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.
Rotherham Politics 
Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_breaks_a_butterfly_upon_a_wheel%3F
LikeLike
Clearly our Rotherham MPs wherever there’s a opportunity to make money whilst doing nowt !
LikeLike
never forget it is only 2 of our Rotherham MPs
LikeLike
Hmm…. wouldn’t want to make a defamatory comment by implication to the “other” Rotherham MP , rr. Havent the money to pay for the court case !
LikeLike
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
More attempts to put fear into others. Oh brave new world
LikeLike
it was just some low hanging fruit , there for the taking.
LikeLike
Yes, a lack of agility.
LikeLike
Is this disreputable creature getting a discount deal from his well worked libel lawyers for regular custom.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
Money grubbers
LikeLike
Do these two realise they have proved their ignorance in law.
LikeLike
Barron Barrator goes in for a “A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
The purpose of this can hardly be to protect a so called “good name” for these persons. Their names are scarcely worth a farthing. I would offer then that.
What price two turds?
LikeLike
Poem for the weak
Two toads they sat upon a clod
Their tongues flicked in and out
Each one seemed such a sickening sod
With a fat and greedy pout
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike