Category Archives: Justice

#Assange wins leave to #appeal to Supreme Court against extradition to USA

Appeal: Julian Assange.

Julian Assange has won a partial victory in his battle against extradition to the United States.

The High Court has found a point of law that may be argued – whether there was an injustice in the lateness of America’s assurances that he will be well-treated.

Assange must now lodge an appeal with the Supreme Court – and the future of that attempt is uncertain.

If the Supreme Court rejects his appeal, his extradition – to face a possible 175 years in prison if he is convicted of 18 counts of terrorism-related offences – may go ahead.

His partner Stella Moris had this to say after this morning’s High Court decision:

The US government wants to prosecute Julian Assange for 18 alleged crimes – 17 of them under a 1917 terrorism act – because his reports of these alleged US war crimes on the website Wikileaks allegedly caused risk to the lives of American military personnel.

No evidence has been brought forward to substantiate the claim. US prosecutors have admitted that they do not have any.

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

#HighCourt decision on #Assange extradition set to be announced

Protest: you can tell the strength of public feeling in support of Julian Assange from this image – taken at Julian Assange’s last High Court appearance in December.

A High Court judge is to announce whether Julian Assange will be permitted to appeal against a decision to extradite him to the United States.

The decision will be handed down at 10.45am.

According to Wikileaks, the judgment will go one of two ways.

It may certify that points of law raised by Assange to prevent the extradition are of general public importance and give him permission to lodge an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Or it could deny him a certificate, meaning the extradition order will pass to Home Secretary Priti Patel, who will have the power to personally authorise – or deny – the extradition.

Details of the case and the issues it raises are available here.

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

Another #DWP bid to deprive severely #disabled people of #benefits crushed by the courts

Therese Coffey: her Universal Credit rules discriminate against severely disabled people who she should be protecting. Rather than admit that it is wrong, she insists on wasting public money defending the indefensible in the courts.

Two severely disabled men have won a legal challenge after the Department of Work and Pensions’ (DWP) failed to provide enough in transitional payments to protect them and others as they moved to Universal Credit.

A High Court judge found that the DWP discriminated against the pair, known as TP and AR, by refusing to compensate them the full difference between the payments they received on legacy benefits and UC payments in an area where it had already been rolled out – around £180 per month.

The DWP gave evidence that a ruling like this will affect up to 50,000 people, it will cost up to £150 million and take six years to put right the underpayments.

The ruling is the fourth in favour of TP and AR, who began their legal campaign after they suffered a severe drop in income in 2016 and 2017 as a result of house moves to areas where UC was in operation. Previously they had each received Severe Disability Premium (SDP) and Enhanced Disability Premium (EDP).

Despite rulings in the High Court and Court of Appeal, the DWP refused to pay severely disabled people affected by the policy the full monthly loss they had suffered of around £180.

Instead it paid just £120 a month, compensating for the loss of SDP and not EDP.

The SDP Gateway was introduced in 2019 to prevent other severely disabled benefits claimants from being moved onto UC outside of a managed migration process until January 2021. Outside of that period, disabled people in receipt of both SDP and EDP who experience a so-called ‘trigger event’ (certain changes in circumstances), such as a move into a UC area, experienced a sudden severe loss of income. They are known as ‘SDP natural migrants’.

The judgment in this case represents the fourth time that the Court has given detailed consideration to claims under Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights alleging unlawful discrimination against severely disabled adults who ‘naturally’ migrated to Universal Credit.

Once again, the Court concluded that Therese Coffey, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was unable to show an objective and reasonable justification for the different treatment of people in TP and AR’s position.

The Court found that the Secretary of State’s arguments and evidence were largely the same as in the earlier cases and, in spite of the outcome and detailed findings in the previous cases, her evidence on key points was very limited, too generic or otherwise inadequate.

The Secretary of State claimed that something significant had changed, but the Court repeatedly emphasised that the essential differences in treatment remained the same and that neither legislative changes nor temporary Covid-related support changed the analysis.

The court held that the Universal Credit regulations unlawfully discriminate against TP and AR by failing to cover the loss of EDP when providing transitional payments.

UC therefore treated them less favourably, without reasonable justification, than legacy benefit claimants entitled to SDP who did not experience a ‘trigger event’ compelling them to claim UC, and legacy benefit claimants entitled to UC who experienced a ‘trigger event’ on or after January 16, 2019, and before January 27, 2021 (the period in which the Gateway was in place).

Mr Justice Holgate found:

  • The Covid-19 uplift received by UC claimants during the pandemic does not undo or make up for the disadvantage caused by the failure to cover the loss of EDP.
  • The inclusion of relief for EDP would not overpay those of the 71,000 claimants who receive SDP but not EDP. Overpayment could be avoided if legislation provided for six fixed rates of payment rather than three. “The suggestion that transitional payments in respect of EDP could not be deliverable has simply not been made out,” he said.
  • The risk that a ruling in favour of TP and AR would trigger ‘piggyback’ (similar, other) claims was not realistic.
  • The Secretary of State had not shown a reasonable relationship of proportionality between her aim of curtailing public expenditure, and the decision not to provide any element of transitional relief against the loss of EDP.

According to the DWP, in evidence it gave to the court when defending the judicial review claim, the ruling will affect up to 50,000 people and will involve sums of up to £150 million over a six-year period to put right.

The ruling is the fourth in favour of TP and AR, who began their legal campaign after they suffered a severe drop in income when they were moved on to UC in 2016 and 2017 as a result of house moves to areas where UC was in operation. Previously they had each received Severe Disability Premium (SDP) and Enhanced Disability Premium (EDP).

Despite rulings in the High Court and Court of Appeal, the DWP still refused to pay severely disabled people affected by the policy the full monthly loss of circa £180 they suffered and instead paid them just £120 a month, compensating for the loss of SDP and not EDP.

The SDP Gateway was introduced in 2019 to prevent other severely disabled benefits claimants from being moved onto UC outside of a managed migration process until January 2021. Outside of that period, disabled people in receipt of both SDP and EDP who experience a so-called ‘trigger event’ (certain changes in circumstances), such as a move into a UC area, experienced a sudden severe loss of income. They are known as ‘SDP natural migrants’.

The judgment in this case represents the fourth time that the Court has given detailed consideration to claims under Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights alleging unlawful discrimination against severely disabled adults who ‘naturally’ migrated to Universal Credit.

Once again, the Court concluded that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was unable to show an objective and reasonable justification for the differential treatment of those in TP and AR’s position. The Court found that to a large extent the Secretary of State’s arguments and evidence were the same as in the earlier cases.[1] In spite of the outcome and detailed findings in the previous cases, the Defendant’s evidence on key points was very limited, too generic or otherwise inadequate.[2] Notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s continued claims that something significant had changed, the Court repeatedly emphasised that the essential differences in treatment remained the same and that neither legislative changes nor temporary Covid-related support changed the analysis.[3]

The court held that Regulation 63 and Schedule 2 of the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2014 unlawfully discriminate against TP and AR by failing to cover the loss of EDP when providing transitional payments. It thereby treated them less favourably, without reasonable justification, than (1) legacy benefit claimants entitled to SDP who did not experience a ‘trigger event’ compelling them to claim UC, and (2) legacy benefit claimants entitled to UC who experienced a ‘trigger event’ on or after 16 January 2019 and before 27 January 2021 (during the period in which the Gateway was in place).

Mr Justice Holgate found:

  • The Covid-19 uplift received by UC claimants during the pandemic does not undo or make up for the disadvantage caused by the failure to cover the loss of EDP.
  • The inclusion of relief for EDP would not overpay those of the 71,000 claimants who receive SDP but not EDP. Overpayment could be avoided if legislation provided for six fixed rates of payment rather than three. “The suggestion that transitional payments in respect of EDP could not be deliverable has simply not been made out,” he said.
  • The risk that a ruling in favour of TP and AR would trigger ‘piggyback’ (similar, other) claims was not realistic.
  • The Secretary of State had not shown a reasonable relationship of proportionality between her aim of curtailing public expenditure, and the decision not to provide any element of transitional relief against the loss of EDP.

“I am not satisfied … that the broad aims of promoting phased transition, curtailing public expenditure or administrative efficiency required the denial of transitional relief against the loss of EDP for SDP natural migrants,” he said.

“A fair balance has not been struck between the severity of the effects of the measure under challenge … and the contribution that that measure makes to the achievement of the [Secretary of State’s] aims.”

