I reproduce here the latest press release concerning the court case brought by Rotherham’s 3 MPs which took place today in Hull:
“Three Labour MPs who took UKIP MEP Jane Collins to court regarding the sexual exploitation of 1400 children in Rotherham today proved their motivation was financial.
On 6th February 2017 the Royal Courts of Justice awarded damages of £54,000 each to Sir Kevin Barron MP, John Healey MP and Sarah Champion MP as a result of comments made by Jane Collins MEP regarding the sexual exploitation of 1,400 children in Rotherham.
The Courts also ordered Ms Collins to make an additional interim payment of £120,000 to the MPs to cover their legal costs.
At the time of the hearing Labour MP Sarah Champion claimed she wanted the money “to give to local Rotherham charities which support abuse survivors” however a spokesperson for Ms Collins said today’s court hearing proved charity “cannot be the reason if there is no money to be handed over.”
Today in Hull the three Labour MPs attempted to exact payment of these significant amounts from Ms Collins. However, the Hull Court ordered that the MPs could not present a petition for bankruptcy against Ms Collins until 8th June and denied the politicians the further legal costs they requested.
In attempting to obtain the monies awarded to them Sir Kevin Barron MP, John Healey MP and Sarah Champion MP, who all retained their seats in the 2015 General Election after the comments were made, have also applied to the Royal Courts of Justice for a hearing at which Ms Collins will be questioned regarding her finances.”
Ends
Previously: Rotherham Labour MPs Take Further Legal Action Against Jane Collins MEP
Rotherham Politics 
A press release by whom?
I thought that a key plank of UKIP’s message was “we want the law being decided by British courts.”
So, now the British courts have made a decision, why aren’t UKIP’s representatives complying with the court’s decision?
LikeLike
Always questions and not much else as usual.
Do your own research as you have already been reminded.
LikeLike
Thank you for your suggestion. I always try to do my research before I comment.
This PR is not on Ms Collins’ website and a quick google search of the opening words reveals that they don’t belong to any known document.
So my genuine question remains: “A press release by whom?”
Perhaps I could add “and where can it be found?”
I think that doing a little research before speaking is always a good idea.
However, i note from Ms Collins Wiki page that it appears that it is a lesson which Ms Collins has signally failed to learn for, in addition to her expensive and unevidenced declaration in this case, she has – as m’learned friends would put it – ‘form’.
In November 2014 whilst campaigning for UKIP in the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner by-election, 2014 Collins appeared to imply that Mark Russell, head of the evangelistic charity Church Army, was a paedophile. Russell had posted support for the Labour party candidate in the by-election which prompted Collins to tweet “Yes because we’d soon stop your criminal activity. Paedos leave our kids alone. #UKIP.” Collins who originally refused to apologise, eventually deleted the tweet and offered to make a donation to the charity after Russell threatened to sue her. Her tweet follows accusations that UKIP exploited the suffering of Rotherham sex abuse victims for political gain in the by-election. One victim denounced the party’s tactics as “disrespectful” after it launched a “1,400 reasons to vote” campaign, in reference to the estimated number of victims in the city between 1997 and 2013.” Collins’ allegation was retweeted many times by UKIP supporters. In her defence Collins said she apologized unreservedly and admitted “I’m a bit hot headed sometimes.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Collins
“Hot-headed”? I think of many more accurate descriptions.
LikeLike
If you have questions then I suggest you direct them to John Healey or Jane Collins herself
LikeLike
Reminds me of Bob Maxwell who always threatened to sue people and private eye for exposing things.
We know what he got up to.
LikeLike
Their actions suggest they paronoid and trying to gag people by using the courts. The common person has not the luxary of being able to afford the legal path.
Also why do they not uphold human rights and the rights to freedom of expression?
LikeLike
I don’t think Mr Rumpole would be impressed by your contribution which seems to follow the Goebbels’ strategy?
Keep telling porkies or mis-representing the reality. No; it won’t do.
Of course, we should all be concerned that everyone, of whatever means, should have access to the courts and access to appropriate representation.
However, when Mr Vines put forward this line as his justification for not being legally advised (and why he had lost the case), I was able to point out that:
(1) he had had legal advice, but chose to ignore it (read the court reports); and
(2) he could have had access to pro bono advice and, if appropriate, representation. (It took me one quick phone-call to confirm).
If you read the court reports, as I have done, you will soon discover that Mr Vines and Ms Collins lost because they couldn’t produce any evidence to support their allegations.
Then, they lost big-time because, despite being advised otherwise, they chose to ignore reality. It is entirely their own faults that they have ended up where they are today. I have no sympathy.
—–
Are there no limits at all to your ‘Freedom of Expression’ right?
I would be a little surprised if there weren’t.
LikeLike
Janet
You are clearly close to the bosom of one of the 3 MPs in defending their inactions or actions?
Its not what many think nor agree with.
LikeLike
Bob. You are quite wrong.there is not an iota of truth in your assertion.
LikeLike
Here we go Janet green who was not there and knows jack s–t about it
reads and cherry picks out of it all
And where does it say I ignored any legal advice if you know so much you would have known I was not allowed to present it
Any way Janet Green who knows all about our court cases and all about the MPs statements and all about what actually was said in court
Then Tell us all who is paying there legal costs that’s what people want to know
So please tell us you are the fountain of all knowledge it would seem
Or is it like I say you know JACK S–T
My money is on the latter
But I can see they will be desperate for the money now they have further election to defend
I can’t see Labour Members being too happy of stumping up all the time with their subs going on these Three keep coming round with begging bowl
LikeLike
Contrary to your bluster, I think that the only salient analysis is that I, who know so little, am extremely solvent, and that you, who claims to know everything, appears to be bankrupt.
All I have done is read all (to the best of my knowledge) the documents, including the court proceedings, in the public domain. The judgements appeared to be entirely logical. I have yet to see a single legally-informed comment to suggest that the judgements are wrong. [If I have missed one, I’d be pleased to be provided with a link.]
As to the questions you raise about the MPs, and their statements and costs, I have to repeat that I haven’t the faintest idea about these matters.
I have never met, nor corresponded in any way with any of them, about these legal proceedings. I did speak to one of the MPs at a public meeting on a local issue, but that was well over a year ago. I have had no contact with any of them since then.
LikeLike
Janet Green
Have you read the 8 witness statements of the Claimant’s?
If not, please do.🙏🏻
LikeLike
Freedom of expression extends, in the context of an election, at least as far as writing that a senior politician has acted like a mafia boss in their tactics to discredit and gag political rivals, and that their firm action in the present demonstrates that as senior politicians in power in the 30-40s they could have done more to prevent crimes against humanity, genocide etc. i.e. heavily implying that they were actively collaborating with Nazis.
Despite the obvious parallels regarding what any competent politician was in a position to do if only they weren’t such good Germans refusing to see what was in front of them, the comments of Collins and Vines rather pale by comparison and are clearly within the limits of freedom of expression.
LikeLike
It could be that they need the money for the possible court case they could be facing over the alleged expenses problems at the 2015 election.
Dave Smith
LikeLike
Dave
Now there’s a point. Interesting that their monetary claims are far in excess of what any victim can or will receive. It’s just like a jar of sick going down……Healey has tummy knots so that justifies the fat wads? Bet the victims had more than just tummy knots.
LikeLike
Are the 3 MPs using the media coverage by taking thos back to court to highlight that they won their liable case to get re-elected.
It’s also disturbing that these 3 politicians were voted to represent Rotherham, Rother Valley and Wentworth and Dearne and are elected to run our town, yet they admit to being clueless about crimes being committed against our children…So how much do they know about the town they represent, The victims court cases have outlined the seriousness of Pimping, Drug, Gun and money laundering crimes that happened all while their time in office, how can they campaign to represent the public of a town when they are so out of touch with the reality…
Isnt that a scary thought?
Then to sue for compensation is something quite disgraceful given children have suffered horrendously because of their failures to know or deal with the vile abuse of our children and subsequent crimes related.
They haven’t suffered like the victims have, the victims won’t get has much as these 3.
This is Shameful.
Remember this before you vote Labour in Rotherham again.
LikeLike
Janet Green
Thank you for being the only person in the comments above who makes any sense,
There really are some utter nutters around.
LikeLike
‘There really are some utter nutters around.’
‘In my Humble Opinion’-Corrected that for you 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLike
Thanks RR. You can be as humble as you like so far as I am concerned.
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting to learn who issued the PR and where I can find a link to it.
