Riley libel case: You’ll be amazed at what Countdown co-host doesn’t want you to know

This Writer’s legal team has been putting together our defence against Rachel Riley’s claims that I libelled her – and it is full of information she won’t want the public to see.

I’m not referring simply to what we know of her behaviour already – the many ill-informed attacks on Jeremy Corbyn (including an incitement to violence against him) and Noam Chomsky, her own anti-Semitic claim that she didn’t look like a “typical Jew”, likening the Durham Miners’ Gala band to the Ku Klux Klan, defaming a Labour candidate in the general election – it’s a very long list.

I’m referring to her behaviour toward a teenage girl with anxiety problems who dared – how dare she? – to have a different opinion. Some of it is astonishing.

And it will never see the light of day unless you help me get it into court.

I can’t reveal any of it here because it would prejudice the court proceedings – and Ms Riley’s lawyers would take great pleasure in attacking me for making fresh allegations, I feel sure.

Fundraisers have already achieved miracles, raising a huge amount that has already been put to good use fending off Ms Riley’s lawyers so far.

But compiling the defence has been a huge, intensive amount of work. I know because I spent many days over the Festive Season, battling through illness to put much of the raw information together.

Almost all the money that has been raised has been spent. If we don’t get more, we can’t go forward.

It’s as simple as that.

Libel is hugely expensive. From the start, my belief has been that Ms Riley thinks she can use her vastly-greater wealth to crush me and – in effect – buy the result that she wants.

I think her attitude is that the facts can go to Hell – she wants to make me pay.

I know you don’t accept that. Please put some more into the pot so I can keep fighting against this cruel and unnecessary attack.

Here are the details:

Please consider making a donation yourself, via the CrowdJustice page.

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.

I know times are hard and money is tight for everyone – except the likes of Ms Riley.

Please do what you can to support justice.

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.

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:


6 thoughts on “Riley libel case: You’ll be amazed at what Countdown co-host doesn’t want you to know

  1. Linda S

    The test to be applied in respect of the words complained of is the meaning that they would convey to the ordinary reasonable reader who reads the entire article, publication or, in this case, tweet once.

    The Supreme Court in Stocker v Stocker has recently provided some helpful guidance on the assessment of meaning in the context of social media posts. With the demise of jury trials in libel cases, a judge’s assessment of what constitutes the “ordinary reasonable reader” has sought to fill the void.

    However, Stocker v Stocker arguably creates a new sub-group of reader fit for the
    twenty-first century: “the social media user”. The ordinary social media user, according to the Supreme Court, skim-reads content, does not overanalyse, and reaches fast conclusions before moving onto the next post and the next piece of news.

    Quite rightly, the court found that it is imperative to remember that social media is generally a casual and conversational medium (even drawing on the analogy of people chatting in a bar) in which less thought will be given to the words published (by both the person publishing and the readers themselves) than, for example, in traditional media.

      1. Linda S

        Yes. I skim read because I only want to spend a few minutes on Twitter, so I don’t check everything 100%. I’m sure the majority don’t take social media seriously, especially when they’re interacting with someone who clearly promotes hateful messages – and when she is shown to be wrong (even to a libellous degree) never admits they’re wrong.

Comments are closed.