Riley libel latest: she insults anybody who has supported Mike. Does that include you?

That’s right – Rachel Riley’s latest tactic is to insult you, saying no reasonable person would come to the conclusion I reached about her.

So, if you’re among the thousands of people who have helped fund my defence against her libel claim, she’s saying you are not a reasonable person because not only did you come to that conclusion, but you have funded my defence on the basis of it.

The new revelations come in her reply to my amended defence against her.

She says a reasonable person reading the source material I say that I read (we’ll come to that shortly) would not have reached the same conclusion – but neglects to provide any explanation for the claim.

She then says that, if my research had been as thorough as I have said, I would have taken account of other tweets that should have changed my mind. What other tweets? She doesn’t say. Do such tweets exist? Well, it’s debatable.

The case is based on exchanges on Twitter, and one aspect of that platform is that conversations begin to resemble trees, branching off in different directions. I concentrated on tweets by Riley and her teenage victim – about each other and the original subject of their dialogue.

That’s the reason I didn’t pick up Riley’s admission that she believes it is possible for ‘blue-tick’ Twitter users to whip up their supporters to attack and abuse other people until this year, that she contradicted in her failed bid to strike out my defences last year; it was in a response to Owen Jones.

And those tweets support me, not her.

If she produces tweets that support her claim, she’ll have to place them in context to show their relevance, and explain why I should have been able to find them. I look forward to that evidence.

She’s also claiming that I’m lying about the tweets I did read – that I didn’t actually read them all before writing my article – on the grounds that I haven’t produced them all previously.

The reason is simple: I didn’t have to.

I did read those tweets – around 200 of them. But none of the material provided to the court so far has been evidence; it has been what’s known as pleading. A pleading is not supposed to produce all of the material that will come out in disclosure and witness evidence.

And Riley knows this – or at least, her solicitor Mark Lewis knows this, and as he is the one who signed and dated this reply (with the wrong date, I notice), perhaps we should conclude that he is the one making all these claims. Why? Is she running away?

To sum up: Riley (and/or her lawyer) is claiming that I lied and misled you – with a false claim that I did not read all the tweets I’m saying I did – before writing my article accusing her of hypocrisy.

And she’s saying that, having read the evidence I have produced, you have to be unreasonable to agree with me.

There is only one way for you to counter this insult effectively – and that is to make sure I can defeat her claim in court.

That is by no means certain at the moment. The CrowdJustice fund has just covered the cost of creating the amended defence and hefty new costs are going to start mounting up now.

So if you are as angry at Riley’s insulting attack on you as I think you should be, then please do at least one of the following:

Consider making a donation yourself, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

I know this case has been going on for a long time now, but it seems to me that Riley – and her lawyer – is getting desperate.

On the basis of this reply, I think that she will lose her case in court.

But the case has to get to court first.

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 “Riley libel latest: she insults anybody who has supported Mike. Does that include you?

Comments are closed.