He said there was stronger evidence to conclude this “where there is no connection between the triggering event, the move to a home in a different local authority area, and any rational assessment of the disability needs of a severely disabled claimant.”

The judgment also found in favour of claimants AB and F, a disabled mother and child, saying that the discrimination they suffered “is manifestly without reasonable foundation”.

The DWP’s failure to provide transitional protection against the loss of the lower disabled child element of Child Tax Credit was found to constitute unlawful discrimination.

It treated AB and F less favourably than legacy benefit claimants entitled to SDP and the lower disabled child element of Child Tax Credit who have not experienced a trigger event compelling them to claim UC.

It also treated them less favourably than legacy benefit claimants who were entitled to SDP and the lower disabled child element of Child Tax Credit who experienced a trigger event whilst the SDP gateway was in place.

“I am relieved that the judge agrees that the DWP treated us differently than other severely disabled benefits claimants and that it was wrong to do so,” said TP.

“The past six years have been immensely stressful as I have struggled to get by on a lower income. I just hope that the DWP will put all of this right as soon as possible so that those of us who have been badly affected by this unfair policy can get on with our lives.”

AR added: “It should never have been the case that disabled people entitled to the severe and enhanced disability premiums were suddenly deprived of the equivalent sum when they found themselves transferred onto Universal Credit.

“The policy has caused me and others serious hardship and I am glad that the court has seen the sense in our argument. Hopefully we will be ‘fourth time lucky’ and finally have reached the end of the road fighting this unfair policy.”

Their solicitor, Tessa Gregory, said she could not understand why the DWP was still dragging the affair out in the courts.

“Following the three previous findings of unlawful discrimination, the DWP should have ensured our clients were not losing out on severe and enhanced disability payments.

“Instead, after each judgment the DWP has made further attempts to short-change this group of highly vulnerable claimants who faced a cliff edge loss of income when none of their disability needs has changed.

“Our clients hope that this judgment marks the end of the road and that the DWP will stop wasting money on legal fees and get on with protecting the vulnerable.”

Source: Severely disabled benefits claimants TP and AR win legal challenge over loss of income caused by move on to Universal Credit | Leigh Day

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

#PrinceAndrew to face US #sexualassault civil case. Here are the reasons

Accused and accuser: Prince Andrew (left) and Virginia Giuffre (right). She alleges that he committed sexual assault and battery against her at a time when she was still legally a child.

A judge in the United States has thrown out Prince Andrew’s attempt to have Virginia Giuffre’s civil case against him for sexual assault dismissed.

Judge Lewis Kaplan took a week to think about it, but has now “denied in all respects” the Duke of York’s motion to have the case dismissed.

A civil trial will take place later this year.

Here’s Channel 4 News to explain in more detail:

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

#RachelRiley #libel case: New Year heralds new attack on #Vox Political’s Mike – through #crowdfunding site

High Court: Mike’s defence against Rachel Riley’s libel claim will be heard here – hopefully at some time during 2022.

Just before the weekend, I received an email from CrowdJustice, the website responsible for running the crowdfund that allows me to defend myself against Rachel Riley’s libel claim.

It was seeking my assurance that the Case Page – the ‘front page’, if you like, of my CrowdJustice site – meets the required terms and conditions, particularly with regard to third parties (people who are not directly involved). Apparently there had been “complaints”.

Further discussion led me to believe that the complaint referred to mention of Tracy-Ann Oberman’s involvement in the case.

For clarity: When I set up the crowdfund, Ms Oberman was threatening me with a libel claim and I had received a letter of claim from the same firm of solicitors that is running Riley’s case.

Although the limitation period has now passed in respect of the claims she threatened in 2019 – meaning she may not now take court action against me over them – Ms Oberman has never formally confirmed that she has withdrawn her claim.

This means that my headline – that I was defending against claims by both Riley and Oberman – was technically correct.

However, as nearly three years have passed since the crowdfund was set up, I took the opportunity to suggest a few edits to both the headline and text that should prevent any complaints in the future.

But there is another element to this which I believe any right-thinking person would find to be no less than utterly despicable: coercion.

This was an attempt to persuade CrowdJustice to close down my fund, thereby preventing me from continuing with my defence.

