Statement from Cllr. Caven Vines

Statement from Cllr. Caven Vines

Press Release

30th April 2015

Release: Immediate

Following yesterday’s High Court judgement, which found Cllr. Caven Vines had defamed John Healey and Sir Kevin Barron, Mr Vines has the following statement:

“Having fully read and understood the judgement, I would first like to thank the judge in this case, Mr Justice Warby for his fairness throughout the proceedings.”

“I always felt this was a David and Goliath fight against a Labour legal team steeped in knowledge of UK defamation law, and especially as financial constraints meant I was representing myself.”

“While the judge identified areas in my defence that with expert representation could have succeeded, it soon became apparent that without specialist help, my case was untenable.”

“I therefore came to the conclusion that my only option was to concede the case, rather than run the risk the total financial ruin of my family and I.”

“There will be no further comment at this time.”


30 thoughts on “Statement from Cllr. Caven Vines

  1. Now that Mr Justice Warby has ruled in favour of Messrs Barron and Healy, for the avoidance of doubt, does Sir Kevin now feel able to state clearly that neither his brother, his daughter, any member of RMBC or any of it’s officers discussed CSE with him, either formally or informally?


  2. It’s appalling that UKIP left Caven Vines to defend himself IMO. I wonder if Collins is paying for her own defence. They’ve just had a £1m donation from the Daily Express owner yet can’t support one of their local councillors.


    • well its only appalling if you expect Ukip to act like a decent party in the first place. Given they have grown out of virtually nowhere overnight, they have very little grounded organisation, and they make their own rules up as they go along. The ‘leader’ seems totally relaxed about its individuals shooting their mouths off all over the place – whether they represent party policy (if it exists at all) or not. Indeed, he proclaims it a virtue – hence the endless succession of gaffes and expulsions. Perhaps a little party discipline makes sense after all.
      In the meantime, politics – and public pronouncements – are not a game where you can sound off as you like; libel and slander have legal consequences, as Mr Vines and Ms Collins are finding out.
      And I’d be surprised if any party was prepared to pick up the legal tab for the wilful indiscipline of individuals who only had to take legal advice before deciding to make dangerous allegations at others from another party. So they only have themselves to blame.


      • I should point out here Messers Healey, Barron and Ms Champion were not risking anything themselves as the Labour Party’s insurance company were underwriting their costs. Not exactly an even contest then?


  3. Still looks like typical behaviour ot the Rotherham Labour Party. Playing the player, not the ball!
    Casey and Jay pointed out the bullying behaviour of Labour Councillors, Could it now be said to have permeated the entire party in Rotherham? It doesn’t look pretty, and Labour are haemorrhaging votes as a result! Could be some surprises come polling day?


    • It is staggering that you see this as “playing the player”. The MPs were libelled, which makes them the injured parties. There’s no way you can escape that fact, try as you might.


      • Politicians are libelled all the time, it is better to have a thicker skins than ours have?
        The courts can only deliver justice, when both sides are equally financed?
        This was not a fair fight and I would have thought, you of all people, would understand that? A case of prejudices, trumping principles?


      • I thought libel could only be pursued if a reasonable person thinks worse of him, her or them after the statement ….. I do not think worse of them after hearing what Mr Vines and Ms Collins said …. You would be hard pushed to find anyone who thinks said statements have ruined the already shattered reputations of these Labour MPs. And yes … I do consider myself a reasonable person.


  4. Caven has been dragged along by the mob, especially Calamity Jane. She shoots from the hip and spares little time to think. The difference between her and Caven is obvious; she’s got a few quid.
    Libel laws protect individuals from outbursts of a slanderous nature, and rightly so. The problems with the law, as it stands, is that the more money you’ve got the more leeway you’ve got.
    The Right Wing, like publications such as the Daily Mail and the Sun, just treat the laws as an acceptable occupational annoyance. They’ve got the money. People and publications on the Left learn not to say things without facts, or references, to use as back up, otherwise we would be out of business pronto. The Tories – aka UKIP- have eroded the working man’s chances of justice by ending legal aid on such matters.
    It is ironic that the Right – in an issue such as CSE – have taken a hit. The Left have been trying to expose the Establishment for its cover ups of child abuse, in far more sensitive areas, and on a grander scale than this for decades, and we will continue.
    But we can’t afford to make silly slanderous accusations; as Caven has learned to his cost.


  5. Caven Vines libel was transmitted by Sky News. Should they not have been held accountable in Court, along with Caven? The difference might be, they can afford to defend themselves? There is also, their moral duty to assist Caven in his hour of need?


    • That’s a novel concept – blame anyone but the Kippers. You’re usually quick to recognise that public figures should be accountable for their actions. I’m not sure why you don’t think that should extend to UKIP. Another novel concept of yours is that “courts can only deliver justice when both sides are equally financed”. A barrister once told me, “Good lawyers don’t win cases, good cases win cases”.


      • Robin,
        Top tip – always try to grab the best barrister in the particular field of your case. I hate to say it but it does make a huge difference.


      • Robin, I never met an honest barrister yet. They lie, they cheat and they pervert the course of justice purely because they are not made to take the oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
        If you want to hear the truth spoken, never go into a Court room.


      • I know enough to realise Caven was unable to mount a defence, therefore the resulting decision was a foregone conclusion.
        Interestingly, there were defence options, that could have been used, but as they are newly provided for in the changes to defamation in the Act and have yet to be tested in Court. Needless to say, it would be prohibitivley expensive and therefore impossible, for Caven!
        Regular Reader should curb his dismissal of others and the derision he heaps upon them, it is not clever, just offensive!


  6. I award John Healey and Sir Kevin Barron the Robert Maxwell memorial silence and to avoid risk of financial distress will remain silent and deny fervently any association between them or their actions with any school yard bullying either actual or fictional.
    This does not mean anyone has to like or to respect the goons.


Leave your comment

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

You are commenting using your 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.