Tag Archives: constitutional

Constitutional crisis fear over ‘no deal’ Brexit

Boris Johnson: He has been accused of acting like a dictator.

Boris Johnson is being accused of provoking a constitutional crisis in the UK by threatening to act like a Stuart king of 320 years ago rather than a modern representative of the people.

Didn’t I suggest this would happen?

The claim is that he will try to ignore the will of Parliament if MPs make it clear that they will not accept a ‘no deal’ Brexit and try to enforce their decision with a vote of ‘no confidence’ in BoJob and his government.

But Mr Johnson’s most senior advisor, Dominic Cummings, has reportedly said that the prime minister would respond by calling a general election for November, ensuring that Parliament will not be sitting on October 31 and will have to allow the UK to crash out of the EU without a deal as to what happens after.

In essence, he would declare that if the current Parliament won’t support him, he’ll simply arrange to have a new one.

BoJob was accused of behaving like Charles I, the Stuart king who asserted his divine right to rule in the face of Parliamentary opposition – and lost his head as a result, after the Civil War.

Would Boris Johnson risk another civil war, or at least severe civil unrest, over Brexit? Yes – This Writer believes he would.

He sees a profit for himself, in the same way Crispin Odey does, who invested £300 million in betting on major UK firms crashing on the stock market after a Johnson ‘no deal’ Brexit.

Nobody else matters to Mr Johnson. He will use every means at his disposal to suppress anyone who tries to stymie his ambition.

Source: Brexit: UK faces ‘full blown constitutional crisis’ if no deal forced through | The Independent

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

Labour’s NEC – and NCC – has taken sides against the ‘wrong kind of Jews’

Last week I made it clear that Labour’s National Executive Committee has descended into racism in order to attack innocent party members like myself under a false pretence of anti-Semitism.

In the same accusation against me, the NEC also fell into anti-Semitism – by supporting an affiliated organisation that victimises people it considers to be the “wrong kind of Jews” (although they may not be described in that way).

By now, readers of This Site will be well aware that I attended a disciplinary hearing arranged by Labour’s National Constitutional Committee, at which a prejudiced panel arbitrarily decided that all the accusations against me were proved, despite having heard no evidence at all in support of such a claim.

One of these accusations concerns the Jewish Labour Movement and ran as follows:

On 2nd October 2016 Mr Sivier posted: ‘JLM is not a movement that represents Jews; it represents Jewish Zionists’. ‘The Jewish Labour Movement does not represent Jews who are not Zionists. It persecutes them’.

“This comment is grossly offensive to those the Party seeks to represent particularly the Jewish community. Comments like these have had and continue to have a serious impact on the Party’s position as an inclusive organisation, which stands against antisemitism.

“To state that the Labour Party’s official Jewish affiliate does not represent Jews denies Jews the right to self-define. This conduct is abhorrent, antisemitic and falls way below the standards expected of Party members. This is clearly prejudicial and/or grossly detrimental to the Party.”

Of course I was not suggesting that the JLM does not represent any Jews; my words make it clear that I was saying the organisation – the Labour Party’s official Jewish affiliate, according to the NEC – represents only those Jews who support the political doctrine of Zionism (and even then, only those who support the interpretation of that doctrine supported by that organisation’s leaders).

I confess I was amazed to see this put forward as a charge against me, because my reasons for saying this were supported by the Jewish Labour Movement itself.

When I was interviewed by Labour investigating officer Stewart Owadally about this and other charges in October 2017 and he challenged me on this, I asked him if he had read the article – and he said that he had not. He had not read any of my articles beyond the specific parts he had been asked to highlight and question. This explained why he had not spotted the answer to his question, directly below the words he had highlighted. I simply read it out.

My article argues: “Look at the organisation’s own website. It states:

“The Jewish Labour Movement is also affiliated to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Zionist Federation of the UK, and organise within the World Zionist Organisation… Our objects: To maintain and promote Labour or Socialist Zionism as the movement for self-determination of the Jewish people within the state of Israel.”

““Zionist”… “Zionist”… “Zionism”… “within the state of Israel”.

““It seems clear that “Jewish Labour Movement” is a misnomer. It should be “Zionist Labour Movement”.”

In my written defence, I went further: “What about Jews who aren’t Zionists, as the JLM defines them?

“How do you think the members of Jewdas – attacked as the “wrong kind of Jew” after Jeremy Corbyn attended an event organised by the group – would describe the JLM?

“Here’s how. Responding to attacks on Mr Corbyn for attending the event in late March, the Jewdas website – at https://www.jewdas.org/enough-is-enough/ stated: “What has happened over the last week is anything but an attempt to address antisemitism. It is the work of cynical manipulations by people whose express loyalty is to the Conservative Party and the right wing of the Labour Party. It is a malicious ploy to remove the leader of the Opposition and put a stop to the possibility of a socialist government. The Board of Deputies, the (disgraced for corruption) Jewish Leadership Council and the (unelected, undemocratic) Jewish Labour Movement are playing a dangerous game with people’s lives.”

“So these Jews consider the JLM to be unelected, undemocratic, and playing a dangerous game with people’s lives. Representative of Jews in general? No.”

I continue: “What about Jewish Voice for Labour, which admits full membership only to Labour Party members who identify as Jewish – unlike the JLM, which allows full membership to non-Jews, and also to non-members of the Labour Party? This organisation has campaigned against what it sees as false accusations of anti-Semitism against notable figures like Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker, and Marc Wadsworth (as has This Writer), and also campaigns against the persecution of Palestinian people by the state of Israel.

“And JLM members hate it. Responding to Harrow East Labour Party’s decision to affiliate to JVL, JLM chair Ivor Caplin told the Jewish Chronicle it was a “stupid decision” to affiliate with an “obsessive group that is often far too generous to antisemites and Holocaust revisionists”. But at least members of JVL are all Jewish, which is more than can be said for the JLM.”

So how can we describe the claim that I am denying Jews the right to self-define?

Bogus. It is the JLM that denies Jews the right to self-define – by siding with those who treat other Labour-supporting Jewish organisations as the “wrong kind of Jews”.

In declaring support for the Jewish Labour Movement and its anti-Semitic* aggression against such people and organisations, the NEC is also declaring its own anti-Semitism.

*I know – it seems strange to describe an organisation claiming to represent Jews as anti-Semitic. But the JLM’s aggression towards the JVL, Jewdas and the others is entirely due to their identity as groups of Jews, so it is entirely appropriate to describe that organisation – and therefore Labour’s NEC – in that manner.

Visit our JustGiving page to help Vox Political’s Mike Sivier fight anti-Semitism libels in court


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

Labour’s kangaroo court issues details of its finding against me – and they don’t even match the charge

Facepalm: Jeremy Corbyn probably thought he could trust senior members of the Labour Party to handle disciplinary procedures impartially. If so, he was mistaken. Now look at the mess they’ve caused.

What a farce!

Today I received a letter from the secretary of Labour’s National Constitutional Committee, giving its reasons for saying the charges of anti-Semitism against me were proved.

Of course, they are meaningless.

The letter states:

“Upon the balance of probabilities the charge was proved for reasons including:

  • It was not disputed that you were responsible for the posting the content that the NEC claimed breached Labour Party rules;
  • A reasonable person would find the posted content, that is the basis of the NEC’s charge, to have the propensity to cause offence, be regarded as abusive and make some feel discriminated against;
  • In posting the content you breached the Labour Party’s Antisemitism and other forms of racism code of conduct, Social Media Policy and Member’s Pledge in appendix 9 of the Rule Book.”

Unfortunately none of the above proves the particulars of the charge against me. In fact, all it proves is that whoever complained to the Labour Party about me in the first place – back in May 2017 – had said they were offended by it, that they felt it was abusive, and that they felt I had discriminated against them.

And there can be a huge difference between saying a thing and actually meaning it – especially considering the fact that the accusation was deliberately timed to interfere with my campaign for election onto Powys County Council.

Also, I wonder what the many tens of thousands of reasonable Vox Political readers – who have read the material in question and don’t consider it to be offensive, abusive or discriminatory – think of what the NCC panel has implied about them. Are you one such reader? How do you feel about the NCC claiming you’re not reasonable?

Let us remind ourselves of the particulars of the charge against me:

“Mr Sivier has repeatedly posted content propogating the conspiracy that secretive networks of Jews control and have undue influence over government and other societal institutions. He uses language that is dismissive of antisemitism and that denies Jews the right to self-identify as they wish. This falls fairly and squarely within the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which the Labour Party has adopted.”

During the hearing, I proved conclusively that I had not supported any nonsense about a “global Jewish conspiracy”, nor had I used language that is dismissive of anti-Semitism or that denied Jews the right to self-identify. And none of the words forming the basis of the NEC’s complaint fitted even tangentially within the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

The NCC couldn’t suggest otherwise, so instead it seems the panel came up with the tripe in the letter.

The difference between what’s said in the letter and in the charge is the same as the difference between claiming something and proving it.

I should be grateful. The letter proves two things:

I am not an anti-Semite (the letter makes no suggestion of any hatred towards Jews, simply because they are Jewish) – and Labour’s National Constitutional Committee is a laughing-stock.

Still, there is a serious side to this.

We are currently in the middle of a crisis, engineered by the Conservative government, around Brexit – and Labour is hoping to recruit more members into the Party, possibly to help fight a snap general election.

Here’s an advert from Twitter:

But why would anybody want to join an organisation whose internal procedures are prejudiced against rank-and-file members such as myself?

And why would they want to support a party into government that cannot even root out corruption in its own internal procedures?

It seems clear that Labour has a serious credibility problem, as long as it allows its disciplinary procedures to be run in the corrupt and prejudicial manner demonstrated by my own case.

Worse still, as there is no right of appeal, it seems there is no way the party can cancel its false finding against me.

Still, the difference between the charge and the rationale for the verdict puts Labour in a highly actionable position, so perhaps we will be able to sort out this mess in court.

The timing is unfortunate, as the party undoubtedly wants to gain ground with the electorate at a time of chaos within the ranks of the Conservatives, but I can’t help that.

Remember Blackstone’s ratio? “The law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”? I am innocent of the charges against me, but allow me to assure you that although I may present a composed exterior, it is extremely distressing to face accusations of anti-Semitism – especially for the more-than-18-months this has been going on.

If Labour really wanted to gain credibility now, the party’s leaders should have thought very carefully before inflicting this particular injustice on this particular man.

They’d better do something about it quickly – don’t you agree?

Visit our JustGiving page to help Vox Political’s Mike Sivier fight anti-Semitism libels in court


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

Tory tittle-tattler Perry LIBELS Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite on national TV

Claire Perry: Even in the Commons, it seems she’s a loudmouth.

I hope he sues her out of every single possession she has.

Tory blowhard Claire Perry – who has amazingly managed to con the people of Devizes into making her their MP – appeared on the BBC’s Question Time yesterday evening (November 15) and said the following:

Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite.

But Ms Perry probably thought it was worth making the claim because Labour’s chief organising committees don’t need any evidence to find members guilty of anti-Semitism.

His party’s ruling National Executive Committee (of which, yes, he is a member) isn’t above falsely accusing innocent members of anti-Semitism, purely to score points with one or two members of the general public who make false claims, purely (in turn) in order to make Labour’s NEC do exactly as I’ve just described.

And his party’s National Constitutional Committee, which runs the disciplinary hearings at which these cases are heard, isn’t above ignoring the facts of these cases to find these false accusations true.

So Labour certainly has a perception problem when it comes to anti-Semitism. Both those organisations would rather trash the good names of innocent members than risk their party being slagged off as racist by a few liars.

Yet Claire Perry still called Jeremy Corbyn an anti-Semite.

And the NEC and NCC have brought themselves into disrepute with their false accusations and perversions of justice.

And the fact that they have done this means they have jeopardised any credibility a future Labour government might have as being able to deal with facts rather than fantasy.

So I’d like to ask the members of those organisations who came up with the boneheadedly imbecilic idea of pandering to a bunch of liars…

How’s that working out for you?

Afterthought: More shocking than Ms Perry’s libel is the fact that the BBC allowed it to be broadcast. As I understand it,Question Time isn’t recorded live – precisely in order to prevent legally-questionable material being broadcast, because every fresh publication of a libel is a new libel. In broadcasting her outburst, the BBC has made itself liable for legal action as well.

Visit our JustGiving page to help Vox Political’s Mike Sivier fight anti-Semitism libels in court


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

Fake anti-Semitism: Labour’s guilt-manufacturing machine

This should be a complete answer to accusations that Labour is “soft” on anti-Semitism: The party’s dispute procedure allows it, not only to demand that defendants be found guilty in spite of the evidence, but also to produce new evidence with no warning, if the original claims are disproved.

This is not justice. It is a good reason for you to support my bid to take this matter – and others – before a real judge in a court of law.

You’ll remember I wrote about the paragraph in Labour’s charge sheet against me that stated: “There are current and potential Labour voters of all backgrounds who are watching carefully what the Party does with cases like Mr Sivier’s. Taking definitive action in this case would send a clear and unambiguous message to all of them that Mr Sivier and the views he published extensively have absolutely no place in the party.”

This, I said, was a directive to find me guilty of anti-Semitism, no matter what the evidence shows.

Well obviously I got in touch with Labour to demand an explanation as to the meaning of this outrage. I also took the opportunity to check whether I had, in fact, received all the evidence that was likely to be used against me.

Here’s the answer: “It is actually part of the opening submissions that the NEC proposes to make at a hearing of its charge that purpose of which is to persuade the NCC panel to find in favour of the NEC.  It is open to you to rebut such statements in your answer to charge and to make your own statements at the hearing to persuade the Panel of your case.  It is for the Panel whether they are influenced or not by such statements.”

Not acceptable. It is an attempt to persuade the judging panel that they must find me guilty because of concerns beyond those related to my case – that it will look bad to outsiders if an innocent man is found innocent.

That is so backward, so corrupt, it should be shouted from the rooftops until Labour changes its barbaric ways.

On the evidence likely to be submitted, I was told: “The Party’s rule book allows the presenter of charges to reply to a respondent’s answer to charge and to provide new witness statements and other evidence in support of that reply, all of which will be copied to the respondent prior to a hearing.  If either party however wishes to produce any documentary evidence at a hearing that has not been previously seen by the other party and the Panel, they need agreement of the Panel to do so.  Such permission is usually only given if the evidence is material to the matters to be decided and there is a valid reason why the evidence has not been disclosed before e.g. it has only come to light after the disclosure of other evidence.”

This suggests that, if my evidence defeats the charges against me, my accusers will bring forward something else – with no prior warning, allowing me no time to assemble a defence against it.

Corrupt again.

I’ll be writing another stern letter, of course. In the meantime, don’t forget to contribute to my crowdfunder – or share it with someone who might, if you have already given.

After this has blown over, those of us in the Labour Party will need to overhaul its procedures and root out the unfairness that has been written in over the last few decades.

Visit our JustGiving page to help Vox Political’s Mike Sivier fight anti-Semitism libels in court


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

Gwynne seeks to ‘lower expectations’ for Labour in local elections – because of Wadsworth expulsion?

Damage control: Andrew Gwynne.

Shadow Communities Secretary Andrew Gwynne has tried to reduce expectations of a Labour landslide at the local elections on Thursday, in the wake of a decision to expel a prominent black anti-racist campaign – for racism.

This Site reported that black and ethnic minority representatives had responded with outrage after Labour’s National Constitutional Committee expelled Marc Wadsworth – apparently on the flimsier-than-tissue-paper basis that anti-Semitic intent could be inferred if someone hearing what he said at the launch of the Chakrabarti Report in June 2016 felt that it was.

The Guardian reported:

“Gwynne also sought to lower expectations ahead of the local elections on Thursday. He said: ‘We’re predicting that because these were high watermark years when these seats were last fought in 2014, that it’s probably going to be difficult to get anything like that.

“’We’ve never ever held the City of Westminster, we last held Wandsworth in 1978. If we took those it would be a spectacular night.

“’I am confident that we will have a good night – I don’t think it will be anything like some of the opinion polls would suggest because we are already defending about 80% of the seats in some of those metropolitan boroughs and London boroughs – we’re already at a high watermark.’”

It seems clear that he is trying to manage expectations downward – and This Writer would suggest this is a rather desperate attempt to mitigate the effect of the NCC’s disastrous decision to turn BAME voters against the party.

His words also suggest – as I speculated in my previous article – that there is no mechanism available to the Labour leadership to reverse the NCC’s perverse and unjust decision before Thursday, thereby restoring confidence that the Labour Party still supports fairness and justice.

It won’t be enough. I wonder what the official Labour line will be tomorrow – and why aren’t right-whingers like Ruth Smeeth who prompted this disaster speaking up about what they’ve done? They seemed proud enough on Friday.


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

Wadsworth expulsion: Did Labour just throw away its chance to take London?

Jeremy Corbyn: Can he talk his way out of this tight corner?

Labour made a huge mistake on Friday.

After 40 white people escorted another white person to the hearing in what looked like a lynch mob, a panel composed entirely of white people found an innocent anti-racism campaigner – who happened to be black – guilty of a form of racism.

Just on the face of it, that makes Labour look like the racist party.

We are told the verdict on the allegations of anti-Semitism facing Marc Wadsworth went against the evidence.

According to Grassroots Black Left, “The panel … ruled the case against Wadsworth could be proven based on solely on the perception by some people that what he said at the launch of the Charkrabarti report on June 30, 2016 was anti-semitism.”

That would certainly run against the meaning of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism to which Labour has subscribed. That document states that anti-Semitism “may be expressed as hatred towards Jews”; it is not behaviour that may be inferred as offensive by Jews.

In other words, according to the definition which Labour supports, a person’s behaviour should not be deemed anti-Semitic because someone else took offence at it; it would have to be informed by, and motivated by, hatred towards Jews.

And criticism of an individual Jewish person, or a group of them, should not raise accusations of anti-Semitism unless it is informed by hatred towards all Jews. Such criticism may be entirely reasonable, depending on the evidence supporting it.

So the decision against Marc Wadsworth is doubly wrong. And it could jeopardise Labour’s ambitions in the local elections taking place on May 3.

Black and minority ethnic people are infuriated, and you can see why.

As one commenter to This Site put it: “To see Marc Wadsworth shouted down for daring to express an opinion, “How dare you, how absolutely dare you,” like [a] servant being berated by the white mistress of the house, makes me shudder. Do they ever think how much courage it takes for a black person to stand up and speak honestly in a room full of powerful white people?”

And then the Labour Party expects black people to come out and vote it into power in councils across London.

It has been suggested that New Labour expected black and minority ethnic people to vote for the party because they had nowhere else to go. That assumption was wrong; they just stopped voting.

The arrival of Jeremy Corbyn gave them a reason to start voting again – and for Labour.

But the Wadsworth decision suggests that Labour will not support the BAME community; that Labour does not support justice.

In that case, why should the BAME community support Labour?

The party has painted itself into a corner in an attempt to appease liars.

I do not know if there is a mechanism in place that can reverse the damage before Thursday.

