Rotherham's three Labour MPs to sue UKIP MEP for slander

[Eric Arthur]

Now thanks to the MPs' decision to sue it seems that we'll all find out some more answers.

 

The Law Of Unintended Consequences is as cruel a beast as Catch 22.

[Quik]

I think that when it comes to being accused of being complicit in child abuse, unless the accuser can back up that accusation then the person being accused has ever right to gag the accuser.

 

On one level I agree. However in this case the MPs seem to be arguing over semantics. That they could have and should have known given how much was in the public demain they don't appear to be disputing, merely that it has not been proven that they definately knew.

 

Regardless of the outcome I doubt its going to bring any comfort to the real victims.

[Eater Sundae]

On one level I agree. However in this case the MPs seem to be arguing over semantics. That they could have and should have known given how much was in the public demain they don't appear to be disputing, merely that it has not been proven that they definately knew.

 

Regardless of the outcome I doubt its going to bring any comfort to the real victims.

 

Surely once information is in the public domain then everyone (including police, CPS etc) knows anyway.

 

I'd assumed that the accusations are taken as the MPs knowing something that wasn't in the public domain and sitting on that information instead of acting on it.

 

This would need to be evidence, in my opinion, not just rumours.

 

edit. ...and I agree the last point.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Eater Sundae

[retep]

Just another way of destroying the opposition and keeping the cosy way of controlling the public.

[Annie Bynnol]

Smelling of Roses.

 

"Ukip MEP apologises for apparently calling charity boss a paedophile"

Guardian Nov 2014

 

"Ukip MEP forced to apologise after appearing to call the head of Christian charity a paedophile"

Independent Nov 2014

 

Britain First, UKIP and EDL exploit the suffering of Rotherham sex abuse victims for political gain in the form of conferences, marches, false allegations and accusations.

It is absolutely correct to put political pressure on the "system" to get a fair and just outcome for the victims and punishment for those who failed.

 

However to accuse anybody of an association with covering up child abuse without providing evidence, when they were not even in an elected position before 2012 has to be challenged.

[LeMaquis]

..........Parliamentary privilege for her statement.

 

As she's not a MP that would have been hard.

 

I'm sure all of this has been discussed on a different thread many moons ago.

[Flanker7]

I absolutely agree, and I'll accept their word that these MP's were ignorant of the abuse of 1400 children on their patch that their peers knew all about, though it doesn't solve the problem that if they were ignorant in spite of all the crystal clear knowledge in their peer group, how on earth did they avoid knowing about it?

 

I'm a bit out of touch with it all recently but if they were ignorant it is reasonable to ask if they are rooting out all the people in their peer group who delibrately kept them in the dark and taking some sort of action against them as well as their political opponent.

*my bold

 

I'll say this for the last time. 1,400 is an estimate, the number was produced by mathematics. The figure was never mentioned before the Jay report in August 2014. It maybe a small point but with so many massive generalisations being used I think that a little accuracy helps to keep the thing grounded.

[Eric Arthur]

As she's not a MP that would have been hard.

 

She's an MEP, so not hard at all.

 

---------- Post added 10-12-2015 at 09:59 ----------

 

*my bold

 

I'll say this for the last time. 1,400 is an estimate, the number was produced by mathematics. The figure was never mentioned before the Jay report in August 2014. It maybe a small point but with so many massive generalisations being used I think that a little accuracy helps to keep the thing grounded.

 

The first number discussed in a report that was surpressed was around 300. Don't try to pick holes in the number of victims or I'll ask you how many victims you need before you think it worthy enough to discuss.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Eric Arthur

[foxy lady]

Whose funding the legal bill ?

 

Sarah Champion seemed to be a good MP on the television program about the Houses of Parliament last year .

 

Legal aid is not available for defamation cases

[Eric Arthur]

However to accuse anybody of an association with covering up child abuse without providing evidence, when they were not even in an elected position before 2012 has to be challenged.

 

Fair point on Sarah Champion. She was the CEO of a Rotherham children's charity before being selected by her Rotherham Labour Party to become a Rotherham MP. It is perfectly plausible that she knew nothing about the extent or cover up / supression / whatever of child abuse in Rotherham by Rotherham Council, Rotherham Labour Party, and South Yorkshire police. Has she said when she first found out?