UKIP politician Caven Vines sued for £90,000 over claims in TV interview

UKIP politician Caven Vines sued for £90,000 over claims in TV interview

TWO of Rotherham’s Labour MPs have asked a top judge to award them £90,000 in damages for “false allegations” made live on a national news channel by a Ukip politician.

Caven Vines, the former leader of Ukip on Rotherham Council, made the comments in an interview with Sky News presenter Kay Burley in January last year, during the run up to the general election.

Mr Vines, who lost his seat in the recent local elections, said that John Healey and Sir Kevin Barron “knew what was going on” in relation to the child sexual exploitation scandal in the town.

Read on… http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/103087/ukip-politician-caven-vines-sued-for-90-000-over-claims-in-tv-interview.aspx

18 thoughts on “UKIP politician Caven Vines sued for £90,000 over claims in TV interview

    • So Barron says that he was in touch with the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping(who estimated that there had been 10000 victims) but he says that he was only aware of one case – where he doesn’t seem to have pushed for answers very hard at all.

      CROP would have left him in no doubt as to the reality of the situation. Perhaps if had been said that he knew what was going on “in general terms” rather than “in detail” there would have been no action brought, or the result would have been different.

      I suppose he didn’t read the Bindel article either

      http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3576/full

      If he gets a big wedge of cash it will be an absolute travesty when one considers the overall context, not least Prof Jay’s comment that a blind eye was turned “in order to accommodate a community expected to vote Labour”.

      Xinsider’s suggestion of £1 “damages” is exactly right – with no order as to costs.

      Like

    • The MPs are not paying costs. They have a CFA better known as no win no fee agreement. These were introduced for people of limited means so that they would not be denied a legal remedy because of a lack of financial means. They weren’t intended for people earning the sort of salaries MPs are paid

      Like

      • Is it confirmed that the 3 MPs are using a CFA ? I was not aware of it.

        A CFA (Conditional Fee Agreement) is not the same thing as the old “no win no fee agreement” – those have not been allowed since 2013.
        Whilst CFA’s can be used by litigants of limited means, they were not specifically intended for them. Berezovsky had a CFA for Berezovsky v Abramovich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berezovsky_v_Abramovich .
        They are simply risk-sharing agreements, and have no impact on the level of costs that may become payable.

        Like

  1. With these 2 grasping Politicians seeming to spend more energy trying to get money out of UKIP members, than representing the people of Rotherham, they are shedding what little credibility they still retain. I also hope the Trial Judge has sight of the interview with “The Barron” before he sets the level of damages. I would suggest £1 each claim would be generous!

    Like

  2. There are still matters un-resolved before the Judge and are to be decided at a later hearing.
    For clarity, Caven Vines is being sued for £90,000 each, making £180,000 in total plus, no doubt, an ‘eyewatering’, legal costs bill to be met in addition.
    “Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?” Sums up this entire and deeply unattractive episode in my view, Rik.

    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.