Twitter tries to break the law – but is this the person who had Mike suspended?

Identified? This person posted screenshots that appear to show they are responsible for the complaint that had Vox Political’s Mike Sivier suspended from Twitter. Mike has no idea who this person is and a Twitter search provides no evidence of any contact.

There have been developments.

Readers of This Site will be aware that This Writer’s Twitter account was suspended on Saturday, December 12. The most likely excuse, I thought, was the link to the Vox Political article discussing the evidence used in Rachel Riley’s application to strike out my defence against her High Court libel action against me.

As you can see from the image above, it seems I was correct in that. But we’ll come to it.

On advice, I contacted Twitter to appeal against the suspension, and also submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) for the information on which my suspension had been based.

Twitter seemed keen to help. I had to poke it about the SAR but eventually Twitter Support came back to me with a request for specific instructions, on Wednesday (December 16). I tried to provide this but the link didn’t work, so I had to demand one that did.

Then on Friday (December 18), I received the following message:

Thank you. Our record indicates that your account is not suspended. This case will now be closed.

It really won’t, you know.

Yes, my account was restored on Thursday (December 17), but it had still been unavailable to me for five days and I want to know why. I have a right to know why. Remember, Twitter never contacted me with a reason for my suspension.

I submitted a Subject Access Request, which is a legal requirement. By UK law, Twitter has one calendar month from the date I submitted my request (December 12) to honour it. No excuses. No apologies. If it fails to provide the information, Twitter will have broken the law.

I have emailed Twitter UK’s CEO, Dara Nasr, to remind him of this, along with overall boss Jack Dorsey. We’ll see what happens.

In the meantime, after my account was restored, I saw an interesting tweet in reply to one that I couldn’t see, being blocked by the account holder:

Holocaust denier and anti-Semite? For fuck’s sake. Does he think the Holocaust happened? And what did he say that was anti-Semitic?

It was clearly about me; someone had repeated the old lies that I was a Holocaust denier and an anti-Semite – so I did the necessary work and got a copy of the tweet I was blocked from seeing.

Dated December 13, it said (as you can see above):

Mike Sivier – @MidWalesMike

You sent me threats & abuse in the 2019 British election. Enjoy your Twitter suspension.

Hope Rachel and Tracy-Ann win in court. Show you as an antiSemite and Holocause Denier.

The account holder was, apparently, “Festive Fionn” – @Fionn_Grunspan.

I have no idea who this person is.

I do not recall having any contact with them and use of Twitter’s advanced search facility has produced no evidence of any such contact.

The likelihood of me sending “threats & abuse” to anybody is ridiculous. I have received threats and abuse from people; I don’t send it myself. Of course, some people may consider civilised responses to be abusive; it depends on your point of view.

As there is no evidence of me having contacted @Fionn_Grunspan for any reason at all, I am led to speculate on whether they were operating under another Twitter handle at the time of the alleged “threats & abuse” – if such an altercation every took place. That would suggest that the account holder had changed it for some reason, which in turn suggests that they had been caught doing something wrong.

Obviously “Rachel and Tracy-Ann” can’t win against me in court because “Tracy-Ann” (Oberman) is not one of the parties. It’s a small point but it indicates that this Twitter account cannot get its facts right.

Nor will they show me “as an antiSemite and Holocaust Denier”. Riley’s case against me is a claim that I libelled her and has nothing to do with anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial. In any case, claims that I was a Holocaust denier have been demonstrated to be lies and The Sunday Times (principally; other newspapers had to do the same) published a lengthy correction after having wrongly accused me of it, in early 2019.

Is Twitter trying to protect this – apparent – liar? If so, why?

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:


7 thoughts on “Twitter tries to break the law – but is this the person who had Mike suspended?

  1. Jeffrey Davies

    Twitter face book and the rest police their views on others far to many lossing their rights to post it’s farcical how they can do it hiding the truth away

  2. Jon

    “The likelihood of me sending “threats & abuse” to anybody is ridiculous.”
    So, of course you didn’t use the word ‘Git’ in a tweet about 5hrs ago?

      1. Julia

        I’d say you were being extremely restrained and polite only using the word ‘git’. The person above must have led a very sheltered life if they consider this a threat or abuse! At this moment in time I have exhausted my personal vocabulary of abusive terms for Johnson and really can’t think of anything bad enough.

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        Have you tried trawling through the Urban Dictionary, online? I’m sure you could find some plum choices there.

      3. Jon

        All I was pointing out was, that the word ‘git’ IS deemed an abusive word to many people. I rarely use the word myself (I tend to use much stronger), but it IS still consider AFAIK to be an abusive word, that’s all!

Comments are closed.