Breaking News! Healey, Champion and Barron to sue Jane Collins

Guido Fawkes is first to publish:

Rotherham Labour MPs Sue UKIP’s Jane Collins For Libel

The Star:

Rotherham Labour MPs to sue UKIP rivals over child sexual exploitation scandal comments

Three Labour MPs are to sue UKIP MEP Jane Collins after she made comments about the extent of their knowledge of Rotherham’s child sexual exploitation scandal.

And now the BBC with news of Caven Vines:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-30784167

My experience tells me, when politicians reach for the lawyers, they have already lost the argument, in the court of public opinion!

64 thoughts on “Breaking News! Healey, Champion and Barron to sue Jane Collins

    • what planet are you from???
      if you live in Rotherham, you must know where the lies and deceit have come from.
      I have already put you straight on the non- existent labour suspensions.
      what other lies have UKIP told?

      Like

      • You have put me right on nothing. The councillors you mentioned have had the whip removed. I’d rather believe the local press than the local UKIP shower.
        Given that the LP MPs are getting a taste for suing alleged slanderers perhaps you should be more careful what you say.

        Like

      • stookful,
        They are still getting paid they’re wages and can still vote in chamber, is that suspension??
        not on this planet it isn’t.

        Like

    • Why did it take so long ?
      It takes ages to build a water-tight, properly focussed,Libel case; and the timing would also have been a significant issue – the case will not come to court before the election and until it does both Ms Collins and Mr Vine will have to be rather careful of what they say.
      I can’t imagine that Ms Champion had expected such unfounded abuse when she so recently entered politics, and I very much doubt that Ms Collins nor Mr VIne had any understanding of the potential consequences of their allegations.
      But someone somewhere in UKIP should have known better.

      Like

    • John Healey is on record as opposing an inquiry into the gangs. How do you oppose an inquiry into a problem you have never heard about? I have put an article on my website gileshumphry.com calling him out as a spineless coward and paedophile enabler and inviting him to sue. I shall produce just one piece of evidence if he does. His letter opposing an inquiry.

      Like

      • Just got a meek email from John Healey putting his side of the story. I’m not convinced but his politeness in the face of my abuse has made me take down the article and wait for what comes out in the court case.

        Like

  1. It’s got nothing to do about their reputations or that of the Labour Party, more of a political stunt to silenced her before the election. I hope she doesn’t stop speaking her mind and what the good people really do think about these cowards. Funny how from 1997 or even before they never said a word about CSE , claiming that they knew noting and now there offended .

    Like

  2. As an ex Labour member I will say that these MPs must have known more than the rest of us about the abuse that took place. We need to consider that this knowledge would have been useful to the police however they like most of the others decided to protect the party over the children. I find this move sickening however Jane has my vote and support.

    Like

    • They’re labour politicians, they’ll do as they’ve always done and use our money, in any case, this is a win for the victims, it appears the mainstream media, the labour party, and the likes of the BBC would prefer it if Rotherham was never mentioned again, this will ensure the issue is kept at the forefront, hopefully right up until May.

      It is telling, and typical, that these labour members never acted so decisively in the 16 years the abuse was being carried out, seems to me that if you’re a labour member the abuse of 1400 kids is fine, but “don’t dare call us names or make the slightest insinuation”

      Shame on them, all three of them, as if we needed more reasons to vote Ukip this is yet another.

      Like

    • That is an excellent point, Manc

      Andrew Mitchell is apparently stuck with a £3 million bill after losing his libel case

      Person or persons as yet unknown must have put them up to this stunt

      Like

  3. She said she is convinced that the 3 Labour MPs “knew many of the details of what was going on”

    Link removed on advice as this could constitute a repeat of the original ‘libel’ hope readers understand, Rik.

    Good luck demonstrating libel there

    Why aren’t they suing Rupert Murdoch and Andrew Norfolk as well ?

