MEP due to pay libel damages to Rotherham’s MPs

A HIGH Court deadline for MEP Jane Collins to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in libel damages and costs to Rotherham’s three MPs expires later today.

Kevin Barron, John Healey and Sarah Champion are all entitled to £54,000 each from the UKIP MEP after remarks she made about Rotherham’s child abuse scandal were adjudged to be libellous.

She claimed in a 2014 conference speech that the MPs knew about child exploitation in the town but did nothing to intervene and failed in a court bid to prove she was entitled to MEPs’ immunity.

Ms Collins also faces a legal costs bill of around £196,000 together with the £162,000 damages, making a total bill of £358,000.

Read on…,mep-due-to-pay-libel-damages-to-rotherhams-mps_21701.htm

See also:

Caven Vines vs Barron & Healey

Jane Collins vs Barron, Champion & Healey

40 thoughts on “MEP due to pay libel damages to Rotherham’s MPs

  1. “Ms Champion, Mr Healey and Sir Kevin pledged to donate any money they receive to charity.

    Speaking after the hearing, Ms Champion said: “If we do get the money it will be fabulous to give some of it to children’s charities, in particular those that work with survivors of abuse, but the likelihood that we ever get a penny is very small.” ”

    So it’s up to Collins MEP to cough up.


  2. “Ms Champion said: “If we do get the money it will be fabulous to give some of it to children’s charities.” Is the donation going to be “some of the money” or all of it?


    • “Ms Champion, Mr Healey and Sir Kevin pledged to donate any money they receive to charity.”
      … though some may well not go to children’s’ charities.

      There are many other charitable objectives that are well worth their support, I personally would wish some of the money to go to the Jo Cox Foundation.

      …and it would probably be appropriate to give a few quid to one of the anti-hunting groups – given Collins well-known support of fox hunting. :-}

      I’m sure you Mal can think of a few groups that could be add to the list.


      • Do you think reg that it is only right that the three amigos Barron,Champion and Healey should hand over every penny of their ill gained money(in my opinion) to the charities that help victims of cse ….. because if they spend it on anything for themselves ie holidays,clothes,cars etc etc then they themselves have gained wealth off the backs of cse victims … I think they will hang on to it believing that it is justifiably theirs for defamation which I think was the wrong verdict my opinion Jane Collins did not in any way defame any of said three MPs ..I and most people believed it before she said it … I did not get my opinion from Ms Collins… and I still believe that all three knew more than they let on …ask Denis MacShane.


        • Janet Green …another narrow minded bigot .. fortunately I have the right to express my opinions on this forum… and i also take onboard other peoples …because I am not a bigot …As for being an unpleasant person would you know ? you are conversing with a made up name on an internet forum …… and on the subject of being taken seriously lots of people I talk to sharing my views take me (the person) seriously ..rr still has not said if the three MPs should keep their ill gotten gains for themselves… what is your opinion JG ? added wealth off the back of cse … go on seriously disagree with me.


        • What an unpleasant person you are.

          The only opinion which mattered here was the judge’s. And, like anyone else having carefully read his analysis, conclusions and judgement, I also conclude that your opinion is not only of no interest but that it also lacks any merit.

          If you want to believe in Ms Collins’ and Mr Vines’ Fake and Unsubstantiated News (to use Mr Trump’s latest categorisation of the judgement) that is a matter for you; but don’t expect the rest of us to take it seriously.


  3. Barron and Healey said in my case that it was not about wanting money so why did they carry on after they got judgment in their favour in April 2005 and they got their costs paid
    And their Barrister said I was not a wealthy man so if it was not about money why would any one carry on running up £100 of thousands in legal fees knowing the defendant could never pay them even with a no win no fee arrangement they had in place would not pay as they won so the question is why per sue it unless it was very political and some one else other than them was paying the bill
    Interesting ?.


    • The Labour Party insurers would have footed the trio’s legal costs so it was of no cost to them in CV and JC’s cases. They could indulge their egos all they wanted.


      • You’ve clearly never had to deal with insurance-funded legal action.

        Insurers will only agree initial funding if their own in-house legal team confirm good chance of success. They expect most actions to be settled long before court proceedings. If there is no settlement at this stage, they will only support proceedings if success factor is better than 70:30. Then, even if proceedings started, they will always be looking to settle early, even if this is at less than what might be realisable.

