, and… I’ve tried to prepare my team in the best way possible. I thought about tomorrow, we decided what I said, not to take him to the game, but after tomorrow we’ll look at the situation again.”

Slot then explained why he dropped Salah initially, explaining that a tactical change was needed due to opponents causing problems with the long ball.

“I think as a team we struggled,” Slot added. “More and more with the game plans against us. I’m not speaking only about the long ball. Teams do that against us a lot, I’ve tried to find solutions, that’s my job.

“I do many things, we looked vulnerable against Forest and PSV. I tried to play with an extra midfielder against West Ham, when we won the game, then against Sunderland.

“At half-time I brought him in, then against Leeds, a 5-3-2, I played a 4-4-2 diamond, Szoboszlai off the right, Gakpo off the left, Wirtz in between. I could have played Mo off the right. I have no clue [if he has played his last game for Liverpool]. I cannot answer that question.”

One in four teens turning to AI chatbots for mental health support

A quarter of teenagers in the UK have turned to AI chatbots for mental health support in the last year, new research has revealed.

A study of 11,000 children aged 13 to 16 in England and Wales has found more than half of teenagers have used some form online mental health support in the last year, with 25 per cent having used AI chatbots.

The research, carried out by charity the Youth Endowment Fund (YEF), also found young people affected by serious violence were even more likely to seek help online.

Some 38 per cent of children who were victims of serious violence said they’d turned to AI chatbots for support, while 44 per cent of children who had been perpetrators of serious violence said they had done the same.

The YEF said AI chatbots could appeal to struggling young people who feel it is safer and easier to speak to an AI chatbot anonymously at any time of day rather than speaking to a professional.

Ajada, a YEF youth advisory board member, said: “AI really scares me. If you’re really struggling and are thinking about doing something harmful to yourself, you can ask AI for support. It will give you the information, but what you do with it is up to you.

“So, we lose that emotional, personal experience that comes with positive human interactions.”

Charity leaders also warned this could be happening due to a lack of support available for teenagers’ mental health, stressing: “They need a human not a bot.”

“Too many young people are struggling with their mental health and can’t get the support they need. It’s no surprise that some are turning to technology for help.” Jon Yates, CEO at the Youth Endowment Fund, said.

“We have to do better for our children, especially those most at risk. They need a human not a bot.”

He added: “For those affected by violence, the understanding and empathy of a trusted adult can make all the difference — someone who listens, reassures them and helps them see they don’t have to face their problems alone.”

The research also found that more than one in four of all teenagers reported symptoms associated with high or very high levels of mental health difficulties.

A quarter of teenagers surveyed have received a formal diagnosis of a mental health or neurodevelopmental condition, while a further 21 per cent believe they may have a condition but have not been formally diagnosed.

Concerningly, 14 per cent said they had self-harmed in the past year, and 12 per cent had thought about ending their life.

Earlier this year, the NHS urged young people to stop using AI chatbots as a substitute for therapy, warning that they can provide “harmful and dangerous” mental health advice.

NHS leaders have said the rise in so-called “AI therapy” is a worrying trend, particularly among teenagers and young adults, with experts warning that these tools are not equipped to handle serious mental health conditions and could worsen symptoms.

“We are hearing some alarming reports of AI chatbots giving potentially harmful and dangerous advice to people seeking mental health treatment, particularly among teens and younger adults,” said Claire Murdoch, NHS England’s national mental health director, told The Times in September.

She said AI platforms should “not be relied upon” for sound mental health advice and “should never replace trusted sources” of information from registered therapists.

If you are experiencing feelings of distress, or are struggling to cope, you can speak to the Samaritans, in confidence, on 116 123 (UK and ROI), email jo@samaritans.org, or visit the Samaritans website to find details of your nearest branch. If you are based in the USA, and you or someone you know needs mental health assistance right now, call or text 988, or visit 988lifeline.org to access online chat from the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. This is a free, confidential crisis hotline that is available to everyone 24 hours a day, seven days a week.If you are in another country, you can go to www.befrienders.org to find a helpline near you

The sad truth about Richard Osman and the books you should buy instead

In this season of lists, choosing Christmas presents in a favourite bookshop must rank high on any catalogue of winter’s secret pleasures.

A few weeks ago – reviewing Stephen King’s classic On Writing – when Christmas was still a remote suspicion of tinsel, I reported on the imminent opening of my friend Chloe’s new bookshop on a high street in Hardy’s Wessex. Today’s good news is that, midway between Bath and Salisbury, Fox & King is now open and ready for the first great challenge of any bookseller’s year: the Christmas Books Campaign, that annual offensive, with terrible losses in the No Man’s Land of British literary culture, where a gruesome roster of wannabe bestsellers are bestowed on aunts, nephews and stray in-laws.

Every year, the statistics repeat the same old story. Thirty per cent of new titles sold per annum in the UK will be traded in this “golden quarter” – October to December. A lucky handful of mega-winners will be matched by desolate platoons of losers – the many new titles that fail to pass muster. Amid the carnage, does this indicate a wider book bonanza? Yes and no.

First, we need to submit any Christmas list to some ageless criteria. In 1886, writing in the Pall Mall Gazette, the young Oscar Wilde declared: “Books today may be conveniently divided into three classes.” There were, he decided, “books to read” and “books to re-read”. No argument there. Finally, in an era that “has no time to think”, there were, he said, “books not to read at all”.

His response to this brutal taxonomy was Wildean, pure and simple: “Whosoever will select ‘the Worst 100 Books’ and publish a list of them, will confer on the rising generation a real and lasting benefit.”

The book market is never pure and rarely simple. Who knows what Oscar would have made of 2025? Never mind our having “no time to think”, our politics is broken, society’s enraged by social media; what’s more, there’s a wrecked economy, a ruined planet and a horribly monetised culture.

Browse these Christmas shelves at leisure, and read the runes. 2025 has not been a bumper year – far from it: there might be a case for saying that books are perhaps a mirror to an impending decline.

The sorry emblem of these times is The Impossible Treasure, the latest volume in nice Richard Osman’s Thursday Murder Club series. This year’s likely Christmas bestseller – a lazy gift for any gran, cousin, or misfit – is prolix, preposterous and pointless. No matter; like all its competitors, Fox & King has already romped through its preliminary order, and will be queueing up for more. Booksellers must dance to the reader’s tune.

Another creative dialogue taking place within the literary marketplace will be the way in which some writers are shaped by their audience. Crime/Thrillers is a mighty engine within successful bookshops today. With a beady eye on their audience, some very accomplished contemporary writers – John Banville, Kate Atkinson, JK Rowling (writing as Robert Galbraith) – have subordinated their pens to this genre, possibly because it seems to offer some obscure consolations.

When life makes no sense, with a disrupted world in flux, it’s reassuring to read about a time and place in which crimes are solved. In this cosy world whose titles often, inexplicably, have either a “bookshop” or a “swimming club” in the title, Rachel McLean and Tom Hindle (A Kller in Paradise; or Murder on Lake Garda) are household gods.

Another winning genre is the mash-up of memoir and nature-writing like the now classic H is for Hawk (2014). It is no surprise that Katherine May’s Wintering, and Raising Hare by Chloe Dalton are still churning rich seasonal sales.

The bookshop market remains capricious. Nothing new there; that’s part of its charm. A generation back, in the fabled Eighties, one sure-fire Christmas choice would be the Booker Prize shortlist (six novels in search of new readers). The news from Fox & King is that this international literary prize, and also the Baillie Gifford Prize (formerly the Samuel Johnson), no longer excite much popular interest. This tide of indifference is echoed by the perfunctory coverage of Booker in the national press, at least in comparison to the fever surrounding, in recent memory, Midnight’s Children (1980) and The English Patient (1992).

Out in bookish Wessex – as good a straw poll as any – David Szalay’s Flesh has sold just one copy since taking Booker’s laurels. Similarly, with the Baillie Gifford, Helen Garner’s How to End a Story (Orion, £30) remains unsold. A better bet would be Frances Wilson’s exceptional Electric Spark: The enigma of Muriel Spark (Bloomsbury, £25).

Popular but pricey middlebrow hardbacks always enjoy steady pre-Christmas sales. Two top-selling titles, Lyse Doucet’s The Finest Hotel in Kabul (Hutchinson, £25) and Andrew Graham-Dixon’s Vermeer (Allen Lane, £30) compete this year with Mother Mary Comes To Me (Penguin) by Arundhati Roy. But all of these will be outsold by Middle England’s darling, Rory Stewart. His Middleland (Jonathan Cape £20) has become the ageing baby-boomer’s comfort read.

Finally, there’s always the cult book, driven by word of mouth, such as The Covenant of Water by Abraham Verghese, even if, on my reading, his Cutting for Stone is superior. Also at Christmas, there are those titles – in the department of “no accounting for taste” – such as Always Remember: The Boy, The Mole, the Fox and the Horse and The Storm by Charles Mackesy. Published last year, this is still being bought by adults and children alike, as an inexplicable but harmless phenomenon. For a savage, cast-iron classic, why not try the Cambridge University Press-annotated edition of Gulliver’s Travels?

Such lists have their own addiction, but they are never the last word. A good list can – indeed must – challenge its own existence. Let’s agree that if 2025 has been a below-average year for new titles, a good bookshop can still fulfil that hankering, after Wilde, for “the great re-read”. I’ve never believed in “instant classics”, but here’s a Top Three of Must Reads – Well-Kept Secrets, or Golden Perennials – you’d hope to find in a good high-street bookshop:

1. Marilynne Robinson: Housekeeping

2. Jilly Cooper: Rivals

3. Elizabeth Taylor: Mrs Palfrey at the Claremont

Happy Christmas!

Winter Warning: Flu is not just a bad cold

As winter sets in and viruses circulate more easily in our homes, workplaces and public spaces, the NHS is encouraging people aged 18 to 64 with long-term health conditions to get their flu vaccine. Many don’t realise they’re eligible, or that their condition puts them at greater risk of serious complications if they catch flu.

Flu is not a bad cold. It’s a contagious respiratory virus that can cause high fever, body aches and exhaustion lasting for weeks. But for people with certain long-term conditions, it can also trigger severe complications such as pneumonia, bronchitis or organ failure.

The statistics are stark. Those with respiratory diseases like severe asthma or COPD are seven times more likely to die if they catch the flu. People with diabetes are six times more likely, and those with heart disease are 11 times more likely. For anyone with a weakened immune system, the risk rises even higher.

In 2022–23 alone, more than 49,000 people were hospitalised with flu, and 2,000 were admitted to intensive care in England. The majority of severe cases involved people with underlying conditions, many of whom thought flu “wasn’t a big deal.”

Many people with long-term health conditions manage them well and may not think of themselves as vulnerable. But flu can place a sudden strain on the body and make existing conditions harder to control. Someone with severe asthma, for example, may experience severe attacks; those with diabetes can find their blood sugar levels become unstable; and for people with heart or kidney disease, flu can significantly increase the risk of hospitalisation.

Because flu viruses change from year to year, immunity from previous infections or vaccines doesn’t last, so getting vaccinated annually is the best way to stay protected.

Flu vaccines are available free of charge for eligible people at most GP practices and participating pharmacies, and booking takes just a few minutes. You can book online at nhs.uk/book-flu, through your GP surgery, on the NHS APP or by visiting your local pharmacy directly.

The vaccine cannot give you the flu, and side effects are generally mild: a sore arm or slight fatigue for a day or two. What it can do is reduce your risk of getting the flu and, if you do catch it, make your symptoms milder and recovery faster. Studies show that people with eligible conditions are nearly half as likely to be hospitalised with flu if they’ve been vaccinated.

Vaccination doesn’t just protect the individual, either; it helps protect everyone. When fewer people catch and spread the virus, it reduces pressure on hospitals and helps shield those who are most vulnerable, such as older relatives, pregnant women and people with weakened immune systems.

In a busy winter full of colds, coughs and competing priorities, booking a flu jab can easily slip down the list. But for millions of people living with long-term health conditions, it could be the difference between a short recovery at home and a serious illness requiring hospital treatment.

Getting vaccinated is quick, safe and effective, and one of the simplest ways to protect your health this winter.

Check if you’re eligible and book your NHS flu vaccine today here

Joey Barton sentenced for posting grossly offensive social media messages

Former footballer Joey Barton has avoided jail after sending six grossly offensive social media posts.