If not, I hesitate to speculate on how much harm the NCC panel, Ruth Smeeth, Wes Streeting and the posse of MPs and Lords who supported her at the hearing have done to the people of the United Kingdom.


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

Labour fakes who accused Marc Wadsworth kicked a hornet’s nest – and will need more than vinegar to help them

Marc Wadsworth: We should all stand up against the injustice that Labour has done to him.

Unless you were under a rock yesterday, you’ll know This Writer’s reaction to the decision by Labour’s National Constitutional Committee to expel veteran anti-racism campaigner Marc Wadsworth – for “bringing the party into disrepute” by means of anti-Semitism.

That’s right: An anti-racism campaigner – who, by the way, started the Justice for Stephen Lawrence campaign (you may have seen coverage of the memorial service to mark the 25th anniversary of his murder) – expelled for a form of racism. The sheer, fly-in-the-face-of-facts stupidity of it is brutal.

And now we have evidence that the decision flew in the fact of the evidence presented to the NCC as well. Here’s Chris Williamson who gave evidence for Mr Wadsworth:

His statement reads as follows [boldings mine]:

“I am astonished by the National Constitutional Committee’s (NCC) perverse determination of Marc Wadsworth’s case.

It flies in the face of the evidence that was presented and offends against the principles of natural justice.

“The NCC’s decision has all the hallmarks of predetermination and tramples on the Labour Party’s record of standing up for fairness.

“I will therefore continue to stand four-square behind Marc and assist him in his efforts to clear his name, and his reputation as a veteran anti-racist campaigner, which have been besmirched by this absurd NCC ruling.”

Of course, some prominent (do I mean prominent? No – more accurate to describe them as mouthy) Labour Party figures had to stick their oar in:

Like this?

And what, exactly, is “brave and tenacious” about lying for nearly two years in order to turn public opinion against a fellow party member, and then removing the evidence of the lie from her Facebook page?

Ms Smeeth deleted the following from her page on or around February 24 this year:

https://twitter.com/GHNeale/status/989967000616210434

It’s a fair point, don’t you think? Ms Smeeth deliberately tried to undermine the democratically-elected Labour leader – and continues to do so – yet she has not been disciplined for it. Why not?

https://twitter.com/FlamingoAlan/status/989971275685777413

Media sites and Labour-related organisations have already started broadcasting their opinions – and the verdicts will already be causing huge headaches for whichever genius thought it would be a good idea to make the wrong decision. Here’s Asa Winstanley of The Electronic Intifada.

Jewish Voice for Labour had this to say:

“The expulsion from the Labour Party of antiracist activist Marc Wadsworth marks a new low in the unprincipled campaign by enemies of the left to misuse justified concerns about antisemitism for factional ends.

“In ruling that Wadsworth subjected Ruth Smeeth MP to antisemitic abuse at the launch of the Chakrabarti Report on June 30, 2016, the National Constitutional Committee panel has ignored the factual evidence and based its decision on a distorted interpretation of the incident in question.

“An individual’s clam to have felt abused, and the perception of their supporters, must of course be taken seriously. So the Party was right to investigate Ruth Smeeth’s complaint. But that claim and those perceptions cannot be the deciding factors in the case. Sir William Macpherson’s ruling in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry was precise on that point. (Wadsworth, as it happens, played a leading role in the campaign for justice for the Lawrence family.)

“In this case, a comment by Wadsworth about an exchange he witnessed between one Daily Telegraph journalist and one MP has been represented as a generalised attack on Jews. The NCC have given their stamp of approval to manipulation by media and other commentators, which twisted an unremarkable throwaway comment to claim it as a vile antisemitic slur – that Jews collectively control the media.

“The NCC made its judgement against the background of Wadsworth’s summary suspension 22 months ago, which was itself a travesty of the transparent, fair and equitable procedures one would expect from a labour movement organisation.