Whether it was instigated by Riley, her legal team, her friends, associates or a third party who simply wanted to cause me trouble, closing down my CrowdJustice would have ensured that I would not have been able to bring my case to court and my reasons for writing what I did about this very rich and financially powerful TV personality would not have received the public airing they deserve.

This suggests to me, very strongly, that Riley does not have a good case against me and fears she will lose if evidence is heard in court.

For that reason, I believe my CrowdJustice site may experience more such attacks – or there may be attempts to undermine my funding by other means.

I have been able to fend off these attacks so far – but that is no guarantee that there isn’t a crack in my armour and/or that my opponents won’t find and exploit it.

So I feel bound to appeal to you: If you want this important case to get to court, please donate as much as you can, while you can.

Here are the details again:

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 have made it clear from the very beginning that this is a battle between wealth and information. Riley has wealth and wants to use it to stop me from providing information that the public should hear.

The case is likely to go before a judge this year – we may be on the last stretch before a trial happens.

Let’s make sure we get across that line.

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

#Colston4: #Tories plan #appeal against verdict on statue topplers

Suella Braverman: this grinning Tory twit is the Attorney General. Fear for the future of justice in the UK.

The latest Tory attack on justice will be against trial by jury, it seems.

The standard of criminal justice, under which anybody accused of a crime is judged by a jury composed of 12 people taken at random from among the general public, is accepted across the world as a paragon of fairness.

The result of the so-called “Colston 4” trial in Bristol has been taken as an example of that. The four defendants had admitted toppling the statue of slaver Edward Colston from its plinth during a demonstration in mid-2020 but, after hearing all the evidence, a jury of their peers acquitted them of criminal damage.

That should be the end of the matter.

But it seems the Tories didn’t like it so – as with the finding of corruption against now-former North Shropshire MP Owen Paterson – they want to change the rules. Here’s Attorney General Suella Braverman, showing that she has been promoted far beyond her abilities:

Confusion? There was no confusion in the Colston case. We can see this clearly because Braverman could not explain the nature of the confusion she was trying to describe. Without that, her reasoning for referring the case to Appeal Court judges falls apart.

I tend to believe the following is a more accurate interpretation of Braverman’s – or at least, Tory government, reasoning:

And Rob Baron makes a solid point, too:

Yes. With no grounds to suggest a mistrial, Braverman is attacking the judgment of an independent jury. That is not acceptable behaviour for anybody working in, or with, the justice system.

Pete Milford explains the reason:

Braverman’s announcement also attracted criticism because it highlighted Tory hypocrisy:

Braverman would be extremely ill-advised to follow through on her threat.

It would be paraded as another example of Tory corruption.

But I doubt she is intelligent enough to understand the harm she would do to her own government. I await her announcement, one way or another.

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

#Colston4 NOT GUILTY of #criminaldamage to Edward #Colston statue. Is this the reason?

Over it goes: the toppling of the Colston statue, in June 2020.

A jury has cleared four people of criminal damage, despite their admission that they took the statue of Edward Colston off its plinth during a protest in 2020.

And I reckon I know why.

To remind you: on June 7 last year, during a protest march involving 10,000 Bristolians that was triggered by the death of George Floyd and the subsequent Black Lives Matter movement, a statue of the local slaver Edward Colston was torn down and thrown into the nearby city docks.

The statue had been hugely controversial for decades because of Colston’s history as a trafficker in human slaves. Campaigners have made many pleas to the City Council for its removal – only for them to fall on deaf ears as the sculpture remained in place.

Four people – Rhian Graham, 30, Milo Ponsford, 26, Sage Willoughby, 22, and Jake Skuse, 33 – were made to face a criminal damage trial at Bristol Crown Court for their alleged parts in what happened to the statue.

But criminal damage is a crime that can only be committed on property belonging to other people.

Bristol City Council – an organisation that exists entirely to represent the people of that city and carry out their wishes – was responsible for the statue. So did the statue, in fact, belong to the people of Bristol?

As we’ve seen, people in Bristol had been trying to get rid of it for decades because it depicts a slaver and – from all accounts – a murderer.

So the defendants may have been entirely within their rights to tear down that statue because it was theirs to tear down if they so pleased, in the absence of a response – that represented the will of the majority – from the council.

