Cleaning up London’s air: the ULEZ (Ultra-Low Emissions Zone) will affect fewer than one in 10 cars but may deliver a remarkable improvement in air quality.
The High Court has delivered a timely message of support for measures to defeat global warming – by supporting London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s bid to extend the ULEZ (Ultra-Low Emissions Zone) to all of the capital’s boroughs.
Five Conservative-led borough councils had launched a legal battle to stop the extension but in what’s being described as a “landmark” ruling, Lord Justice Swift said he was “satisified” that the proposals were in the London Mayor’s “powers”.
The measure currently covers only areas within the North and South Circular Roads, but the ruling opens it up for extension to all of London’s boroughs from August 29.
It isn’t spectacularly extreme; to avoid the charge, diesel cars must generally have been first registered after September 2015, while most petrol cars registered after 2005 are also exempt.
Drivers of vehicles passing through the ULEZ area that do not comply with emissions standards are charged a daily rate of £12.50.
The decision is a blow against Rishi Sunak’s Tories, after their winning candidate in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election last week, Steve Tuckwell, said the vote had been called a “referendum on ULEZ”.
Opposition party leader Keir Starmer also clashed with Mr Khan over the policy.
Here’s what Mr Khan had to say about the ruling on TV:
Today’s High Court decision means we can proceed with cleaning up outer London’s toxic air.
I’ve been listening to Londoners and I’m expanding the ULEZ scrappage scheme to nearly a million families who receive child benefit & all small businesses.pic.twitter.com/AU9SafG4LP
That’s the important take-away from this storm-under-a-petrol-cap: fewer than one-tenth of vehicle owners will be affected by the ULEZ expansion.
That means both Labour and the Tories have been flinging blame about nothing.
It also means that Keir Starmer needs to find another excuse for his loss in London, if he still wants to deflect attention away from his own failings as an Opposition party leader.
Suella Braverman and Rishi Sunak: by refusing to accept the Court of Appeal’s judgment on Rwanda deportations, they are denying the Rule of Law. Right?
Once again, for the Tory government: this is awkward.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful, because that country’s assurances that it would not return them to countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment are not “sufficient”.
The decision follows a ruling by the High Court that the government’s policy of deporting some asylum-seekers to Rwanda was permissible. An appeal had been launched against the decision by a group of 10 asylum-seekers and the charity Asylum Aid.
Normally, that should be that.
But the Tory government is not accepting this legal ruling and is demanding that it should be taken to the Supreme Court.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has claimed that the “system is rigged against the British people”.
And Rishi Sunak published a statement online as follows:
It is this country – and your government – who should decide who comes here, not criminal gangs.
Your government should decide who comes here, not “criminal gangs”? Is he suggesting the Court of Appeal is a “criminal gang”? It’s one interpretation of his words!
(In fact, if he disobeys the court’s order, it is Sunak and his government who will be the criminals.)
“Rwanda is a safe country,” he said. This is not true, according to the law.
And his claim that it is this country that should decide who comes here is easily countered. This decision is not about who comes here, but about whether anybody should go to Rwanda. And the answer is nobody.
And now the public purse will have to stump up the exorbitant cost of another court hearing, because this spoilt, petulant man-child and his demonic lieutenant are determined to have their own way. How contemptible.
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:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
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!
Suella Braverman: it seems she’ll be bringing that glower to a judge in the High Court, sometime in the near future.
The organisation Liberty, that challenges injustice, defends freedom and campaigns to make sure everyone in the UK is treated fairly, is taking Home Secretary Suella Braverman to court.
The action comes after Braverman overrode Parliament to change the Public Order Act in order to give police a free hand to arrest anybody carrying out an act of protest, depending on how disruptive officers think it is.
Here’s what Liberty has to say about it:
Human rights organisation Liberty has started legal action against the Home Secretary Suella Braverman over new anti-protest legislation which it says that she is unlawfully bringing in by the back door despite not having been given the powers to do so by Parliament.
In a pre-action letter sent to the Home Secretary, Liberty said that plans to give the police more powers to impose restrictions on protests that cause ‘more than minor’ disruption are unlawful.
The move – which uses secondary legislation to bring the powers into force – violates the constitutional principle of the separation of powers because the measures have already been rejected by Parliament.