In November, the ex-Premier League player, 43, was convicted of six counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

A jury at Liverpool Crown Court found Barton had “crossed the line between free speech and a crime” with six posts he made on X (formerly Twitter) about broadcaster Jeremy Vine and TV football pundits Lucy Ward and Eni Aluko.

Following a televised FA Cup tie between Crystal Palace and Everton in January 2024, Barton likened Ward and Aluko in a post on X to the “Fred and Rose West of football commentary”.

He went on to superimpose the faces of the two women onto a photograph of the serial murderers.

Barton had also tweeted that Aluko was in the “Joseph Stalin/Pol Pot category” as she had “murdered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of football fans’ ears”.

Jurors found him not guilty on the Stalin/Pol Pot comparison, and also the commentary analogy with the Wests, but ruled the superimposed image was grossly offensive.

He was also convicted of a post in relation to Aluko in which he wrote: “Only there to tick boxes. DEI is a load of s***. Affirmative action. All off the back of the BLM/George Floyd nonsense”.

In a statement after Barton’s conviction, Aluko said: “Social media is a cesspit where too many people feel they can say things to others they wouldn’t dream of saying in real life under the guise of freedom of speech.

“This is a reminder that actions online do not come without consequences.

“The messages directed at me, Lucy Ward and Jeremy Vine by Joey Barton were deeply distressing and had a real damaging impact on my life and career. I am glad that justice has been served.”

Barton repeatedly referred to Vine as “bike nonce” and asked him: “Have you been on Epstein Island? Are you going to be on these flight logs? Might as well own up now because I’d phone the police if I saw you near a primary school on ya bike.”

He was convicted over the Epstein post and a tweet in which he said: “Oh @the JeremyVine Did you Rolf-aroo and Schofield go out on a tandem bike ride? You big bike nonce ya”.

Barton was also found guilty of other tweets in relation to Vine in which he referred to him as “bike nonce” and said: “If you see this fella by a primary school call 999,” and “Beware Man with Camera on his helmets cruising past primary schools. Call the Cops if spotted”.

He was cleared of guilt over three remaining tweets referring to Vine. At Liverpool Crown Court on Monday, Barton was handed a sentence of six months in custody, suspended for 18 months.

Sentencing, the honorary recorder of Liverpool, Judge Andrew Menary KC, told Barton: “Robust debate, satire, mockery and even crude language may fall within permissible free speech. But when posts deliberately target individuals with vilifying comparisons to serial killers or false insinuations of paedophilia, designed to humiliate and distress, they forfeit their protection.

“As the jury concluded, your offences exemplify behaviour that is beyond this limit – amounting to a sustained campaign of online abuse that was not mere commentary but targeted, extreme and deliberately harmful.”

The judge also spoke about the impact of Barton’s words on his victims as he sentenced the one-time England international.

He said: “Ms Aluko, an England international capped 104 times, an experienced broadcaster, and a senior football executive, describes your posts as misogynistic and racist abuse that unleashed a torrent of hatred towards her.

“She experienced fear, disgust, and profound distress, cancelling engagements, hiring security, and fearing for her family’s safety, with lasting harm to her professional confidence. She is clear that your attacks were at least partly racially motivated, targeting her as a Black woman and inviting others to echo that hostility.

“Ms Ward, a pioneer in women’s football with more than 25 years’ experience as a player, mentor and commentator, describes acute humiliation, emotional harm, and professional undermining. Your dismissal of her expertise as ‘tokenistic’ and your comparison of her to Rose West caused psychological injury, loss of work and a heightened sense of vulnerability for her and her family.

“She questions why her gender should be used to diminish her achievements and highlights the wider harm that such conduct inflicts on women working in sport.

“Mr Vine’s statement details the terror of being falsely labelled a paedophile to millions, fearing for his and his family’s safety, and enduring reputational harm from your sustained insinuations.

“He recounts months of disturbed sleep, an inability to enjoy his work or social interactions, and a pervasive fear that your statements had contaminated his reputation among people he had not yet met, forcing him into the humiliating position of feeling he needed to ‘correct’ what others might now believe about him. The psychological toll was accompanied by a significant financial one: the huge cost of pursuing civil proceedings simply to stop these defamatory allegations.”

Simon Csoka KC, defending, said a pre-sentence report had detailed how Barton had shown a “substantial amount of insight into his behaviour and a substantial amount of contrition”.

