Darren Hughes first response

Is this the truth about the ‘diamond geezer’?

Readers should know I have received a pre-action protocol letter from Oxley and Coward LLP’s Rotherham office requesting the the above post be taken down.

I have had little alternative but to comply and did so within 24 hours.

I also apologise for posting this story based on hearsay without direct evidence.

I regret I am unable to report further at the moment, as this issue is caught up in the quagmire of legal procedure.

Rik

Update:

I will be updating readers on progress as I can, but now this has been the most visible position, far longer than the original I will be returning this post to it’s position in date order later today.

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Abuse of power, Information, Labour Chicanery, Labour Hypocrites and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Darren Hughes first response

  1. trambuster says:

    The truth will come out eventually – er, just like it did with Stone et al

    Keep up the good work though Rik

    • Bob says:

      I agree with trambuster.

      Was that a pun about stone for daimond?

      Rogues like Maxwell used to always resort to the legal threat to gag people. We all know what happened there!

      Bubbly daz may hopefully return to the tory bosom in a leafy tory area……
      if the price is right

      • reg reader says:

        The fact that the deeply disgusting Robert Maxwell may have sometimes resorted to legal threats has no relevance here. Please try and maintain a sense of proportion.

  2. trambuster says:

    “return to the tory bosom in a leafy tory area……if the price is right”
    They always do, their only motivation is the size of the fattest salary they can screw out of the public purse – these people would not last 10 minutes in the private sector.
    For information – the private sector is where people actually earn their money on the merit of the talents and achievements.

  3. Colin Tawn says:

    I understand why you felt you had to take the post down however I wonder if you or Oxley and Coward has read the law protecting bloggers and journalists?
    The Defamation Act 2013- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
    contains a series of measures, including:
    “New serious harm threshold” aimed at helping people to understand when claims should be brought and discourage wasteful use of court time
    Protection for those publishing material on a matter of public interest where they reasonably believe that it is in the public interest.
    Single-publication rule to prevent repeated claims against a publisher about the same material.
    Justice minister Shailesh Vara said: “As a result of these new laws, anyone expressing views and engaging in public debate can do so in the knowledge that the law offers them stronger protection against unjust and unfair threats of legal action.

    As well as http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/crossheading/defences/enacted
    Truth
    (1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
    (2)Subsection (3) applies in an action for defamation if the statement complained of conveys two or more distinct imputations.
    (3)If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the defence under this section does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant’s reputation.
    (4)The common law defence of justification is abolished and, accordingly, section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 (justification) is repealed.
    Honest opinion
    (1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the following conditions are met.
    (2)The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion.
    (3)The second condition is that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.
    (4)The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of—
    (a)any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published;
    (b)anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of.
    (5)The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that the defendant did not hold the opinion.
    (6)Subsection (5) does not apply in a case where the statement complained of was published by the defendant but made by another person (“the author”); and in such a case the defence is defeated if the claimant shows that the defendant knew or ought to have known that the author did not hold the opinion.
    (7)For the purposes of subsection (4)(b) a statement is a “privileged statement” if the person responsible for its publication would have one or more of the following defences if an action for defamation were brought in respect of it—
    (a)a defence under section 4 (publication on matter of public interest);
    (b)a defence under section 6 (peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journal);
    (c)a defence under section 14 of the Defamation Act 1996 (reports of court proceedings protected by absolute privilege);
    (d)a defence under section 15 of that Act (other reports protected by qualified privilege).
    (8)The common law defence of fair comment is abolished and, accordingly, section 6 of the Defamation Act 1952 (fair comment) is repealed.
    Etc.Etc.

    I am not promoting nor instigating a complete refusal to acknowledge a Pre Action Protocol but I would question the validity of any claim for defamation or reputational damage given his refusal to answer this question:
    https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/silence-from-darren-hughes-his-constituents-deserve-an-answer/
    And no comment from him either about this:
    https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/rush-house-project-new-information/

  4. Yorkshire Tea says:

    Colin

    Is the ‘Karen McGregor’ on the Rush House link you provided the very same ‘Karen McGregor’ who is now behind bars doing a lengthy stretch?

    If it is, wasn’t she jailed last year at Sheffield Crown Court for her part in the abuse of young girls in Rotherham along with her Biraderi mates?

    Reading her comment it appears that she was involved with Rush House…………wheels within wheels?

  5. Colin Tawn says:

    YT.
    ‘Is the ‘Karen McGregor’ on the Rush House link you provided the very same ‘Karen McGregor’ who is now behind bars doing a lengthy stretch?’
    As far as I’m aware she is the same person.

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s