    This has all the appearance of a spoiling action prior to the GE, we’d like to discuss grooming but unfortunately it’s all sub judice. Yeah right, hopefully the voters will draw their own conclusions

    Like

    • “This has all the appearance of a spoiling action prior to the GE”

      That’s exactly what it is, it may well backfire on them, as most labour stunts have,interesting times ahead.

      Like

    • … thanks for putting that vid up. It explains why she is being sued. But really it should be her speech writer that carries the can..

      Like

      • I fail to see how the vid explains why she is being sued …… can you be sued for saying what you believe to be true ? she said SHE is convinced ..not that we should all be convinced ..What it does explain to me at least ..is why they are gaining more and more support .. I also believe that some MPs and Cllrs knew more than they let on and so do a lot of people that I speak to ..Did Macshane say as much in a book he wrote in prison ?

        Like

  4. @Anonymous,
    EU Parliament Immunity only applies to things said by MEPs in the Parliamentary Sessions, not outside Parliament.
    As I read it, it is what Ms Collins said in her speech at the Doncaster Conference that it being contested; and of course Mr Vine is not yet an MEP.
    @Manc01 , I can’t think of any way they could be funding the action with “Tax Payers money”. Can you? If so explain how. Legal Aid? 🙂

    Like

    • I assume that they are all sponsored by a union, wouldn’t they have access to their legal services, as most unions have a legal dept?

      Like

      • and even if they had access to union legal services and funds, would you describe that as tax payers money? Union funds come from members taxed income.
        If they were to use one of the crowd-funding websites to get funds, and tax payers contributed – as I probably would – such funds would come from my taxed income.

        Like

  5. Is Barron serious…does he truly believe he can convince a jury that Cllr Rushforth never said “Dad, we have a problem that could bite us on the bum, big time…?”

    Like

  6. Come on…..
    It reaches the depths of fantasy that MPs
    baron healy and macshame did not know that cse was going on to their constituents kids all those years?

    Surely the links they have with the police and cllrs would have briefed them or mentioned it informally?

    Time for tooth fairy

    Like

    • Top tip! If you want to cover something up you don’t tell people about it. Why would any councillor or cop tell an outsider like Sarah Champion what was going on?

      Like

      • The knowledge that something vile was occurring and was being covered up was in the public domain

        “The Times has published several articles about a pattern of crimes across northern England and the Midlands involving groups of men, largely of Pakistani heritage, and the sexual abuse of white girls aged from 12 to 16.

        We can now reveal evidence from more than 200 restricted-access documents, which show that, in one area, police and child protection agencies have held extensive knowledge of this crime model for ten years, yet have never publicly acknowledged its existence.

        The internal police and social services correspondence, research papers, intelligence reports and case files are a detailed history of alleged child sexual exploitation in South Yorkshire since 2000, focusing on Rotherham. They include a confidential 2010 report by the police intelligence bureau warning that thousands of such crimes were committed in the county each year.

        It contains explosive details about the men responsible for the most serious, co-ordinated abuse. “Possibly the most shocking threat is the existence of substantial and organised offender networks that groom and exploit victims on a worrying scale,” the report says. “Practitioners throughout the force state there is a problem with networks of Asian offenders both locally and nationally. This was particularly stressed in Sheffield and even more so in Rotherham, where there appears to be a significant problem with networks of Asian males exploiting young white females.” Such groups are said to have trafficked South Yorkshire child victims “to many other cities, including Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham, Bradford and Dover”.”

        http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3547661.ece

        Published 24th September 2012

        And Julie Bindel’s piece from December 2010

        “According to some of the mothers, a fear of being branded racist makes many of the police and social services reluctant to investigate the crimes as organised and connected. One mother from Rotherham, whose 14-year-old daughter was groomed into prostitution and multiply raped during a 12-month period, told me that almost every man convicted of these crimes in the north of England is from Pakistan but that the authorities insist that it is not relevant.”

        http://standpointmag.co.uk/features-december-10-gangs-girls-and-grooming-the-truth-julie-bindel-asian-gangs-pimps-rotherham?page=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C3

        Like

      • Top tip…Experience of the real world suggests that In any group, gossip and rumours circulate and those who listen, occasionally pick up on something that sets alarm bells ringing, or, at least, generates questions. Would you have us believe that the Rotherham MP’s, including M/s Champion, were the Three Wise Monkeys of legend?

