Libel case: the evidence is mounting up – against Rachel Riley

The Royal Court of Justice in London: This is where the preliminary hearing in This Writer’s libel case took place.

Last week’s court hearing provided crucial guidance to the defence against cruel libel accusations by Rachel Riley.

Mr Justice Nicklin said my article had asserted that Ms Riley “has engaged upon, supported and encouraged a campaign of online abuse and harassment of a 16-year-old girl, conduct which has also incited her followers to make death threats towards her.”

So I have spent the last week looking up evidence to prove the claims in that sentence.

I have succeeded in that task – in all respects.

But having evidence is not enough.

It must be accepted as factually accurate by a High Court judge.

And to achieve that, I still need the funds to employ my legal team.

Last week’s hearing produced a good result – but it was costly.

To succeed, we need to put a little more in the kitty.

Those of you who have been around since the start will probably know the next bit by heart, but please bear with me – and follow these instructions if you can:

Please consider making a donation yourself via my CrowdJustice page – I know the Festive Season is upon us and cashflow can be difficult at this time, but when you are able, all contributions will be appreciated.

Email five of your friends, asking them to pledge to the CrowdJustice site.

Post a link to Facebook, asking your friends to pledge.

On Twitter, you could tweet in support, quoting the address of the appeal.

On other social media platforms, please mention the campaign there, quoting the appeal address.

Ms Riley has nothing to gain from this court case – unless she manages to prolong it beyond my ability to pay for my own defence.

I have maintained from the start that this is about wealth subverting justice; that Ms Riley thinks she can drain my funds so I cannot continue – and win by default what she cannot win by argument before a judge.

If you believe in justice – and I know you do – then I hope you can continue to prove her wrong.

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


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 https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

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:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

2 thoughts on “Libel case: the evidence is mounting up – against Rachel Riley

  1. Gary

    Interesting to look at the libel case brought by Stu Campbell against then Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale. The comments she made about him, accusing him of being homophobic, were found at trial to be factually inaccurate BUT they did NOT find against her due to ‘fair comment’ ie as Campbell put it later, she was wrong because in her stupidity the believed herself to be right. (I’m paraphrasing)

    There may be something in the case of interest to you although it should be noted that Campbell is much hated by the establishment so being right and having proof of his case was never going to be enough. Hopefully you don’t find yourself in THAT position. Good luck!

Comments are closed.