A FORMER BBC Writer and Editor of a left-wing news website who is accused of historical child abuse has launched a £50,000 lawsuit against Politicalite, we can reveal.
Jukes, 60 who denies the allegations sent Politicalite’s Editor a letter via his solicitors Bindmans LLP – who are also attempting to sue our Editor-at-large Jay Beecher and two right-wingers who shared the story on Twitter, both have apologised for sharing a news story – after left-wing Twitter mobs encouraged by Mr Jukes bombarded the pair on Twitter.
He launched an online fundraiser that has so far raised over £50,000 with donations from anti-Brexit figures and left-wing journalists, smearing us claiming that Politicalite – run by a mixed-race British man of Jamaican decent is part of a network of ‘Far-Right Activists’.
Mr Jukes, 60, a playwright, blogger and BBC writer better known for his work on smash-hit BBC One dramas such as Holby City and The Inspector Lynley Mysteries was accused of abuse by a man who claims that Jukes’ allegedly molested him during his stint in the theatre industry in the 1980s, while he was just 12-years-old.
After initially failing to contact Politicalite directly with a comment at the time of publication, Jukes has led a campaign of intimidation online, doxxing our Editor – who has now been forced to move house, and encouraging his more than 100k followers to send malicious communications to our Editors and Journalists.
Politicalite is today launching our own – and encourage anyone who believes in press freedom and the freedom to report on high-profile public figures with scrutiny, to donate at the end of the article.
Jukes threatened our Editor Jordan James, the journalist who wrote the scoop; Jay Beecher, former Bylines Times journalist James Melville and Country Squire Editor James Bembridge; who shared the allegations with legal action, encouraging his Twitter followers to bombard anyone who dares to share the allegations.
To avoid the £50,000 lawsuit, Jukes solicitors demanded that Politicalite:
1) removed the articles, any tweets marketing the articles and undertake not to republish the allegations.
2) apologise to Mr Jukes in terms to be agreed.
3) Payment of appropriate damages; and
4) pay legal costs.
The added: “If you agree to take the first two steps that will of course mitigate the damage and costs to be claimed from you.”
Politicalite responded and said: “Politicalite rejects your clients claim(s) of libel and will not be paying any damages or legal costs, will not be retracting the story and will most certainly not be making any personal or public apology to your client.
The article(s) in question in no way state that your client is guilty, the article(s) report on accusations and in no way does the article give the impression that your client is guilty.
The article(s) clearly states in both the written body of the article(s) and in the headline(s) that they are accusations and include the terms ‘Accused’, ‘Claims’ ‘Alleged’ on multiple occasions.
We also published your client’s response that was published on his own Twitter, and not directly sent to a Politicalite email address in a separate article with the same prominence, clearly stating that your client had denied the allegations.
Therefore, we feel that you have no claim and we will not be agreeing to any of your demands.
Your client also caused our Editor and journalists distress by ‘Hate Tweeting’ and attempting to ‘Doxx’ our Editor. It could be argued that your client inadvertently damaged his own reputation by Tweeting about the story to some of his 100K+ followers, on more than one occasion, therefore, giving the story of allegations much more reach and attention than Politicalite or Mr Beecher ever could, so we would like to take this opportunity to thank him for directing so much traffic to our website.
We would like to make it clear that we do not respond to threats, violence, spam email, trolling, leftist Twitter hate mobs, and would like to remind him that as we are a website that is not hosted in the United Kingdom, we are not subject to the same defamation and libel laws, and we have a public duty to report on accusations and allegations of high profile people in the public interest. We do this without bias.
We would advise your client to refrain from clicking on and refreshing our website if the article is causing him so much distress, The internet is a large place with many alternatives to our website.”
Despite the lawsuit, Politicalite and Jay Beecher stand by the story and we will fight Mr Jukes in court if he wishes to proceed.
Jay Beecher said: “As Peter Jukes is completely aware, journalists can legally publish accusations, providing that they are represented as exactly that – accusations.
Without the obvious right to print accusations, the world might never have known about Jimmy Saville, nor continue to read accusations made via the MeToo movement, or the current story printed by the press relating to accusations of abuse by actor Noel Clarke.
Indeed, Mr Jukes himself has a history of printing accusations – so his defence essentially boils down to “accusations can be printed… unless they’re accusations about me”.
In my opinion, his recent crowdfunder is a grift. Jukes (who has himself lost a libel case after printing demonstrably false claims has recently lost a libel case in court and is said to owe his lawyers a sum of cash somewhere in the region of £170,000.
His recent highly questionably claim to his far-left followers that it costs £40,000 just to send a few legal letters, along with the knowledge of the alleged debt he owes for his failed legal bid, should more than raise eyebrows.
Adam’s accusation against Peter Jukes, in which he accuses him of being a paedophile and engaging in historical child abuse, is a serious one, and cannot simply be dismissed. However, neither myself nor Politicalite have ever stated it to be proven fact, and Mr Jukes has since made several false claims through Twitter in an attempt to grift more cash and attention.
The child abuse allegation against him aside, Jukes is well-known to be a desperate and toxic individual, who recently defended racism against a black commentator, and whose work is partly-funded by the disgraced son of the antisemite bigot Oswald Mosely.
I welcome his legal suit/attempt to repay his lawyers, and look forward to seeing him lose once again”.