        Like

        • But that might be where it gets interesting, Jane Collins, might well not have been referring to Sarah Champion at all, but her predecessor, Denis MacShane!
          Denis made mention of this in his book, Prison Diaries.

          Like

  7. If Regular Reader is correct when he posted; “the timing would also have been a significant issue – the case will not come to court before the election and until it does both Ms Collins and Mr Vine will have to be rather careful of what they say.”
    A pretty naked attempt at gagging two political opponents, or at least that is how it appears to me?
    Is there no low down stunt, they are not prepared to stoop to?
    Wonder if Denis MacShane will offer himself as a witness? Now that would be interesting!

    Like

    • I spoke to Sarah Champion about Jane Collins’ speech at the time and she was incandescent. I don’t blame her and it’s about time Collins had her comeuppance. She admits she can be “a bit hot-headed” but she just strikes me as a nasty piece of work and I hope UKIP eventually wake up and dump her as their PPC. It’s just one of a number of gaffes that she has made due to her mouth working faster than her brain.

      Like

      • But perhaps if more Labour Mp’s and Councilliars , mouths had been working faster than their brains, we wouldn’t have had to wait some 17 years to find out the awful truth about CSE in Rotherham.

        Like

      • “I spoke to Sarah Champion about Jane Collins’ speech at the time and she was incandescent. ”
        I think I can understand why Robin..
        In MS Collins speech says that she only found about the content of the Jay report when someone phoned her at 12 o’clock on the 26 August 2014.
        (When was it actually released?, Does she not have internet access? )
        Yet she suggests that Ms Champion as one of the Rotherham Labour MPs would have known about the abuse earlier.
        Yet both Ms Champion and Collins got involved in Rotherham politics at about the same time I would have thought. Why would one have known about the issue earlier than the other?
        I might also add that Ms Champion may not have been welcomed by Rotherham Labour, whilst Ms Collins may well have been welcomed by Rotherham UKIP.

        Like

      • RS
        ” I hope UKIP eventually wake up and dump her as their PPC”
        Why would you want UKIP to dump her as they’re PPC ????
        Surely if she’s that bad, you would want her to fall flat , wouldn’t you ???.
        Or is it that she’s got you lot worried?? mmmmmmmmmm.

        Like

    • According to this YP article the papers were handed over before Christmas:
      http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/politics/ukip-mep-handed-high-court-papers-as-labour-sues-over-abuse-claims-1-7046534
      … and considering that they are said to refer to what Ms Collins said in her speech of 26 September, less than 3 months previously, that is damn fast!
      And yes, going into an election, what candidate would want the continence of potentially libellous statement s being made against you,
      You don’t win elections by being nice to your opponents and Ms Collins was definitely not being nice in that speech.

      Like

    • A pretty feeble attempt Ex Labour Member, for all its nudity, As Parsonage said there appears little if anything in that speech that would be considered libellous, I dont think this will gag them either, they may have to tread carefully but there are subtle ways of getting ones message across and questioning who knew what, who did what etc,and not only Rotherham but the entire country want those answers, in fact it seems the people most reluctant to have the questions answered, are those in the labour party.

      They may have just opened pandoras box.

      Like

  8. Robin, that speech would have been checked by a lawyer before it was delivered. We now have the scenario of these three MPs disclosing everything that they knew, emails, meetings, letters etc… It’s they who now need to reveal everything they knew, when they knew it and what they did to prove their case, with evidence of course and under oath! People do not like bullies and I think this is a huge mistake.

    Like

    • Exactly.

      It seems somewhat ironic to me describing Champion as “incandescent” her affiliations with certain members of the Rotherham biraderi always left me thinking she was none to bright.

      Like

    • This article implicated Miliband

      “Wright is now infamous for how long he took to resign following the Alexis Jay report. In August 2012, Cole – a loyal and passionate member of the Labour Party – raised concerns that Wright was an unsuitable candidate for the role because of his tarnished record in tackling CSE. The letter, which was copied to Ed Miliband, warned that Wright’s conduct “was bringing the Labour Party into disrepute.” Labour’s regional office brushed him off. Although the correspondence clearly shows that Miliband’s office were party to the complaint, Labour has since claimed that the party couldn’t have known about Wright’s failings when Miliband endorsed him.”

      http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/rotherham-grooming-security-guard-and-victims-interview-091

      It definitely looks like a spoiling action to close down debate prior to the GE.

      The leaked Labour internal party document noted

      “The paper says Ukip represents a bigger threat to the Tories than Labour but acknowledges its potential to damage Miliband, saying: “Ukip’s early support was largely concentrated in the rural south-west and parts of eastern England. As their popularity increased in recent years, Ukip has also won significant vote shares in a wider range of areas, including in coalfield communities where support for the Labour party has traditionally been strong.”

      http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/15/leaked-document-labour-strategy-counter-ukip-threat-immigration

      The issue of UKIP support being significant in “coalfield communities” being a weasel euphemism for the political price of Labour’s dereliction, and worse, over the mass rape, trafficking and pimping in South Yorkshire.

      Like

    • It certainly should have been checked by a lawyer. Having just listened to it again, I am not all that sure it was.
      As I understand it , originally Ms Collins was just going to speak on unemployment, but quite late in the day there was a decision to refocus things on the “Rotherham 1400” and everything was shifted around to make that happen, and she was given that speech to make.

      Like

      • A regular reader, I’m talking about the kind of photo ops that may have been worthy of better judgement, such as the one here, with a convicted abuser unless i’m mistaken ?.

        https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/questions-for-mahroof/

        Also the one strolling down the street with Saj Bostan, a “colourful” character to say the least given his apparent boasts about who and what he had fixed.

        As i’ve said elsewhere, she has displayed naivety and gullibility at the very least, a less charitable person might describe her photo ops otherwise.

        Like

  9. First of all; The three MP’s can bring a case for slander,not libel.
    Robin Symonds posted ‘ I spoke to Sarah Champion about Jane Collins’ speech at the time and she was incandescent ‘. She obviously was not incandescent enough on 26th September 2014.
    This is a political stunt by three Rotherham MP’s who are seriously worried about the effect UKIP is having on Labour voters.
    All three MP’s are member of the Labour party and by definition support the EU.
    Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the ECHR gives politicians “enhanced protection”.

    Judge Hickenbottom in the case of Heesom-v-Public Services Ombudsman for Wales said:
    “while freedom of expression is important to everyone, Strasbourg has recognised the importance of expression in the political sphere. It has long-recognised that what is said by elected politicians is subject to “enhanced protection”, i.e. a higher level of protection under article 10”. [34]
    i) The enhanced protection applies to all levels of politics, including local.
    ii) Article 10 protects not only the substance of what is said, but also the form in which it is conveyed. Therefore, in the political context, a degree of the immoderate, offensive, shocking, disturbing, exaggerated, provocative, polemical, colourful, emotive, non-rational and aggressive, that would not be acceptable outside that context, is tolerated. Whilst, in a political context, article 10 protects the right to make incorrect but honestly made statements, it does not protect statements which the publisher knows to be false.
    vi) The cases draw a distinction between fact on the one hand, and comment on matters of public interest involving value judgment on the other. As the latter is unsusceptible of proof, comments in the political context amounting to value judgments are tolerated even if untrue, so long as they have some – any – factual basis.
    http://www.5rb.com/case/heesom-v-public-services-ombudsman-wales/

    I agree with parsonage; All three Labour MP’s will have difficulty in proving slander. They would have to provide solid evidence none of them knew anything about CSE in Rotherham. Will they risk it? Doubtful IMV.