        It’s the insurers who determine the nature and continuation of any proceedings. In this case, it appears that the success factor was high and the defendant parties refused to settle, leaving the insurers with little option other than to fund to the logical conclusion.

        If you read all the judgements in the Vines and Collins cases, you will find that both were given numerous chances to settle at significantly less than the overall damages and costs figures determined by the judges. It was only the stupidity of both defendants, who clearly rejected all the legal advice they were given, which resulted in the scale of the awards against them and the extent of the costs.

        No reasonable person could have any sympathy for the mess they’ve landed in.


  4. Hear we go Janet Green who was no ware near the court cases but claims just to know all about it is the person closer than they would like us to think
    But for the record it was the claimants who took this all the way not any insurance company
    If Hjanet Green is correct then explain why very early in the proceedings did they ignor any offer to mediate the answer was pure and simple greed and political motive


    • As it happens, I do have legal insurance and speak from experience. I have had to pursue and fund a legal case (road accident damages) where my insurer wanted to settle on a tit-for-tat basis and then declined to fund proceedings. I won, to my insurer’s chagrin.

      I read all the judgments in your case – both about the proceedings and the substantive issue. I suggest you re-read what the judge said about your conduct and performance throughout the proceedings, including in relation to your ‘purported offer’. The judge wasn’t impressed was he?

      Of course, what we are all interested to know is ‘Have you paid up yet, Mr Vines?’


  5. Reading summery judgments is only part of the story I have all correspondence and witness statements I was their you wasn’t and I can confirm the claimants pursued this not any insurance company
    And you are talking crap as usual a motor insurance claim is not the same as a CFE in a liable case
    And no I have not paid up I have no money or assets left and been made bankrupt which should please you so I can’t pay up
    So who is stupid they won judgment in their favour I paid their costs their Barrister told them I was not wealthy so why continue to run up massive legal costs fully knowing they would not recover them unless you are using some one else money

    So they won their case has you delight in gloating on
    So mr know it all who has paid their legal costs for the Three Barristers they used


    • “Reading summery judgments is only part of the story I have all correspondence and witness statements I was their you wasn’t….”

      So was the judge…and he’d seen all your correspondence and witness statements and…

      And, after all that, what did the judge conclude and what did he say about your case and the way in which you conducted yourself?


  6. Well
    One judge said I was an Honorable Man, another said that I would seek out wrongdoing at any level and fight tirelessly for my constituents and the same judges said it was a sad case that should never have been brought befor them and that he would have given sanctions against the claimants for misleading the court if it had not been detrimental to me at this stage
    How come if you’ve read everything you missed them comments
    Like I said earlier you know jack s–t and talk a load of crap


    • O come on, Mr Vines.

      Why be so coy?

      Why be so selective in reporting what the judges thought about you, your case and the way in which you conducted it?

      What about all those judges’ comments – and I paraphrase – which described your defence as non-existent and irrelevant, your case management as shambolic, and your offer as incomprehensible, untimely and not worth the paper it was never written on? And that summary is being generous.

      Why not man up and share them all with us?


      • I’m not sure you can accuse Mr Vines of being overly selective when you omitted the positive comments he refers to.

        Warby J did say the defence of 2015 was incomprehensible, but suggested there may be merit in pursuing a defence that the comments were in the public interest. The remaining conduct seems to have been shambolic. I believe the claimants were criticised for not responding to the settlement offer (which one described as “obviously not enough”) and the highly regarded Warby J concluded there was evidence that this same claimant already had a poor reputation.

        I can read too.


  7. Well if I could have afforded 3 Barristers and a London based legal firm to represent me the same firm which gave Mr Healey over £14,000 in donations instead of having to represent myself then the outcome may have been so different
    So like I said you know Jack S–t about it


    • Dissembling again!

      As earlier posts confirmed: You had legal advice. You chose to ignore it, because you knew better. You were wrong.

      J Warby said your purported defence was both incomprehensible and irrelevant. He simply stated that, simply as a matter of law, you could have sought to pursue a defence that ‘your actions and statements had been in the public interest’. However, he didn’t at any point give any suggestion that such a defence would have been successful if presented.

      As Alex confirms above, your case conduct was shambolic.


        • The ‘opinions’ are all set out in the judgements. Why don’t you set up a page with links to all the relevant judgements in the Collins and Vines cases and then people can read everything for themselves? I’m sure Mr Vines and Alex will be able help you to locate them all.