“Wadsworth was punished in advance of investigation and hearing of the case. He was universally pilloried in the media as guilty of a detestable hate crime. Headlines described him as “the activist who made Jewish MP weep” and his name was linked repeatedly with antisemitism. Representing this veteran Black activist as guilty of abusing a Jewish politician is not only unjust. It risks damaging the essential cause of combating rising racist bigotry in society by pitting blacks against Jews.

“It is a bitter irony that Wadsworth’s unjust treatment would not have been possible if the relevant recommendations of the Chakrabarti Report had been implemented rather than being obstructed by the party’s entrenched bureaucracy. The machinery in place since long before Corbyn was elected leader has continued to deploy the flawed processes, that Chakrabarti declared unfit for purpose, against pro-Corbyn party members.

“Some cases of genuine antisemitism – hostility towards Jews for no other reason than that they are Jews – have been identified,, and these need to be dealt with in a just, equitable and transparent manner.

“It must be a priority for the new General Secretary to ensure that:

“* Marc Wadsworth has the opportunity to appeal the judgement against him and to have the appeal heard by an independent arbiter

“* other outstanding disciplinary cases, involving antisemitism and other allegations, are reviewed and unjust suspensions lifted,

“* disciplinary procedures and structures are reformed as part of a review process involving the full spectrum of opinions in the party.

“Jewish Voice for Labour looks forward to playing a positive role in this process.”

And here’s Red Labour:

https://twitter.com/Redlabour2016/status/989971092247859201

For clarity, it says:

“We are extremely concerned at the expulsion of long serving anti-racist activist Marc Wadsworth from the Labour Party this morning.

“The first thing to say is that the hearing could hardly avoid being prejudiced by the media circus around it, not helped by the 40 or so MPs who theatrically marched Ruth Smeeth over to where Marc’s case was being heard.

“The second thing to say is that it wasn’t, as widely reported, about anti-Semitism. The charge against Marc Wadsworth was one of “bringing the party into disrepute”. We have to ask, how many members of the party, never mind the public, will understand that, considering the media storm? In the meantime, a lifetime anti-racist’s reputation is tarnished.

“Thirdly, the evidence of Marc’s “bringing the party into disrepute” was plain for all to see; it was captured on video. Almost everyone who watched that footage will have been perplexed at the idea that his actions were serious enough to warrant expulsion. The idea, promulgated by the MPs mentioned above and their chums in the media, that his intervention was anti-Semitic was so ridiculous that even Smeeth deleted the charge from her website.

“Yes, of course, we can have a debate about what is appropriate behaviour from party members, whether experienced or not. People will often misjudge situations and make mistakes, but they are not expellable offences. Sorry episodes like this really damage the party, and we should do all we can to stop them. Unfortunately, many in the PLP have instead fanned them, in order to undermine the leadership.

“What is so reckless about this, in addition, is the specific damage it has done to the trust and engagement that many BAME members have in the party. Expelling prominent black activists divides those communities and gives a clear signal to BAME activists that already feel marginalised by the party’s structures.

“Lastly, the way the Marc Wadsworth case has been handled undermines faith in the party’s structures and processes. The thing about justice is that it must be consistent to be credible. You can’t, say, have one rule for one member of a party and another for a different member. In addition, that consistency must cut across personal loyalties, favours, power and influence. It’s not about what is politically convenient, ever. It should only be about justice. And when you set a precedent, it must then apply to all. That’s why you must be very careful that you are 100% correct in setting them.

“In other words, we’re looking forward to similar disrepute hearings for our finger-jabbing friends on the Labour benches, who daily rip up the rule book, abuse the democratically-elected leadership and treat the party’s members with contempt.”

So the Wadsworth decision:

  • Flies in the face of the evidence, offends natural justice, appears to have been predetermined and tramples on fairness.
  • Relies on distorted evidence rather than factual information, to produce a result that was pre-demanded by MPs.
  • Gives the NCC’s stamp of approval to manipulation by media and other commentators.
  • In expelling a BAME member under false pretences, has increased concern about racism in the Labour Party rather than calming them.
  • Shows that Labour MPs are abusing the party’s structures in order to harm the innocent, while they get away with huge abuses themselves.

