Cause and effect?

The last three posts give us a flavour of the information provided by RMBC to MPs during 2013.

We now have the opportunity to start the examination of the claims made by Kevin Barron and John Healey in their witness statements made in the course of their libel case against the then Chairman of the RMBC UKIP Group, Caven Vines.

These papers are now open to scrutiny thanks to Caven Vines, who successfully applied for their release, in order to facilitate his complaints of election offences to the police, who are now understood to be investigating!

From section 14 of Kevin Barron’s statement of 11th November 2015:

“As a result I was compelled to recruit extra staff and employed Michael Denoual to assist with my election campaign…..

… This was not solely funded by the Labour Party and I therefore incurred significant personal costs.”

Kevin claims a direct cause and effect.  As a result of two stories broadcast on Sky news, one of Jane Collins at UKIP’s conference and Caven Vine’s interview with Kay Burley, he recruited Michael Denoual.

Kevin’s powers of foresight are indeed impressive! The advertisement was published, a full five days,  before the fateful events occurred! Neat trick?


See also:

Safeguarding Report – Progress Summary March 2013

Quarterly meetings between the Council and MPs June 28th 2013

Quarterly meetings between the Council and MPs September 2013

Operation Central briefing

12 thoughts on “Cause and effect?

        • I did say if it helps, so let me make it a bit more clearer.

          Judgment based on witness statements, I could decipher most of Kevin Barrons witness statement, but I won’t.

          Let’s see what Caven produced, and see if anyone has any sense.

          58 Mr Vines’ letter said that he would be releasing a press statement “clearly stating my comments on Sky TV were referring, as outlined above, to the year 2012 only, and at no time prior.” On 24 January 2015 an article was published on an inside page of the Rotherham Advertiser, the readership of which is said to be some 53,000. The article was headed “UKIP Chief pledges to fight MPs’ libel action”. Its opening paragraphs recorded that Mr Vines had “vowed to defend himself” after being sued by the claimants “for allegedly suggesting they knew about the child sex abuse exposed by the Jay report”.

          Can we do the maths again on the date lines, mmm…Caven definitely in a worser position than started.

          pssst…all judgments based on say so, final judgement saves us on all the BS, “I…when R Wer a lad…”


        • “clearly stating my comments on Sky TV were referring, as outlined above, to the year 2012 only” Caven Vines.

          What exactly did the MPs know, and mere mortals found out in August 2014.

          I’m only questioning! All results in so far don’t work in a climate created by Caven, and suggest that by these pieces of paper from Aug to Sept 2013, that he is doing himself any favours.

          Now unless Caven can say he knew the findings of the Jay report and he had full knowledge of the same in 2012 and he and his best buddy Kevin shared the same, I think RR on this instance are as deluded as Caven.

          Even Andrew Norfolk was gob smacked when he learned of the Jay report findings.


  1. Never underestimate the para-psychological prophesies of politicians, not only predicting a future outcome, but doing so on the basis of events yet to occur, and then retrospectively reported.
    We are in awe at the time-traveling cognitive abilities of our self-ascribed superiors.


  2. Paragraph 10 of the judgement is quite telling and emphatic:

    “It is not only procedurally abusive for a defendant in Mr Vines’ position to accept the
    court’s judgment and then to make repeated, procedurally misconceived, attempts to
    challenge it, it is also unreasonable and unfair to the claimants. Moreover, although
    this is not a question that arises at this hearing, it is fair to say that I did not detect in
    any of Mr Vines’ documentation any basis for doubting that my decision on the
    summary judgment application was correct.”


  3. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 29th October | Rotherham Politics

  4. Pingback: Rotherham Labour 3 – more exes woes | Rotherham Politics

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.