By bringing in these powers, the Government has been accused of breaking the law to give the police ‘almost unlimited’ powers to shut down protests due to the vagueness of the new language.
The Government’s plans to lower the threshold of what constitutes ‘serious disruption’ at a protest were previously voted out of the Public Order Act by Parliament earlier this year (30 January).
Liberty says the Home Secretary has now changed the law entirely in a way that is an overreach of her power – defining ‘serious disruption’ as anything that causes ‘more than minor’ disruption.
A cross party parliamentary group committee has recently said this is the first time the Government has sought to makes changes to the law through secondary legislation that have already been rejected by Parliament when introduced in primary legislation.
Liberty’s letter to the Home Secretary says:
The Secretary of State is seeking to amend the threshold on protest powers set by Parliament by the back door in ways that expand the powers of the police to restrict protest activity.
Parliament only gave powers to clarify the law, and not change it entirely. Therefore, Parliament cannot have intended to give the Secretary of State power to amend primary legislation in a way which circumvents the will of Parliament because this would incur on the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.
The making of the Serious Disruption Regulations would be unlawful for being an unjustified interference with the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The new legislation was not consulted on fairly, as is required by law. The Government only invited in parties it knew would agree with the proposals, such as the police, but did not ask groups who might have had reasonable concerns.
Katy Watts, Lawyer at Liberty, said:
“We all want to live in a society where our Government is open, transparent and respects the rules. But, as we’ve seen today, the Home Secretary has not abided by any of these.
“The Home Secretary has side-lined Parliament to sneak in new legislation via the back door, despite not having the powers to do so.
“This has been done deliberately in a way which enables the Government to circumvent Parliament – who voted these same proposals down just a few months ago – and is a flagrant breach of the separation of powers that exist in our constitution.
“This is yet another power grab from the Government, as well as the latest in a long line of attacks on our right to protest, making it harder for the public to stand up for what they believe in.
“The wording of the Government’s new law is so vague that anything deemed ‘more than a minor’ disturbance could have restrictions imposed upon it.
“In essence, this gives the police almost unlimited powers to stop any protest the Government doesn’t agree with.
“This not only violates our rights, but the way it’s been done is simply unlawful. This same rule was democratically rejected earlier this year, yet the Home Secretary has gone ahead and introduced it through other means regardless.
“We’ve launched this legal action to ensure this overreach is checked and that the Government is not allowed to put itself above the law to do whatever it wants. It’s really important that the Government respects the law and that today’s decision is reversed immediately.”
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:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
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!
The issue: it seems a group calling itself UK Lawyers for Israel doesn’t like the name of Anne Frank (who was a Jew) being associated with that of Shireen Abu Akley (a Palestinian).
Who would be disrespecting the memory of Anne Frank the most in this situation: Roger Waters for using her name to make an argument against hate, or the Anne Frank Foundation for suing him over an alleged breach of its trade mark?
It’s a hypothetical situation, of course. This Writer hopes nobody at the Anne Frank Foundation would be unreasonable enough to take it that far.
It’s not the Anne Frank Foundation that has even raised the issue, you see. It’s a group here in the UK, called UK Lawyers for Israel.
Waters used the name Anne Frank to defame Israel by comparing Shireen Abu Akleh with Anne Frank, as shown in photographs posted on Twitter.
Shireen Abu Akleh was an American journalist of Palestinian Arab extraction who was killed in the course of an Israeli military operation in Jenin last year. The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have accepted that there is a high possibility that an Israeli soldier fired the bullet that killed her, but deny any intention to kill a non-combatant journalist. Roger Waters’ display was evidently intended to suggest that Abu Akleh, like Anne Frank, was murdered by evil fascists, and that the IDF are like the Nazis (a typical example of antisemitism according to the IHRA definition).
During the concert, Waters also dressed up as an SS officer.
Anne Frank Stichting registered “Anne Frank” as a trademark inter alia in Class 41 for entertainment services in various jurisdictions. Roger Waters’ abuse of the mark seems liable to harm its functions and without due cause to take unfair advantage of its distinctive character and repute and/or to be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute, thereby infringing the rights of the Anne Frank Stichting.
There might also be infringement of personality rights inherited by Anne Frank Stichting in some jurisdictions.
Let me get this straight: an organisation in the UK, of lawyers who support Israel, wants an organisation in the Netherlands to take action against the star of a concert that happened in Germany, because it mentioned in passing a name that the Dutch group has trademarked?
There are several issues here: first, Anne Frank was a person. Reducing her to a trademarked name and then litigating against someone else for using that name would be dehumanising behaviour that, in my opinion, may count as anti-Semitic in itself. I can’t see the Anne Frank Stichtung acting in that way, personally. UKLFI may need to reconsider its own approach also.
What would a lawsuit be about – infringement of a trade mark or defamation of Israel? If the latter, then it is nothing to do with the Anne Frank Stichtung.
The use of her name for entertainment purposes would also be problematic, I think. Was the concert advertised as having anything to do with Anne Frank? Was her name on display throughout the performance, or only for a period amounting to seconds? Is there any reason to believe that people attended the show in question (in Berlin, in mid-May) because of the use of Anne Frank’s name? If not, then it seems unlikely a trade mark infringement suit would have any traction. Mention of her would likely come under the category “fair use”.
The connection with Shireen Abu Akleh would also need to be scrutinised. Were the two names projected as described by UKLFI, one immediately after the other, or were they separated by other names? If they were separated, then how is Israel defamed? Whether they were or not, what other names were also projected? What were the reasons those names were also used? Is it reasonable to suggest that the names were projected for entertainment purposes, or to make an argument, and in that case, what is the argument supporting – hate, or peace?
If UKLFI is arguing that Roger Waters wrongly equates the death of Anne Frank with that of Shireen Abu Akleh (perhaps claiming that he was saying both were caused by invading oppressors), then the circumstances of Shireen Abu Akleh’s death would have to be explored. Jenin is a city in Palestine; what were Israel Defence Forces doing there if not invading from another country? What were their activities there intended to convey to the inhabitants, if not oppression? What reason did they have for using projectile weapons in a space where non-combatant civilians might be harmed, if not fatal harm? Can it be proved that criticism of the Israeli government and military for carrying out the “operation” and causing the harm that it did is unfounded? If it cannot, than how can Israel be defamed by what Roger Waters has said about this incident?
When in the concert did Roger Waters state that the Israeli Defence Forces are “evil fascists”?
When did he say the IDF are “like Nazis”?
And – in the context in which mention of Anne Frank and Shireen Abu Akleh were mentioned – is it unreasonable to have made such a comparison? Was there a correlation between the behaviour of the Nazis towards Anne Frank and that of the IDF towards Shireen Abu Akleh?
Does UKLFI really want that tested in court, considering the likely consequences if a judge rules that it is reasonable to compare the behaviour of the Nazis and IDF and find it similar?
Worse for UKLFI is the claim that “Waters also dressed up as an SS officer”, which is not true and undermines UKLFI’s credibility.
Finally, Roger Waters’s lawyers will have been all over this. If any court action did ensue, I expect they would squash it in short order.
Add it all together and This Writer thinks it would be very difficult to make an argument in support of a lawsuit – whether for trade mark infringement or defamation (and I know a thing or two about defamation).
Finally, this is a worthwhile point, also:
If Roger Waters *hadn't* included Anne Frank's name among a list of people killed by fascist regimes, those accusing him of desecrating her name would be claiming her omission was proof Waters hates Jews.
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush🥀🇵🇸🇾🇪 (@OwenPaintbrush) June 11, 2023
Fair point? Note also that the Twitter user above does not speak for Roger Waters and their opinions must be treated as their own.
Ultimately, This Writer’s opinion is that the claims made by UKLFI are unlikely to be able to stop Roger Waters behaving as he has, may do nothing to improve the standing of Israel, and may actually harm the name of Anne Frank.
Am I right?
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:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
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!
The Department for Work and Pensions is being forced to rethink a scheme to pay debts and bills directly out of a person’s benefits without discussing it with them first.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the current guidance on the Third Party Deduction (TPD) scheme issued by the DWP is unlawful because it says there is no point in finding out whether a claimant’s personal circumstances affect whether deductions should be made, since it only makes a difference in very few cases.
The court said this is very close to saying that the interests of the claimant are irrelevant, which is precisely the opposite of what the regulations demand.
The decision was in response to Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride’s appeal against the findings of a judicial review brought by benefit claimant Helen Timson.
The review found in her favour last September and the appeal was heard in April. Now the Appeal Court judges have ruled unanimously that the way the DWP operates the scheme is unfair.
Lord Justice Edis said:
The submission of the Secretary of State… comes down to the proposition that because only in very few cases can the personal circumstances of the claimant or their family make any difference, there is no point finding out what they are.
This is very close to saying that the interests of the claimant are irrelevant, which is precisely the opposite of what the regulations say.
The Secretary of State can only make a TPD direction after forming an opinion or being satisfied about the interests of the particular claimant and family under consideration.
The regulations therefore require that their interests are assessed in the light of all relevant information which must include anything they wish to say on the subject. After forming that judgment the Secretary of State may make a TPD direction.
He added:
In my judgment, the regulations, by framing the decision-making as they do, require a consideration of the interests of the individual claimant and their family.
Under the guidance, however, the decision-maker has the option of contacting them, or of investigating their benefit records, but the guidance allows a decision to be made where the claimant or their family has been given no opportunity to supply information beyond what the utility company puts in the spreadsheet.
This appears to me to be obviously unfair.’
This is an important victory for anybody who might be affected by deductions in the future – and the High Court judgment recorded that there were more than 250,000 deductions in respect of water, electricity and gas debts last year.
In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, it seems reasonable to expect the relevant utility firms to make increasing numbers of TPD requests in the foreseeable future.
This judgment means no deductions may be made without first discussing the extent of any hardship they are likely to cause with the claimant. This may lead to the request being turned down.
But it isn’t all good news: the judgment applies to deductions for utility charges from legacy benefit (non-Universal Credit) only. The DWP can make deductions from benefit for other things which don’t have the same statutory requirement to be in a person’s ‘interests’ (e.g. for council tax, fines, and child support) and so will not be caught by this judgment.
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:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
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!
USA lover Sunak refused educational recovery tsar Kevan Collins’ request “for £15bn in pandemic catch-up funding for children. Sunak would only fork out £1.4bn, which isn’t even twice what he spent buying people free burgers with “eat out to help out”. https://t.co/t51ByqySOXhttps://t.co/hefx4QJAcM
Tory MP begs Rishi Sunak to quit the European Convention on Human Rights – confusing it with the EU
For information: Andrea Jenkyns is a Tory MP who is currently deputy chairwoman of the Brexiteer European Research Group (ERG). Her claim that other Tories got the leader they wanted in Rishi Sunak suggests a developing schism among Tory MPs that could split the party as it grows – and let’s hope it does.
She certainly seems to be trying to undermine Sunak, with a letter that confuses the European Convention on (and Court of) Human Rights with the European Union and European Court of Justice.
For information: UK citizens have never – at the time of writing – voted to relinquish their rights to a free and fair trial, democratic elections, freedom of association (that is, the right to meet anybody we want to), privacy, or any of the others that the Convention upholds.
Heaven help us. Now they are claiming millions have voted to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights!
It’s just complete boll****! Millions voted to leave the EU but the ECHR is an entirely SEPARATE entity and they know it! pic.twitter.com/YKdgRzPQlS
— Peter Stefanovic (@PeterStefanovi2) June 4, 2023
TWITTER catches Boris Johnson lying about the reason for London police station closures
It's time that Sadiq Khan ends the uncertainty and commits to retaining Uxbridge Police Station — it's purpose built, in the right location, and needs to stay open in the best interests of Uxbridge and the West London area. pic.twitter.com/dxompPa0EE
The video has been released after the Daily Telegraph published an online calculator to show readers how much of their salaries is being used to pay social security benefits in what many have dubbed an act of Nazi-style hate crime.
The argument against these acts by the government, police and media is simple: tax evasion costs the UK far more than benefit fraud and error but is investigated by far fewer people and nobody (to This Writer’s knowledge) has ever been arrested in a video clip. Here are some facts:
— Sir Clive (‘lefty’) Wismayer 🇪🇺🇲🇹 🇳🇱 🥪 (@CliveWismayer) June 2, 2023
Corporate profits have nearly doubled since 2019 while average wages are lower than in 2007. Why are the government, Bank of England and bosses blaming wage rises for inflation?
Profit margins at FTSE 350 companies 89% higher than in 2019.
Gross margins for big UK companies are highest for a decade
Workers' real average wage lower than in 2007.
Yet Govt, Bank of England & bosses blame wage rises for inflation.
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:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
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!
Social media junkie: Boris Johnson is probably deleting WhatsApp messages in this shot. “Less than two days until the new deadline! Must hurry! Veni, vici, voodoo! Posterus erectus!”
The Cabinet Office has been given an extra two days to divvy up all of Boris Johnson’s WhatsApp messages and notebooks written during the Covid-19 pandemic to the inquiry into how the government handled it – or face court action.
The original deadline was 4pm on Tuesday (May 30). It has now been extended until 4pm on Thursday (June 1).
Claims that some of the material is “unambiguously irrelevant” have been dismissed by the inquiry’s chair, Baroness Hallett. She said it is her role – not that of the government – to decide what is relevant.
Her point is excellent. No inquiry into the activities of the government can be said to be fair if the government dictates the evidence that is submitted to it. In fact, any such affair could only be considered corrupt to the core.
Indeed, that is exactly what many are already saying about the way the Cabinet Office has been digging in its heels:
How it started: Rishi Sunak, "I think transparency is really important for the healthy functioning of democracy."
How it's going: Jon Craig, "Johnson and Sunak are prepared to launch legal battle against covid secrets.. The gov going to court against it's own covid inquiry." pic.twitter.com/vYkXeHJxma
Anthony Seldon – "Boris Johnson was the worst PM in 100 years & he was in charge during the worst epidemic in 100 years.. the public have the absolute right to know what happened… so the covid enquiry needs to be given what they want.. it's not going to be pretty"#KayBurleypic.twitter.com/uUsxVSMJLT
Let’s stick with Antony Seldon for a moment, because he made this great character analysis of Boris Johnson:
Seldon: "Most members of the public know that Boris Johnson was a liar… he didnt have the integrity or the skills or the judgement to run this great country"
All of this was known before he became PM but because Corbyn wanted free parking in NHS car parks it was overlooked. pic.twitter.com/KRfMpurSIl
(For information: Andrea Jenkyns is a Tory MP who is currently deputy chairwoman of the Brexiteer European Research Group (ERG). Her claim that other Tories got the leader they wanted in Rishi Sunak suggest a developing schism among Tory MPs that could split the party as it grows – and let’s hope it does.)
Now you can understand why BBC-style impartiality is for the birds. This MP wants us to leave Johnson alone because he’s got his missus up the duff yet again?
If that’s the criterion for abandoning justice these days, the courts could clear their backlog by allowing all suspects a night of “compassionate leave” but denying them the use of birth control.
I don’t think the victims of crime would be prepared to accept that – so we should be glad that Baroness Hallett isn’t about to, either.
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:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
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!
Kate Winslet: accepting her BAFTA for I Am Ruth, she pleaded for legislation to tackle the online abuses to which young people are subjected. But what good will any law do, if judges refuse to acknowledge the methods of online abuse?
When Kate Winslet won a BAFTA for I Am Ruth, she pleaded for legislation to battle the online harms to which young people are now constantly subjected.
It was a powerful speech, and the panellists on the BBC’s Politics Live on May 15 (Danny Kruger, Shami Chakrabarti, Alastair Campbell and ConservativeHome’s Henry Hill) discussed what could be done. You can hear their salient points here:
But is it possible to legislate against the tactics that are used to mentally and emotionally attack young people? Would the courts even recognise such methods if a case reached them?
I don’t think so, based on my experience in Rachel Riley’s libel case against me.
I put forward evidence about several different forms of abuse that are commonly used in the social media but the judge refused to recognise any of them.
That was her prerogative, and I’m sure she had her reasons.
But it sets a precedent that means it may now be much harder for anybody trying to win a case under forthcoming “online harms” laws to succeed.
Actions have consequences. I fear the consequences for young people in this age of anti-social media may be severe.
I will try to make our MPs aware of my concerns. It would be welcome if you would do the same.
In the meantime, I am still trying to raise money to pay my legal team, whose members were also concerned about the effect of online abuse on young people.
Please – and only if you are able to spare it – donate to my CrowdJustice fund, or contribute in any of the following ways:
Make a donation via the CrowdJustice page. Keep donating regularly until you see the total pass the amount I need.
