Is Rachel Riley deliberately misleading people or does SHE not understand libel?

Take a look at this:

That’s right – after a neutral judgement on the meaning of words Rachel Riley claims are libellous, she misled the public: “Today I had the 1st judgement of a handful of libel cases. The verdict supported my claim to have been defamed by Laura Murray.”

It didn’t. Ms Riley had launched proceedings over a tweet by Ms Murray and in a neutral judgement, Mr Justice Nicklin said the first and second sentences were statements of fact while the third was an expression of opinion – and all may be considered defamatory in common law.

That’s not a ruling that Ms Murray had libelled Ms Riley. The trial hasn’t happened yet.

But look at her response to Mark, who tweeted: “This is excellent news Rachel. I remember saying on here many months back that you’d almost certainly win your libel case against Murray, and I got a great deal of stick off some know nothing Corbynites, some of whom told me you’d get laughed out of court. Delighted you’ve won.”

She replied: “Turns out many of them don’t have that strong an understanding of libel law. Who’d have guessed. Thanks for your support.”

It seems to me that it’s Ms Riley who doesn’t have that strong an understanding of libel law. Otherwise she would know she hasn’t won the Murray case.

And that’s strange, because she has a solicitor who should be advising her of that. In fact, it is his duty to do so, if she has misunderstood.

But it’s more than a week since her reply to Mark and I haven’t seen any retraction or correction.

So, is she deliberately misleading her fans? I sincerely hope not.

Of course, Laura Murray isn’t the only person facing a libel lawsuit from Ms Riley. She’s suing me too – and my case has been misreported in the national press.

Unlike Ms Murray, who I understand is well-funded, I could lose my case due to lack of funds. As I’ve said many times, I believe Ms Riley is hoping I will run out of cash – and if I can’t afford to defend myself, I’ll automatically lose.

Considering the implications of her dialogue with Mark, I don’t think you’d be happy to let that happen.

So 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.

There’s only one way to stop this nonsense, and that is to win.

And I can’t do that without your help.

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: