Leaked Labour report shows Riley libel case is based on a falsehood

This is not a good look for Rachel Riley:

Her tweet refers to a threat by her lawyer, Mark Lewis, to sue people publicising the leaked Labour Party report on how its officers handled (or rather, didn’t) accusations of anti-Semitism by members.

The substantive revelation is that Labour’s leadership – especially Jeremy Corbyn – was not at fault in its attempts to handle the issue; it was hampered by right-wing officials who deliberately acted against their instructions in order to make Corbyn look incompetent, thereby putting the public off voting for him and ensuring that he could not form a government.

The report does not accuse anybody of anti-Semitism who had not been accused already – although, as officials acting against Corbyn failed to act on many of those accusations, it could be argued that their inaction indirectly supported anti-Semitism.

So Mr Lewis, by threatening to sue people who are making a fuss about this report’s revelation, is acting against the interests of anybody who is genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism; he is supporting people who suppressed investigations, and he is supporting their treachery.

Or so it seems to me.

Ms Riley, by publicly supporting him with a claim that he is “suing nasty Jew-haters” – when he isn’t, is pushing a false narrative that brings into question much of her own behaviour – including her libel case against This Writer.

The case arose because I had pointed out that Ms Riley had caused extreme distress – both directly and by encouraging others – to a teenage girl who had defended Mr Corbyn.

Ms Riley’s claim was that Labour was doing nothing about accusations of anti-Semitism by party members. Because the teenager said she did not believe Corbyn was responsible for this, Ms Riley attacked her on Twitter and her tweets encouraged others to do the same – to the point where the girl reported that she had received death threats.

The Labour report shows that, if the party machine was doing nothing, this was nothing to do with Mr Corbyn.

So, if the report is accurate (and I have reason to believe it is), the basis on which Ms Riley attacked the girl was false.

Has she apologised?

No! She has doubled down by claiming the information in the report is false and anybody publicising it must be an anti-Semite (even though they are pointing out how anti-Semitism was allowed to happen within the Labour Party because of the inaction of party officers). How perverse!

At least, that’s what I take from this tweet.

If I’m right, her lawsuit is based on a falsehood. She had no justification in attacking a teenage girl in the way she did, and therefore no reason to accuse me of libel, for pointing out what arose from Ms Riley’s behaviour.

But she has accused me, and her court case will succeed if I don’t have the funds to defend myself. Ms Riley is very rich and I am not. From the start, I have made it clear that I think she hopes to win – not because she is right, but because she can afford an expensive court case and she knows that I cannot; at least, not on my own.

So I have to rely on others to help me bring my defence to court.

If, having read the above, you would like to help, there are a few things you can do:

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.

We now have evidence that Ms Riley’s case is founded on a falsehood. Don’t let her win because of her wealth.

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

5 thoughts on “Leaked Labour report shows Riley libel case is based on a falsehood

  1. trev

    Blimey, what a convoluted mess, a right can of worms. What a tangled web we weave when we first plot to deceive. Good that the truth of the matter is finally being exposed, but unlikely to receive any media coverage especially at the moment.

  2. Levinas

    ‘Man on fire’ vs Mark Lewis? Who is the ‘man on fire’? And who set him on fire? Can’t see the context its posted in but sounds like a threat on its own.

    1. Julia

      Yes, as Levinas says, ‘man on fire’ does sound threatening. I wonder if it is connected with an item mentioned in Mike’s first post on the report. “…..expressed their hope that a young pro-Corbyn activist….would die in a fire”. In itself a disgraceful comment.

      Regarding the current post, I seriously question the motives of any person who is ostensibly so shocked and upset by anti semitism that they embark on a one person legal crusade. But then trivialise such a serious matter by using speech such as “Lewis’s art is suing nasty Jew haters and he will be painting a masterpiece”. And childish ’emojis’ ???

      It seems to me that such a person is more interested in keeping their face in the limelight and enjoying ‘celebrity’ (and I use that term in the loosest way possible) status. Like another ‘celebrity’ highlighted here recently….

      I think your legal case is a perfect example of how the Tories have all but destroyed an ‘ordinary’ person’s recourse to justice when someone of this ilk can use their wealth, ‘earned’ doing exactly what I ask, to bring vexacious law suits and hound someone such as you Mike. It must be terrible having it hanging over your heads, but I am sure justice will prevail.

      As to the report itself, this is Mr Starmer’s chance to prove his mettle……we wait with baited breath.

  3. spirit

    It’s pretty febrile out there. The reaction is almost Trumpian – go after the whistleblower whilst flinging industrial quantities of s**t in an attempt to obfuscate and misdirect. All to avoid their own reflection. In one breath they’ll condemn the release of ‘private information’ (thus advertising its easy availability) and in the next will trot out one of their usual multi-tweet harrassment specials about someone they clearly don’t like. Bonus points for any minority of course. There’s also the ‘now names are being shared by Nazis and Hamas terrorists’ (sure, Jan) followed by identifying whoever happens to be in the document metadata. When the doxxers become the doxxed! Oh, the irony! Intercontinental nuclear lawfare.

    The worst example I’ve seen tonight has been – and I’m being intentionally gnomic for obvious reasons – one of the central players atop a particular network encouraging legal action against someone many would consider a national treasure. They target whoever will bring the most publicity, still counting on their ability to intimidate.

    Interesting read, Mike. Much appreciated!

    1. Monsur Hoque

      According to a blog published by Craig Murray, the ex-diplomat, it is not an offence to circulate a document which is already in the public domain. Craig himself has publicised it extensively, still doing it, and even has sent a copy to the EHRC

Comments are closed.