As a Labour member whose case is likely to go before the NCC in the next few months, who has also been subjected to trial-by-media after details of the National Executive Committee’s deliberations about me were leaked to a Tory-supporting paper, who faces accusations that rely on distorted evidence rather than factual information, and who has been frustrated by party structures that have made it practically impossible for me to state my case without it being misrepresented by party officers, it seems perfectly clear that I won’t get justice.

So I agree with Alan Shore (above) – it’s time all Labour members of good conscience made a formal complaint to Labour’s compliance unit and/or general secretary Jennie Formby.

If I recall correctly, both may be contacted at Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QT.


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

POLL: Should Marc Wadsworth have been expelled from the Labour Party?

Marc Wadsworth: Falsely accused?

As detailed in This Site’s earlier article, Marc Wadsworth has been expelled from the Labour Party by its National Constitutional Committee, on two charges of “bringing the party into disrepute”.

The expulsion relates to incident involving the Mr Wadsworth and Labour MP Ruth Smeeth at the launch of the Chakrabarti Report on June 30, 2016.

He had been handing out leaflets calling for the mandatory reselection of Labour MPs, and had seen a Telegraph reporter passing it to Ms Smeeth for a comment.

So he said: “I saw that the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP so you can see who is working hand in hand.”

That is the sum total of the evidence against him. See for yourself:

Ms Smeeth promptly accused Mr Wadsworth of anti-Semitism, even though he had no idea that she was Jewish, claiming that he was using “vile conspiracy theories”. Do you think that was justified?

The BBC report on the NCC’s decision had to hide this fact – in my opinion, for fear that it would expose the decision to public ridicule. Instead, it stated:

“Marc Wadsworth accused Ruth Smeeth of working “hand in hand” with the media to undermine Labour.

“Labour’s National Constitutional Committee found he breached the party’s rules and should be thrown out.”

You can see that the statement is a lie. Mr Wadsworth did not say anything about anyone undermining anything at all, nor did he mention the Labour Party.

As yet, information on the reasons for the decision is scarce. Labour has not released any at all.

But I think it is worth asking the question, based on what we know Mr Wadsworth said to prompt the proceedings against him, and what has been said about it since:


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

Labour’s travesty of justice: activist expelled – liar exalted

Marc Wadsworth: Falsely accused?

Labour activist Marc Wadsworth has been expelled from the party after its National Constitutional Committee ruled that he had brought the party into disrepute.

This is nonsense.

The allegation against Mr Wadsworth – by MP Ruth Smeeth – arose after an incident involving the two at the launch of the Chakrabarti Report on June 30, 2016.

He had been handing out leaflets calling for the mandatory reselection of Labour MPs, and had seen a Telegraph reporter handing it to Ms Smeeth for a comment.

So he said: “I saw that the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP so you can see who is working hand in hand.”

Ms Smeeth, who we all subsequently discovered is Jewish, accused him of attacking her with an anti-Semitic trope (that Jews – or rather “the Jews” – control the media).

Can you find anything anti-Semitic in what Mr Wadsworth said?

He was calling out a Labour MP for colluding with the Tory press, wasn’t he?

All things considered – and it will be fascinating to learn the reasons for the NCC’s decision – it seems it is Ms Smeeth who is guilty of bringing the Labour Party into disrepute.

What was she doing, falsely accusing a man of anti-Semitism on such a flimsy basis?

Why did she kick up such a huge fuss, that overshadowed the launch of a very important piece of Labour policy?

And why did the party leadership take a frankly silly claim so seriously that it has permanently tarred a perfectly decent man as an anti-Semite.

This is an absolutely despicable decision and all those involved should be ashamed of themselves.

One can only hope that Jennie Formby’s review of Labour’s disciplinary procedures will make any further travesties of justice impossible.

But, considering today’s result, I doubt it.


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