“The defendant now understands how powerful and damaging words are,” he said.

“He fully understands the restraining orders are there for a good reason. He also understands that they will serve as a constant reminder to him of going too far on social media.”

Character references were provided to the court for the father of four by his wife, mother, grandmother and sister, which “paint a very different picture of Mr Barton”, said his barrister.

Judge Menary noted that Barton had told the author of the pre-sentence report he had taken steps to “moderate” his online behaviour.

He told the defendant: “In light of the steps you have taken, I am persuaded that there is some prospect of rehabilitation, that an immediate custodial sentence is not required to protect either the public or the victims, and that a suspended sentence order may itself operate as a deterrent against any future offending.”

Barton must also complete 200 hours of unpaid work in the community and pay prosecution costs of £23,419. Two-year restraining orders were issued against each of his victims, which includes publishing any reference to them on any social media platform or broadcast medium.

Barton, from Huyton, Merseyside, played for several clubs, including Manchester City, Newcastle United and Queens Park Rangers, across his career. He was also capped once by England.

He went on to manage Fleetwood Town and Bristol Rovers after retiring from playing. He is now a podcaster with 2.7 million followers on X.

Tory shadow minister praises Trump’s illegal immigration crackdown – and says it could work in UK

Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration into the US on the Mexican border has been praised by shadow home secretary Chris Philp, who has said that measures could work in the UK.

In a major overhaul of the US immigration system, Mr Trump moved to block asylum seekers from entering the country and fortified the Mexican border, as well as expanding the semi-militarised Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to target undocumented migrants.

In the UK, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch unveiled her party’s immigration plan at the Conservative Party conference in October, with a plan to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and introduce a ban on asylum claims for new illegal immigrants.

Under its Borders Plan, the Tories would also bring in a “removals force”, the party said, modelled on ICE, which has been criticised for heavy-handed tactics.

Speaking to The Independent, Mr Philp said: “We would come out of the ECHR, which will enable us to deport all illegal immigrants within a week of arrival and remove 150,000 people a year with no right to be here.

“We would double the budget to remove people in this country illegally up to £1.6bn. We think that is what the public expect, they expect our immigration laws to be properly enforced.”

In August, Mr Philp and shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick met with US vice-president JD Vance during his holiday in the Cotswolds, with immigration among the topics discussed.

Mr Philp said the Trump administration’s policy of immediately removing people who had entered the country illegally, by not offering asylum claims, was also part of the Tory plan for government, but would not compare the “removals force” to ICE.

He said: “By removing people with no right to be in the United States, the US administration has reduced illegal entry across the Mexican border by 80 to 90 per cent within just a few months, which shows these policies do work, and we want to remove people who arrive illegally within a week and we want to deport anyone who is here in the country illegally already, and all foreign criminals.

“But to do that, we need to leave the ECHR, and the Conservatives are the only party with a credible, detailed plan to do that.”

He added: “Outside the ECHR and without allowing modern slavery claims and excluding asylum claims from people that enter the country illegally, there’d be no legal basis on which they could basically contest removal, and they’d be removed back to their country of origin if safe or possible, or to a safe third country like Rwanda if not.”

Under the Conservative plan for a “removals force”, officials would work closely with police, who would also be required to carry out immigration checks on every person stopped or arrested. Ms Badenoch said it would deport 150,000 people a year.

Despite a Tory campaign linking the force to ICE, Mr Philp was keen not to link the two when asked about it by The Independent. However, he said it would operate across the country with a remit to remove people who were in the UK illegally.

Also, as part of its border plan, the Tories said refugee status would only be granted to immigrants threatened by a foreign government, and that those fleeing conflict or laws on religion or sexuality would not be eligible.

After leaving the ECHR, immigration tribunals would be abolished, with all decisions on migration taken by the Home Office.

Labour has also unveiled its own overhaul of the asylum system, against a backdrop of a record number of asylum claims in the past year and an increase in asylum seekers being housed in Home Office hotels.

Home secretary Shabana Mahmood said the government will change the way the ECHR is interpreted by UK judges in a bid to stop asylum seekers using their rights to a family life to avoid deportation. Refugee status will become temporary and subject to regular reviews under Ms Mahmood’s plan.