Labour’s kangaroo court issues details of its finding against me – and they don’t even match the charge

Facepalm: Jeremy Corbyn probably thought he could trust senior members of the Labour Party to handle disciplinary procedures impartially. If so, he was mistaken. Now look at the mess they’ve caused.

What a farce!

Today I received a letter from the secretary of Labour’s National Constitutional Committee, giving its reasons for saying the charges of anti-Semitism against me were proved.

Of course, they are meaningless.

The letter states:

“Upon the balance of probabilities the charge was proved for reasons including:

  • It was not disputed that you were responsible for the posting the content that the NEC claimed breached Labour Party rules;
  • A reasonable person would find the posted content, that is the basis of the NEC’s charge, to have the propensity to cause offence, be regarded as abusive and make some feel discriminated against;
  • In posting the content you breached the Labour Party’s Antisemitism and other forms of racism code of conduct, Social Media Policy and Member’s Pledge in appendix 9 of the Rule Book.”

Unfortunately none of the above proves the particulars of the charge against me. In fact, all it proves is that whoever complained to the Labour Party about me in the first place – back in May 2017 – had said they were offended by it, that they felt it was abusive, and that they felt I had discriminated against them.

And there can be a huge difference between saying a thing and actually meaning it – especially considering the fact that the accusation was deliberately timed to interfere with my campaign for election onto Powys County Council.

Also, I wonder what the many tens of thousands of reasonable Vox Political readers – who have read the material in question and don’t consider it to be offensive, abusive or discriminatory – think of what the NCC panel has implied about them. Are you one such reader? How do you feel about the NCC claiming you’re not reasonable?

Let us remind ourselves of the particulars of the charge against me:

“Mr Sivier has repeatedly posted content propogating the conspiracy that secretive networks of Jews control and have undue influence over government and other societal institutions. He uses language that is dismissive of antisemitism and that denies Jews the right to self-identify as they wish. This falls fairly and squarely within the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which the Labour Party has adopted.”

During the hearing, I proved conclusively that I had not supported any nonsense about a “global Jewish conspiracy”, nor had I used language that is dismissive of anti-Semitism or that denied Jews the right to self-identify. And none of the words forming the basis of the NEC’s complaint fitted even tangentially within the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

The NCC couldn’t suggest otherwise, so instead it seems the panel came up with the tripe in the letter.

The difference between what’s said in the letter and in the charge is the same as the difference between claiming something and proving it.

I should be grateful. The letter proves two things:

I am not an anti-Semite (the letter makes no suggestion of any hatred towards Jews, simply because they are Jewish) – and Labour’s National Constitutional Committee is a laughing-stock.

Still, there is a serious side to this.

We are currently in the middle of a crisis, engineered by the Conservative government, around Brexit – and Labour is hoping to recruit more members into the Party, possibly to help fight a snap general election.

Here’s an advert from Twitter:

But why would anybody want to join an organisation whose internal procedures are prejudiced against rank-and-file members such as myself?

And why would they want to support a party into government that cannot even root out corruption in its own internal procedures?

It seems clear that Labour has a serious credibility problem, as long as it allows its disciplinary procedures to be run in the corrupt and prejudicial manner demonstrated by my own case.

Worse still, as there is no right of appeal, it seems there is no way the party can cancel its false finding against me.

Still, the difference between the charge and the rationale for the verdict puts Labour in a highly actionable position, so perhaps we will be able to sort out this mess in court.

The timing is unfortunate, as the party undoubtedly wants to gain ground with the electorate at a time of chaos within the ranks of the Conservatives, but I can’t help that.

Remember Blackstone’s ratio? “The law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”? I am innocent of the charges against me, but allow me to assure you that although I may present a composed exterior, it is extremely distressing to face accusations of anti-Semitism – especially for the more-than-18-months this has been going on.

If Labour really wanted to gain credibility now, the party’s leaders should have thought very carefully before inflicting this particular injustice on this particular man.

They’d better do something about it quickly – don’t you agree?

Visit our JustGiving page to help Vox Political’s Mike Sivier fight anti-Semitism libels in court

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


14 thoughts on “Labour’s kangaroo court issues details of its finding against me – and they don’t even match the charge

  1. Kay Dickinson

    Yep, they are instigating kangaroo courts against left supporting members. I was thrown out for something I wrote when I stood down as CLP Chair, about unfair Parliamentary selection practices and was picked up by the S*n as someone saw fit to screenshot a private post. Despite accepting that I can’t be held responsible for what the press make up, I was still thrown out with no further appeal because I stood by my original statement. No concern about the unfair practices or that they had a member prepared to run to the S*n tho.

  2. Jeffrey Davies

    Just take heart many stand by you and those providing the lies that discredit you is keeping from doing your job they had hoped but then they picked on the wrong person but untill this nec is cleared out labour party cleared out then more crap to come

  3. Alas Poor Uric

    Sorry to hear about this Mike. As a Jew who has followed you posts for some years I am aware that the accusations of anti-semitism are ludicrous.

    It disturbs me that the NCC seemed to prioritise ‘public perception’ as the basis for judging whether what you wrote could be seen as anti-semitic. But ‘public perception; had already conflated Zionism with Judaism and via media manipulated the whole debate so that it was all seriously skewed.

    I’ve already given testimony, as a Jewish Labour member to the EHRC in relation the the CAA referring the Labour Party to that body. Jewish activists like Jamie Weiner are involved in challengeing the CAA claim. Perhaps he could help in your case?

    Good Wishes.

  4. terryindorset

    As you say, “Worse still, as there is no right of appeal, it seems there is no way the party can cancel its false finding against me.” which is undemocratic. I find your experience deeply troubling & wonder if this behaviour would be apparent should Labour ever form a government.

  5. Wanda Lozinska

    Re appeal. My CLP (Stroud) passed a Motion saying that there should be a right of appeal in such matters. Soon after, Shami Chakrabarti visited the area and said the whole procedure was under review and that this was being looked at.
    One of the points we made was that the current situation discriminated against our many poorer members who can’t afford court cases and that, in any case, these caused further damage to the party. Perhaps ask her how she’s getting on with this?
    I do hope this matter will be resolved. Good luck.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Thanks. I may try this, although I recall her being unsympathetic in a TV interview when I was accused in February.

  6. Marie

    I have not joined for all the reasons mentioned above. There are powerful people behind the scene steering the party into one direction, and the membership who want to go into another direction. this is not going to end well. It is like a tug of war, and only one side will win. I decided that I will also not automatically vote Labour, if JC goes and my MP does not hold properly socialist values. And if there are no socialist representatives, then I will not vote. I know it means that the tories might win. But I honestly cannot bring myself to vote for a party which goes against its members.

  7. deemac42

    Corbyn has no control over the NCC. This is why the recent elections to the extra places on the NCC were so important. It will take a long time to get good people into all positions if power in the bureaucracy and there are very strict limits on what the leader can do.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      But the NCC is part of the Labour Party and it is the party that devises the rules under which it operates.

      I certainly think one desperately-needed reform would be the addition of an impartial observer to ensure that NCC disciplinary panels act impartially.

  8. Dan

    I would have joined Labour a long time ago now, but don’t wan’t to be part of an organisation that treats its members like this. I wonder how many more like me there are?

  9. John D. Ingleson

    It’s all a disgrace but try not to take it too personally, Mike. The people who care can see right through this, and you’re in good company anyway. A badge of honour!

  10. Pat Sheehan

    I like to think that I am a ‘reasonable’ person and I can say without hesitation that I was never offended by the posted content of any of your articles and couldn’t in all honesty see that another ‘reasonable’ individual might be offended either: other than joe tory of course.
    I am, however, considerably offended by the content of the letter you received from the so-called LNCC purporting to be the champions of ‘reasonable’ people and dictating what ‘reasonable’ people ought to be thinking: especially in light of the pitiful, tory circus in town.
    It is ‘tory government enacting evil policy in their idiosyncratic clownish way’ that properly offends me and I, for one, would be a lot happier to see certain ‘rogue’ elements of the so-called Labour Party devoting more of their time, energy and resources to addressing these tory ‘atrocities’ rather than persistently and futilely f*****g around with their frivolous, irrelevant sideshows! Am I making myself clear?

  11. Tim Sims

    Dear Mike,
    As someone who self-identifies as reasonable I think the gap between the charge against you and the baffling rationale for claiming the charge to have been proven can only be described as very clear evidence of an absence of natural justice. I have been waiting to hear that this stuff claiming your writing to be antisemitic has been declared a nonsense. To find the opposite is deeply shocking. The words of the finding would be comical if they did not actually attempt to deny your integrity, which is a terrible and apparently all-too-easy attack on you and by extension any one of us in this Party who takes issue with the deeply racist policies of a toxic government.

Comments are closed.