    Like

      • @stookful
        It is the Rotherham MP’s who have got their collective nappies in a knot and who have embarked on this publicity stunt.
        Collins may well have accused them of impropriety so what? Collins does not have to prove anything, nowhere in her speech did she say “I accuse…………”
        This is election year. Mud will be slung and some of it may stick to politicians of all parties.
        If you want to play with the Big Boys be prepared to be knocked, and bruised.

        Like

    • The legal position, in regards to slander, is for Collins to prove her claims are correct.
      @ Colin Tawn. She said “.. there are still many others who have questions to answer and possible charges to face…this includes the 3 Rotherham MPs…I AM CONVINCED THEY KNEW WHAT WAS HAPPENING…THEY AIDED AND ABETTED THE PERPETRATORS”.
      the task she has now is to find evidence of her allegations or she could lose the case.

      Like

      • @Anonymous.
        I really don’t want to get into a pedantic argument about Jane Collins’ speech.
        Being ‘Convinced’ is NOT the same as ‘I accuse’. I refer you to my previous post about Article 10. ECHR.and why the proposed action for slander will fail. As for suing under the defamation Law that will also fail:
        ‘Claimants will have to show they have suffered “serious harm” before suing, under the Defamation Act 2013.’
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25551640

        Whether or not her speech has any merit is a debate for another day.

        Like

      • Well, we have the evidence of the constituents who say they contacted Macshane and were ignored, and a copy of John Healey’s letter opposing an inquiry into the gangs he knew nothing about. Not a bad start I’d say.

        Like

    • In legal terms the accuser has to prove evidence of waht they say is correct or it could be considered slander.

      @ Colin Tawn:She said ” I am convinced they knew whagt was happening” and wnet on to say ” they aided and abetted the perpetrators”.

      UKIP, the big boys???

      Like

  10. “I genuinely cannot believe what is unfolding about the “industrial scale abuse” that happened in #Rotherham in Home Affairs select committee”

    Sarah Champion – 9th September 2014

    Given the Andrew Norfolk blockbuster article of the 24th September 2012 and Bindel’s excellent piece published in Standpoint magazine of December 2010 there might be something of a credibility gap here.

    Times – extract posted upthread

    “The internal police and social services correspondence, research papers, intelligence reports and case files are a detailed history of alleged child sexual exploitation in South Yorkshire since 2000, focusing on Rotherham. They include a confidential 2010 report by the police intelligence bureau warning that thousands of such crimes were committed in the county each year.”

    Industrial scale or what?

    Like

    • Well yes

      “English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright.” – wiki

      English Law in this area is used by all manner of reptiles, parasites, kleptocrats. liars and hypocrites. Generally the province of the rich, powerful and arrogant it is frequently used to stop the inconvenient and damning truth coming out

      “There is a lot in Treasure Islands and much left out. Shaxson gives a neat summary of our libel laws; no constitutional protection of free speech, no higher public interest defence, the costs of libel litigation running at one hundred and forty times the average in Europe. The world adores London.”

      Doesn’t always work – sometimes they fall flat on their faces

      ‘If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight,’

      Jonathan Aitken

      Like

  11. I have watched the speech. All she seems to be saying is that she was convinced they knew something and wants to look into that, possibly using legal action. Nowhere does she specify this in detail or definitely accuse them of knowing something. I think we would all like to know who knew what. The three musketeers will now have to show they definitely knew nothing in court and that won’t do any harm.
    However, trying to shut UKIP up and condemning them on the basis that they shouldn’t make political capital out of the victims is b****cks. The fact is a political administration seemed to sit back while vulnerable young people were abused in a horrific way on a huge scale. Anyone who says that we can’t talk about that has lost the plot, politically and morally, surely?
    On the other hand Ms Collins herself says Rotherham needs a leadership that has clean hands and will not be driven by political agendas. Is she also ruling out UKIP by those criteria ?
    None of us have “clean hands” when it comes to personal morality, myself included, but Ms Collins seems to be saying Rotherham needs an Independent MP and Council.
    I have been asked to run in the parliamentary election and, for work and personal reasons, have declined. Ms Collins’ speech gives me reason to pause and rethink…
    Ps: she is not an impressive speaker imho – and, if elected, would she continue the work of Jayne Senior (i definitely would) or would we have a destructive rejig that would be of no help to the victims? We need to know this if Ms Collins is the right person to carry forward victim support.

    Like

  12. It sounds to me as though they are trying to keep UKIP quiet until after the next election, more dirty tactics as far as I am concerned. What about all the untruths from Labour abour UKIP privatising the NHS on their last local elections flyers. Hopefully the people will not be stupid enough to fall for the Labour spin again.

    Like

  13. I would suggest that UKIP now counter sue, for lies printed in the local election flyers in the borough by the Rotherham Labour party. Start with the lies surrounding the NHS.

    Like

  14. Ms Collins has for too long simply relied on issuing banal simplistic and odious comments based on off the cuff personal slanted opinion, innuendo, point scoring for the sake of it, mere insult and smear. (The same can be applied to many on here and elsewhere of all political hues – but that doesn’t excuse it) Now while’s there’s nothing wrong with personal opinion – it should be encouraged – if you are going to ‘accuse’ then you either have to be able and willing to back it up with proof, refrain until you have that proof from ‘playing to the crowd’ for applause or simply be a little more thoughtful; especially when the accusations are so severe.

    Sadly it is not the first time Ms Collins has relied on blind hatred of her opponents and reacted with simplistic odious soundbites she feels will grab headlines and nothing more. And it is not the first time she has issued ill considered slurs without considering ‘can I back this up?’. (The Mark Russell incident being one example) Ms Collins lack of judgement has worried me for while; indeed many aspect of Ms Collin’s approach has worried me. It should now be worrying both Ms Collins and UKIP.

    I viewed the speech – Ms Collins seemed very nervous and as usual wasn’t impressive; not awful – but not impressive from a non party perspective. But if she had made the statement ‘what did’ (insert Individual’s name) know and list points she needed clarifying she may have been effective in some way; however she didn’t – she directly accused individuals and played to the crowd – her own – maybe forgetting that others watch. A fact that left her open to the case in hand being brought forward. She has only herself to blame. Like I have warned on here and elsewhere before the liability that is Ms Collins’s approach was a car crash waiting to happen.

    As for Caven – unlike Ms Collin he should have known better than to simply regurgitate her rantings. He has should have had the experience to know Ms Collins had gone too far. He should have had the experience to know her MO would lead to him being dragged in to it all. Sadly he didn’t. Personally I feel Caven (and all – including me) can learn from episode; personally I feel Ms Collins can’t and won’t.

    Re re CSE scandal I have been called by several Inquiries to give evidence and more – much more. I have presented what I consider damning evidence concerning many individuals and organisations and standby it – and always will. However, when I have done so I have produced actual evidence and refused to get personal or be distracted by personal opinion concerning an individual. In short I have said “here it is – make of it what you want” That is my way – that is the way I feel it should be – nothing more nothing less.

    On Rothpol it seems many have simply gone on the defensive and are talking of plots and the ‘need for personal opinion’. Well the only plot I can see is Ms Collins totally lost the plot yet again. And as ‘personal opinion’ I remember a lesson my Dad taught me well. “Sally – you’ve got a brain – remember personal opinion and gossip isn’t fact – stick to the facts – use them as your baseline and think before you open your mouth – otherwise your argument falls.” Ms Collin’s – please take note.

    SKT xxxx

    Like

  15. After all the political point scoring, speculation, fake legal experts and opinion dressed up as facts the struggle of the survivors goes on. I don’t blame the MPs for taking legal action. It is fortunate for them they have the resources to do so. But remember the survivors and make sure they have the resources they need.

    Like

Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.