Email your friends, asking them to pledge to the CrowdJustice site.
Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.
And don’t forget that if you’re having trouble, or simply don’t like donating via CrowdJustice, you can always donate direct to me via the Vox Political PayPal button, where it appears on that website. But please remember to include a message telling me it’s for the crowdfund!
Online harm continues to be an urgent, current issue and my court case was all about that.
It is possible that my actions in defence of a vulnerable teenager may eventually be vindicated, whether a High Court judge approves of them or not.
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:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
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!
The High Court in London: are Keir Starmer and Labour spending more time there than Vox Political’s Mike has?
Can you believe how many high-profile court cases Keir Starmer’s Labour is embroiled in?
Witch-hunters from Labour Against Anti-Semitism have launched a demand for millions of pounds in damages because they reckon the so-called ‘Labour Leaks’ report has outed nine of them as having made complaints against party members.
The trouble is… it seems they have been publicly admitting it themselves.
Meanwhile, Keir Starmer is still pursuing – through the courts – people he thinks were behind the leaking of that damning report, even though he doesn’t actually have the faintest idea who was responsible.
All in all, this litigation against the Left is costing Starmer a fortune – but he won’t give up because he doesn’t like to lose.
Meanwhile, Labour is – what? – £15 million short of the cash it needs to carry out a winnable general election campaign, because Starmer squandered the £13 million Jeremy Corbyn left in the party bank account (on court cases) and either turned away or expelled the member who would others have contributed and campaigned for funds.
It seems the private firms he thought would support him haven’t bothered.
Here’s Damo, to put some meat on the bones I’ve laid out for you above:
So Starmer's Labour is getting sued apparently, by LAAS of all people! Surely they're on Team Keith you'd think and indeed at least one of those suing Labour is standing as a Councillor for Labour, has been imposed on the local party at that, so its an absolute farce. Who is… pic.twitter.com/UB115hFn9x
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:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
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!
‘Talks not courts’: RCN general secretary Pat Cullen outside the High Court in London.
The High Court has upheld a government claim that a nurses’ strike planned for the Bank Holiday weekend is partly unlawful.
The Royal College of Nursing had promised to abide by any decision, meaning that strike action from midnight until 8pm on May 2 has been called off.
So the government that clapped nurses during the Covid-19 crisis has now taken them to court – and took £35k in costs from the RCN – for having the temerity to ask to be paid enough money to live on.
Nurses outside the High Court in London made the point by brandishing placards bearing the question: “Who takes their heroes to court?”
The Tories are already pushing their narrative that nurses are being selfish by denying NHS patients “the service they deserve”.
But the simple fact is that nobody deserves a health service that is on its knees because of constant de-funding by the Tory government that is driving good, qualified nursing staff away in search of work that pays enough for them to survive.
The Tory rhetoric is nothing more than emotional blackmail, which is a form of bullying.
Health Secretary Steve Barclay is already being accused of intimidating his staff. His treatment of nurses indicates a precedent for those accusations.
RCN general secretary Pat Cullen made the obvious point in her response to the ruling:
Cullen, who joined nurses outside the court in a demonstration on Thursday morning, said she accepted the ruling but claimed it could rally her members to support further strikes.
She said: “The full weight of government gave ministers this victory over nursing staff. It is the darkest day of this dispute so far – the government taking its own nurses through the courts in bitterness at their simple expectation of a better pay deal.
“Nursing staff will be angered but not crushed by today’s interim order. It may even make them more determined to vote in next month’s reballot for a further six months of action. Nobody wants strikes until Christmas – we should be in the negotiating room, not the courtroom today.”
The High Court hearing was unusual in that the RCN did not send lawyers to represent nurses, saying it did not want to “give credence” to Barclay’s legal action and the trade union legislation on which it was based.
Instead it relied on a witness statement by Ms Cullen – which Mr Justice Linden told the court suggested she had accepted the government’s legal position. He suggested that much of it had been written for a “different audience”.
The RCN is set to re-ballot its members next month, seeking a legal mandate to continue its strike action from June to December.
Will nurses be discouraged by the court ruling – or will they be infuriated by the government’s intransigence and demand redoubled strike action, simply to get a fair rate of pay?
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:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
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!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