  8. Like I have said before you know Jack S–t about what went on in my case you was not their and I doubt you have been privy to any statements or trial transcripts unless that is you are closer to the Claiments. Than you would like us to beleive


  9. Janet Green has been reading to much Orwell. She has instituted a ‘Hate Week/Month/Year’ against Caven Vines and no matter what is written here the verbal abuse will continue.
    I’m sure Caven’s skin is thick enough to shrug it off.

    Alex did not ‘confirm’ CV’s defence was shambolic. Alex wrote ‘The remaining conduct SEEMS to have been shambolic’
    Seem; verb to appear to be, feel, do, etc. to appear to one’s own senses, judgment.
    to appear to be true or probable. to appear or pretend to be such.

    ‘Seem’ does not have the same meaning as ‘Confirm’ and you know that.


    • More irrelevant, distractionary dissembling.

      What next? A diversion into how many angels can dance on a pin-head?

      I do have an issue with Caven Vines. It’s very simple. He has persistently demanded that people answer his questions. That may not be an unreasonable request.

      However, whenever I have asked him to answer some very simple questions about UKIP policy locally (for example, about UKIP’s policy of having a grammar school in every area) – and he was the UKIP representative – he has signally refused to answer.

      I’m still waiting. Meanwhile, I will continue to regard him as a hypocrite.


  10. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 4th March 2017 | Rotherham Politics

  11. All I will say is shambolic or not I was trying to get the truth out but unfortunately the legal system is such that unless you can afford to employ a top barrister in the specialist field you cannot succeed with no knowledge of the laws of liable and up against Three Barristers one of which is regarded one of the top liable / media barristers and you are not allowed to ask the questions to get to the truth at the damages hearings you will not have a chance
    And again without legal help and the means to pay for it trying to get back in court to present your new evidence is very difficult
    And how in Rotherham do you get legal people who know liable to do pro bono I never found one
    so any one with this knowledge who is willing to help please get in touch
    Remember the old saying’s
    What goes round comes round and it’s not over till the fat lady sings
    And she hasn’t started to rehearse yet


  12. I have answered Green on the Grammer school subject twice in the past
    UKIP policy is that they beleive they would be a good thing they were in the past
    With regard towhichschoolthat would be up to the local authority to decide if it went that way
    Their answered you for the third time
    As far as my court case goes like I keep repeating it is now obvious enough you know Jack S–t about it


  13. As far as opinions are all set out in the judgements but the signed on oath witness statements and the court transcripts are that is where the real answers are
    And Janet Green you have not seen these or have you

    And as you are a know all of all things legal what is the penalty for perjury these days just wondered


    • If you supply Rothpol with all the witness statements and the court transcripts, I am sure he or she would be happy to post them on the site for us all to read.

      However, I suspect that they will not add to the sum of human knowledge.

      As far as I can tell from reading the judgements, the judges considered all the legally relevant matters and referred to them in their analysis. They also often referred to the legally irrelevant considerations with which they were presented by you (and others) and explained why they were not relevant, let alone worthy of being tested.


  14. If UKIP ever take control of the Council and they are in possession of all information required and after full consultation with the Education dept then they would be in a position to tell you which school would be used
    But as I am no longer a UKIP Councillor then it would be for others to decide would it not

    And as far as the court case is concerned you know nothing

    So what is the punishment for purgery some one with your legal knowledge and vast experience in all things including Bull S–t would surley know that


    • So Mr Vines tells us:
      1) UKIP make promises without being in possession of all the information required:
      2) UKIP take decisions ‘after full consultation with the Education Department’ but not with the parents and children who are affected;
      3) If UKIP were in control of the Council, it would definitely implement its policy of making a grammar school out of one secondary school in Rotherham.

      Well, that gets us a little further, but it simply goes to confirm that UKIP makes Manifesto Promises without knowing the full facts and without having the faintest idea about the impact.

      As for Mr Vines’ last comment, I really don’t have the faintest idea what he is on about.

      Is he telling us that, as well as defaming people, he’s also guilty of perjury and he wants to know what the sentence would be when he is found guilty?

      Well, to paraphrase Trump supporters’ rants about Hillary Clinton, “Lock him up” should suffice.


      • Can any of our MPs be defamed? ….. I did not realise they were famous. … Why don’t you drop the personal attack on Mr Vines …… its almost has if he once hit a nerve with you.


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.