LikeLike
Well now Janet Green I think that confirms it by your own admission you know Jack S–T about what happened in my court case
And as you like to pass judgment and comments and give us all your expert advice on my court case
Please give us your comments and expert advice on the reasons the MPs went so far when there was no real logical explanation except to try and scare people off from challenging them and to cause me and my family maximum damage by their vindictive actions
1 They obtained a judgment in April 2015 in their favour. And I paid their legal costs at that time ( Before the election)
2 they knew that I had not got the means to pay further costs this was said by their Barrister in court.
So what was the real reason to Persue the action for damages claiming £120,000 each plus running up legal costs of around £190,000 knowing full well I could no way pay
Was it it ensure that they silenced any one who dared to ever challenge them again about when they knew, what they knew, and what did they do to try and prevent it.
Also was it a vindictive action against me and my family to try and totally distroy us financially.
They said it was not anything to do with the money ?
If that is true then what was it all about
They had got the justice of having judgment in their favour and costs paid in April 2015 before the Election
They suffered no harm at all in the Election or any further financial cost
And they say it was not about wanting money
So what was the point of carrying on with a action that they must have known would end up costing £1000’s in legal costs which they had no possibility of recovering
By their past actions they have proved they are gready for money that is proved in their past expenses claims although in the allowed rules some would say morally wrong
So they are not going to put that kind of money up them selves now are they
So the question is why what was the main reason and who paid for this action
Was it a engineered plot by Labour to silence at the time the UKIP threat at that time
Over to you Janet expert analyst of my court case we would all love to know
LikeLike
Let’s hope Thumper buys a good few bottles of decent shampoo and hair conditioner given her personal apearance and haystack dry hair do at the Labour Party Conference.
LikeLike
Dear Mr Vines
Over the months, years, your postings have persistently demonstrated your inability to listen, hear and take on board the comments of others, including myself.
Forget those who may disagree with you philosophically or politically or may not like you personally. Just listen to the comments of your (former) UKIP colleagues/members who I seem to recall have variously described you on this site as arrogant, blustering, a buffoon and a bully. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
So, for the umpteenth time, let me confirm again that I have never ever met, corresponded or discussed with the MPs to discuss these matters.
Why then do you keep asking me to tell you why they have acted as they have? It’s just ridiculous. I’m in no better position to know than Imelda Marcos or Evita Peron!
However, my reputation is very important to my business. So, I have reflected on what I might have done if I had been accused of deliberately covering up child sexual abuse and paedophile activity, and that accusation had then been repeated again and again, and was appearing on social media throughout the world as well as in the traditional media.
Despite my firm rebuttal of the allegations, I know that
• I and my family and friends would be devastated
• I would be losing sleep and using vast amounts of emotional energy and time in trying to think back and identify any action I had taken (or not taken) which could justify such allegation or be misconstrued
• My public reputation would be trashed
• It would be immensely damaging for all my business relations and would be damaging my existing businesses as well as my future business prospects
• My family and business life would be under immense media scrutiny. All of us would know that we could not go out anywhere without the risk of being hounded by questions and being photographed without approval.
• I would continually be judged on the basis of ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ (see this website!)
Etc, etc
I would then be taking every action in order to remedy the situation.
If, rather than adequately apologising and publicly accepting that they had no evidence to support the allegations, those individuals chose to repeat them – for whatever reason, including their own personal or political gain – and leave them in the public domain over months and years, I would have absolutely no hesitation in pursuing them relentlessly.
If – and contrary to all the legal advice they were being given – they chose to persist in their misconduct, whilst all the time damaging my personal and professional life, then I would be absolutely relentless in pursuing the matter until I had, as far as possible, rectified the situation (but, knowing all the time I will never be able to free myself from the stink of the disgraceful allegation.)
If, despite having many opportunities to mitigate the financial damages and costs, those making the allegations simply failed to do what was required, used every legal trick in the book, resorted (but failing) to trying to cloak themselves in the safety of European law (when they spend all their time publicly repudiating it), and then ducking and diving to avoid being held to account, I would ensure that I did not call a halt to my pursuit until I had secured all that the law expected and required.
And, apart from the very small minority of twisted bigots who support you on this site, I think that is what the overwhelming vast majority of people would do as well.
You have brought it all on yourself.
At every point when you could have acted to mitigate the situation, you took a conscious decision to do otherwise.
Although it runs contrary to my normal instincts, I have absolutely no sympathy for your predicament.
And it appears that UKIP’s multi-millionaire sponsors and well-heeled MEPs and members have had no sympathy for you either.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Janet Green
LikeLike
Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 13th May 2017 | Rotherham Politics