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

[999tigger]

No firm goes into litigation without the will to win. But winning or losing is neither here nor there, when the point is to get the name out and loud.

 

Whether they win or lose, they will have got their name splashed nationally, extensively, in a sustained manner for free (meaning, no cash out of their cashflow), when getting that 'bit' level of PR through conventional advertising would require a very loud cheque full of zeroes.

 

Moreover, the internal cost of hours worked on a case is significantly less than charged hourly rates. Fee earner pay structure defines the first, overheads and market rates define the second, the middle ground is gross profit 'to play with'.

If the matter goes to trial at all. This could just be the MP's own PR machine at work, it doesn't take much to issue a Notice of Discontinuance (assuming that a claim has been issued and served).

I guess we'll see

 

Much as I dislike UKIP, they are now very adept at political spinning and recuperation, and the ever-increasing acceptance of populist arguments by the electorate at large, last proven in May this year, makes that job very easy.

 

1. Its a bit of a moot point till you know whether they are really paying or its cfa. Its a commercial decision, but these alternative funding arrangements do not always work out and they can be expensive for the firm involved. Publicity isnt always enough.

2. I'm aware of how law firms work.

[Gamston]

They dont need to name them, the subjects just have to be identifiable. Which they are. The main issue in their case is whether they have been defamed.

 

---------- Post added 10-12-2015 at 10:35 ----------

 

 

 

My interpretation is the UKIP person was stating there was a collective responsibility of those in positions of authority including MP's for the Rotherham child abuse scandal which is fair comment in my opinion especially when no MP's were named . Were all the same MP's serving for the entire period of the Rotherham child abuse scandal ?

Edited December 10, 2015 by Gamston
typo

[999tigger]

My interpretation is the UKIP person was stating there was a collective responsibility of those in positions of authority including MP's for the Rotherham child abuse scandal which is fair comment in my opinion especially when no MP's were named . Were all the same MP's serving for the entire period of the Rotherham child abuse scandal ?

 

You really need to read up on the law relating to slander and then you can apply to it the statement as made. You may then understand what the test is.

[Gamston]

You really need to read up on the law relating to slander and then you can apply to it the statement as made. You may then understand what the test is.

 

Ok , no problem if you lack the intellect to understand the point I was making .

[foxy lady]

It does rather come across as one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions.

 

To state that an MP "must have known" is a pretty bland statement. If the MP claims they had no idea what was going on when the rumour had been going round for years suggests "you aren't a very good MP".

[L00b]

1. Its a bit of a moot point till you know whether they are really paying or its cfa. Its a commercial decision, but these alternative funding arrangements do not always work out and they can be expensive for the firm involved. Publicity isnt always enough.

Indeed. But unless you work for said firm at partner level, you weren't privy to the salient facts, neither was I, whereby-

2. I'm aware of how law firms work.

you'll therefore be equally aware that the hypothesis I ventured is just as valid as yours.

You really need to read up on the law relating to slander and then you can apply to it the statement as made. You may then understand what the test is.

Libel and slander are notoriously iffy to practice and enforce, even in the clearest (on the face of it) rabbit-in-the-headlights of cases, so the fact that the 3 MPs brought a claim is, in and of itself, no guarantee at all that the case will go their way. Edited December 10, 2015 by L00b

[Eater Sundae]

It does rather come across as one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions.

 

To state that an MP "must have known" is a pretty bland statement. If the MP claims they had no idea what was going on when the rumour had been going round for years suggests "you aren't a very good MP".

 

But what is a MP to do with a rumour? They can tell the police, who are probably already aware of the same rumour.

 

It doesn't actually move anything forward.

 

If they have been given some evidence or at least something tangible that the police can act on and look into, then they should have reported it. Otherwise, I don't see what else should be expected of them.

[L00b]

But what is a MP to do with a rumour? They can tell the police, who are probably already aware of the same rumour.

 

It doesn't actually move anything forward.

 

If they have been given some evidence or at least something tangible that the police can act on and look into, then they should have reported it. Otherwise, I don't see what else should be expected of them.

Political pressure for results and outcomes.

 

You'd be amazed how influent an MP can be in that respect. Unless they perceive or otherwise anticipate such results as politically disserving, of course - that pressure works 'the other way' just the same. Proving it though...tall order.

[999tigger]

Indeed. But unless you work for said firm at partner level, you weren't privy to the salient facts, neither was I, whereby-

you'll therefore be equally aware that the hypothesis I ventured is just as valid as yours.

Libel and slander are notoriously iffy to practice and enforce, even in the clearest (on the face of it) rabbit-in-the-headlights of cases, so the fact that the 3 MPs brought a claim is, in and of itself, no guarantee at all that the case will go their way.

 

1 and 2 we agree and where we dont we agree to differ. The point was how they are funded is likely to come out imo especially if a few journos are on the case. We dont need to know the specifics.

3. We are talking about being able to see the relevant issues and even having a basic understanding of what was said and how that may pan out in terms of logic and reason. You explain it to him if you want to.

 

Actually Loob if you look at the story its an old one and the action was started in Jan of this year. Its already had its first preliminary ruling which

 

Mr Justice Warby said: "The clear impression I took from the speech was that the defendant was deliberately making direct allegations against the three Labour MPs for Rotherham of knowing about the sexual abuse and choosing not to take any action."

 

Which was about Collins the original person who made the speech.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/high-court-judge-issues-ruling-case-ukip-election-candidate-sued-rotherham-mps

 

The Rotherham UKIP group leader Caven Vines who repeated the allegations also had the preliminary ruling against him.

 

In the action against Mr Vines, Mr Justice Warby said he had failed to put forward any defence which could possibly succeed. Mr Vines, who represented himself, has been ordered to pay £15,000 legal costs, with the damages he will pay to be assessed at a later date if not agreed.

 

The judge said that Ms Collins’s words meant, as an allegation of fact, that each of the MPs knew many of the details of the exploitation yet deliberately chose not to intervene but allowed it to continue.

 

Read more: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/labour-mps-win-initial-defamation-rulings-against-ukip-politicians-over-rotherham-scandal-remarks-1-7235482#ixzz3tvxz8jH3

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/labour-mps-win-initial-defamation-rulings-against-ukip-politicians-over-rotherham-scandal-remarks-1-7235482

 

Cant see any further stories on it. No doubt they are ruminating over whether to proceed with a full trial and weighing up the cost. Cant say I would be keen on it. Costs certainly ruined Andrew Mitchell.

Edited December 10, 2015 by 999tigger

[foxy lady]

But what is a MP to do with a rumour? They can tell the police, who are probably already aware of the same rumour.

 

It doesn't actually move anything forward.

 

If they have been given some evidence or at least something tangible that the police can act on and look into, then they should have reported it. Otherwise, I don't see what else should be expected of them.

 

This didn't suddenly come to the surface.

 

If the MPs didn't hear what everyone else knew, you have to ask why not? If they did know why weren't they using their influence to get the council to do something about it?

 

That's probably what is behind all this. I'm not sure that triggering a court case about it is the world's smartest move.