I was also glad to see that the protestations of prosecutor William Hughes QC – that the fact that Colston was a slave trader was “irrelevant” to the issues that had to be decided in the case – turned out to be, themselves, irrelevant.

The question that remains after the trial is, why didn’t Bristol City Council comply with the wishes of the vocal majority who had demanded its removal for many years previously? If that had happened, the statue would not have been present to infuriate protesters against the murder of another black man in 2020.

One more point: this is proof that ordinary people can still challenge the Establishment and win, if faced with trial by a jury of their peers and natural justice is allowed to run its course.

Source: Accused said Colston statue was ‘an abhorrent offence’ to Bristol, trial hears | Bristol | The Guardian

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

#JulianAssange appeals against extradition. Will #AnneSacoolas still come to trial?

Protest: the court’s announcement on whether to extradite Julian Assange faced huge public opposition.

Lawyers acting for Julian Assange have filed an application to appeal against a High Court decision to allow him to be extradited to the United States to be tried for espionage.

High Court judges must now decide whether one of the grounds of the appeal is a point of law of general public importance, before the application may be considered by the Supreme Court.

Birnberg Pierce Solicitors, acting for Assange, say they believe serious and important issues of law arise from the High Court’s reliance on US assurances regarding the prison regimes and treatment Assange is likely to face if extradited, and from its judgment.

Assange is wanted in the US over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information following WikiLeaks’ publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

A decision on the application is unlikely to be announced before the third week in January.

This Writer is now agog to find out if the US will still surrender Anne Sacoolas, accused of killing Harry Dunn in a road collision but who then fled the UK under the protection of diplomatic immunity, to court proceedings beginning on January 18.

See. Assange’s extradition is in line with a one-sided UK-US deal whereby the UK has to surrender anybody wanted by the US, but the US doesn’t have to do likewise.

The fact that Sacoolas was suddenly offered to the UK after the High Court allowed Assange’s extradition seemed extremely suspicious to This Writer, for precisely that reason.

And now that the extradition is in doubt, I’m on tenterhooks to find out whether the Sacoolas trial will still go ahead.

(Not that I ever expected her to come to the UK to serve any sentence, if she’s found guilty. Do you?)

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

#LauraMurray loses #RachelRiley #libel case – but was the judgment safe?

On the face of it, this may be seen as a blow to my own chances of winning a libel case against Rachel Riley: after more than seven months’ deliberation, a High Court judge has ruled that she has won her case against former Jeremy Corbyn aide Laura Murray.

But the reasons given by Mr Justice Nicklin do not ring true to me. I reckon there may be grounds for appeal against what may be an unsafe judgment.

The judge has partly acknowledged that the case is not cut-and-dry, because he has awarded Riley only £10,000 in damages. The reasons are explained below.

The case revolved around three tweets: one by the journalist Owen Jones, one by Riley and one by Murray.

The first, published by Mr Jones, referred to an incident in which former British National Party leader Nick Griffin was attacked with an egg. Published in January 2019, it stated: “Oh: I think an egg was thrown at him actually. I think sound life advice is, if you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi. Seems fair to me.”

On March 3 that year, then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was visiting a London mosque when he was attacked by a man wielding an egg. Later that day, Riley quote-tweeted the Owen Jones tweet, adding her comment: “Good advice” plus images of a rose (taken to indicate the Labour Party’s ‘Rose’ emblem) and an egg.

Ms Murray responded twice to Riley’s tweet. First, in a direct reply, she stated: “You are publicly encouraging violent attacks against a man who is already a target for death threats. Please think for a second about what a dangerous and unhealthy role you are now choosing to play in public life.” Riley did not respond to this, nor did she take court action over it.

Instead, she took Murray to court for libel over a second tweet which was not a reply to her own (meaning Riley’s tweet would not have been seen by people reading Murray’s). It stated: “Today Jeremy Corbyn went to his local mosque for Visit My Mosque Day, and was attacked by a Brexiteer. Rachel Riley tweets that Corbyn deserves to be violently attacked because he is a Nazi. This woman is as dangerous as she is stupid. Nobody should engage with her. Ever.”

Murray offered up three defences: Truth (that her comment was factually accurate), Honest Opinion (that the opinions she expressed were honest, based on facts) and published in the public interest (and that her belief that is was in the public interest was reasonable).

Mr Justice Nicklin rejected all three defences because Murray had not published Riley’s tweet (again) in connection with her second tweet, and had not said that her comment was only one possible interpretation of Riley’s words.

The judgment states that another possible interpretation, put forward by Riley’s followers and supporters at the time, was that Owen Jones was a hypocrite for suggesting that people with views he doesn’t like should be attacked with eggs while those with views he does like shouldn’t.

But that’s not borne out by his actual tweet, as I’ve shown above – nor by Riley’s words. She said his tweet was “Good advice”, indicating that she agrees with his premise. And the context – the fact that the tweet coincides with such an attack on Jeremy Corbyn – implies that it should be applied to him, otherwise why would she have tweeted at all?

So she was apparently saying that Corbyn has objectionable views and may therefore be a target for egg attacks.

In her evidence at trial, Riley said that she had tweeted the “Good advice” tweet “sarcastically” – but there is no indication of sarcasm in the tweet itself.

She seems to have bolted on an interpretation of her tweet, based on what her followers/supporters put forward – with no evidence to justify them having done so – in her defence.

If readers have no reason to believe that a message is not to be read as a straight statement, then it seems to me that it should not be suggested that it wasn’t one. If Riley had included </sarcasm> or a similar indication, matters would be different.

She could have used an emoji to show her intent but she didn’t.

Her tweet provides absolutely no information suggesting that she did not mean anything other than what her tweet said – that Mr Jones’s tweet was good advice that may be applied to Jeremy Corbyn.

And why would she have waited more than two months before saying that Mr Jones’s tweet was hypocritical, and in such an opaque way? I feel sure that most of us would have forgotten his comment after such a long time.

So – to me, at least – it seems unreasonable that anybody may have come to a conclusion that Riley had tweeted sarcastically or was commenting on any perceived hypocrisy by Mr Jones.

And the judgment relies on that interpretation being one to which readers may have reasonably come.

The judge states that Murray misled her readers by misinterpreting the material. But with nothing in Riley’s tweet to support her claim that she was being sarcastic, or to support any claim that it referred to hypocrisy, it is hard to justify that claim.

And with only one alternative interpretation of Riley’s tweet – whose reasonableness seems clearly questionable – it seems that Murray may have been well within her rights to put forward her own interpretation as the only one possible.

In fairness to the judge, he does point out that Riley’s tweet could have been clearer and that the fact that it isn’t suggests “provocation”.

He wrote: “There is a clear element of provocation in the Good Advice Tweet, in the sense that the Claimant must have readily appreciated that the meaning of the Good Advice Tweet … could be read as suggesting, at least, that Jeremy Corbyn deserved to be egged because of his political views.

“In the context of her own high-profile campaign against anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, the risk of the Good Advice Tweet being read in that way was obvious.

“In that respect, the Claimant can hardly be surprised – and she can hardly complain – that the Good Advice Tweet provoked the reaction it did, including the Defendant’s Tweet.”

I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that there are clear grounds for appeal against this judgment, because the judge did not adequately demonstrate that there was another reasonable interpretation of Riley’s tweet.

The judgment as a whole gives me a certain amount of hope for myself (as there are points that support similar elements in my case), but also serious grounds for concern. Looking at the information above, I’m sure you can appreciate my reasons.

My CrowdJustice fund is still open – and will certainly be necessary if I end up facing a similar judgment and the possibility of having to appeal (again).

Please help by doing one or several 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.

Since Riley’s court action against me started, it seems I’m not going to be allowed to have a worry-free Christmas. I had hearings in December 2019 and December last year, and while this judgment does not affect me directly, it has potential ramifications for my case.

A show of (financial) support would make a very strong statement right now.

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

#InsulateBritain activists are jailed by #GrantShapps – and then most of them walk free

Back on the streets: Insulate Britain. I don’t mean the freed activists went straight back to their protests, but This Site doesn’t have many pictures of group members and this one is purely representative.

This is amusing.

Knowing that seven were released immediately makes Grant Shapps’s comments a little silly, don’t you think?

Also the fact that he’s keen to jail anybody who makes motorists miserable. Like traffic wardens and police?

As with most Tory government schemes, Shapps simply didn’t think his words through.

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