Press Statement – Rotherham MPs take legal action against 2 UKIP politicians

Rotherham MPs take legal action against 2 UKIP politicians

Rotherham MPs Sarah Champion, John Healey and Kevin Barron are to sue UKIP MEP Jane Collins for libel and slander after she suggested at UKIP’s conference in Doncaster that the three MPs “knew many of the details of what was happening” referring to the years of child abuse exposed by the Alexis Jay report.

Libel action is now also being taken by Kevin Barron and John Healey against Rotherham UKIP group leader Caven Vines after he repeated similar accusations about the two MPs in an interview with Sky News broadcast on Monday 5th January.

In a joint statement, Sarah Champion MP, John Healey MP and Kevin Barron MP said:

“It is sickening that UKIP could use such an important issue for party-political point-scoring, and we will challenge these defamatory accusations through every means available to prove they are untrue and to stop UKIP exploiting the terrible abuse for their own political gain.”

This is now an ongoing legal matter and it would be inappropriate to comment further.

ENDS

Anna Nicholson | Research and communications officer | nicholsona@parliament.uk | t: @annajnicholson

Rt Hon John Healey MP | Member of Parliament for Wentworth & Dearne

79 High Street | Wath-upon-Dearne | Rotherham S63 7QB

Tel: 01709 512463 | Fax: 01709 874207

www.johnhealeymp.co.uk | facebook.com/johnhealeymp | twitter @JohnHealey_MP

Click here to sign up to John’s monthly e-newsletter

14 thoughts on “Press Statement – Rotherham MPs take legal action against 2 UKIP politicians

  1. .”……to stop UKIP exploiting the terrible abuse for their own political gain”.

    Well that’s the REAL purpose of this action is it not ? An attempt to use the legal system to stiffle comments and debate.
    It simply shows how morally corrupt and despicable these people are.
    It will backfire on them, and so it should.
    Now every media will be examined for evidence that they knew , and brought into the public domain. Andrew Norfolk has already shown this to be the case.

    I have watched the UKIP conference speech in question and unless I missed something , no names were mentioned. Exactly why Champion has placed her snout into the dirt I do not know – the speech reference may refer to her predecessor, MacShane, who admits his disgracefiul behaviour in his book – as well as accusing others.

    Not only is this legal action stupid, it also indicates what type of people are in politics – rather it is THEY who are using the situation for political gain, in an attempt to secure censorship. on an issue that they do not wish to be brought into debates.

    Like

  2. Question, surpposed they are re-elected and their libel action proves that they did and should’ve know what was going on, would any of them stand down as a MP ?

    Like

    • A good question, … but I would add:
      1. It appears that from the statement above the action is for both slander and libel*.
      2. It is not up to the litigants to prove that they didn’t know something and/or that they failed to know something they should have known. All proof is on Ms Collins.*
      But I agree with you that if their action fails, then their continuing presence in the HoC comes into question.
      Equally, if Ms Collins is found to have defamed (a generic word covering both libel and slander) the litigants,her continuing presence in the European Parliament (or the HoC if she wins the Rotherham Constituency parliamentary election) also comes into question.
      ____________________
      * Does the youtube video count as “publication” ?
      * Does anyone know where I can find a transcript to her Doncaster speech? . Quite what did she claim of the MPs?
      _____________________
      Is the video (or a transcript of it) of Caven Vine on Sky – the basis of the other action, available anywhere ?

      Personally I couldn’t care less what happens to Ms Collins,or Sir Barron but Caven doesn’t deserve this – IMHO.

      Like

      • Does this action by the labour mp’s mean that when they are canvassing for votes and promise us everything so they can get our vote but deliver nothing when they are elected that we can accuse them of libel

        Like

  3. We should be able to debate what went on in the corridors of power in Rotherham during 16 years that 1400+ girls were being abused. And to ask what those in power knew, including my MP, is a legitimate question. If not then I am at a loss to know what is left in the realm of democracy and accountability – bin collections and street lighting I suppose…
    I can understand newcomer Sarah Champion being hurt by Ms Collins remarks but it would help if we had a Public Enquiry without delay so that we, the voting public who will pay for the victim’s compensation through our Council tax, no doubt, can decide for ourselves who knew what and when. Lawyers one Victims nil.
    When Elijah raised the little issue of systematic and state-sanctioned child sacrifice did the King not call him a “troubler of Israel”?

    Like

  4. The late Mrs Marlene Guest spoke at one of our meetings 10 years ago re- this very subject .The abuse was known by Police and Politicians.

    Like

  5. As a Lanour member, I have stated before.that I agree with many Labour voters and the public.

    There should be a full public inquiryy held into the Cse against vulnerable young girls in our Rotherham communities along the lines of Murdoch press and hacking. The CSE was on an industrial scale that was protected by a wall of silence then an alleged coverup. It was happening so rife for it not to be known about by the authorities.

    MPs, councillors, council officers, police and local agencies should be supeoned to appear and interrogated on oath.

    Surely the victims are owed this much to get to the whole truth and who knew whatelse in this web of lies, deceit and mass rape and molestation.

    They will never be compensated for violation but the town and state should face a very heavy financial recompense.

    When the state can eavesdrop and intercept mobiles and internet why did they fail to raise the alarm.

    For evil to flourish….good men turn a blind eye and say nowt.

    Like

  6. Who is going to pay for the case, it costs around £30,000 to get someone just to Court, never mind the actual court costs. I believe, as does Mr Tawn, that she is covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act – Freedom of speech. When Mr Barron has to stoop so low as to chase the opposition through the Courts, he must be really worried about his seat. Lets just remind him, that the UKIP candidate who stood last year against Jo Burton in Anston, Bernard Froggett, lost by only 31 votes. In Aston (Gerald Smiths Parish), UKIP only lost by 3 votes, and in Kiveton and Wales, the Labour Majority was also reduced. Guess which area all these Parishes are in, Yep, Rother Valley, Mr Barron`s very own back yard.
    You never know, we might actually see him in Anston handing out leaflets, I do hope so, I would be happy to stand on the doorstep with him and tell the truth as to what his loyal Labour troops have been doing on our Parish Council.
    My crystal ball predicts this is going to back fire BIG style.

    Like

    • ” I believe, as does Mr Tawn, that she is covered by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act – Freedom of speech.”

      Article 10
      Freedom of expression
      1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
      2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

      I would have thought that the Litigants will use the exemption allowing “for the protection of the reputation or rights of others”. but then unlike everyone else here, I am not a lawyer.

      Like

  7. This is going to back fire horribly on Champion and Barron, Rothervalley is the 4th most winnable seat and as for Ms Champion I see right through her, I hope the rest of Rotherham isn’t so gullible. It looks to me as though Labour are scared to death of being beaten by UKIP and are using what ever ways possible to stop the UKIP campaign. Perhaps they are no so scared of Allen Cowles as he is more quietly spoken and they think he will be a push over. As I said before, UKIP should counter sue for all slander published in Labour flyers in the last local elections.

    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.