Rachel Riley’s lawyers are making a mountain out of a mole hill, and I have to ask whether they are doing it simply to find another way to drain the funds you have been kind enough to give me.
If so, then it raises serious questions about the possible weakness of her case against me; if she is still trying to stop this case from getting to court, she cannot expect to win in a fair trial – right?
The issue is the expected length of the trial. Riley’s legal team say it will take only two days but I reckon it will take three.
If it is listed for two days but overruns, then it will have to be completed at a later date, incurring large costs because both sets of lawyers will have to re-familiarise themselves with the details, as will the judge. And judges tend to become very angry if cases overrun because of the necessity either to rearrange other work or delay part of the case for an extended time.
If I push for three days, though, Riley’s legals could ask the court to list the matter for a “costs and case management conference” so the court can determine the trial length. This will be a waste of time and money because the hearing would discuss nothing else.
And it could result in a ruling that a three-day trial is necessary, meaning both sides pay for the third day and the extra hearing.
Or we can have a three-day trial, knowing exactly how much it will cost, and just get on with it, in accordance with my wishes. If it underruns, both Riley and I will be better-off because a shorter trial means legal fees will be lower. And the judge will be happy because it will provide time for them to prepare for other trials and/or write up other judgments.
So why are Riley’s lawyers dragging their feet?
The only reason that makes sense is that they want to waste your money – the cash you have donated to help me fight this case.
Already my funds are being drained because of the constant back-and-forth trickle of correspondence between my solicitor and Riley’s at Patron Law, whose insistence on a two-day trial could lead to huge further financial burdens.
There is only one way to discourage this form of lawfare – in which the claimant does not expect to win but to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their opposition. That is to show them that they cannot win by this underhand tactic.
So I’m going to appeal for donations 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.
If donations keep coming in, it will show Riley’s lawyers that they really can’t win by trying to drain my cash and that they should concentrate on their legal arguments.
If donations to my cause are generous, it will mean their tactic has backfired and they will have strengthened me with a pointless quibble. Wouldn’t that be great?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
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.
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!
Well-deserved victory: Ash Sarkar (left) has won libel damages from Julie Burchill.
No, I haven’t (yet) won my case against Rachel Riley, sadly. But Ash Sarkar’s victory against Julie Burchill shows that it is possible for writers and broadcasters on the social media, like her and myself, to beat much better-funded celebrities if the evidence supports us.
Of course, Ms Sarkar was the claimant in her own case, while I am the defendant. I do wonder how much difference that may have made to a judge’s assumptions.
And her case hasn’t lasted very long – only a little more than three months, which suggests that the facts were more clear-cut, certainly, than those of my own case have been made out to be.
Here’s Ms Burchill’s statement:
On 13th December 2020 I made statements concerning Ash Sarkar in response to her comment on an article by my friend Rod Liddle. I alleged that Ms Sarkar worshipped the Prophet Muhammad, that she worshipped a paedophile (referring to the Prophet Muhammad), that she was an Islamist, and that she was a hypocrite (the allegations).
Although it was not my intention, I accept that my statements were defamatory of Ms Sarkar and caused her very substantial distress. I wish to make clear on the record that I do not believe, have never believed and never intended to make any allegation that Ms Sarkar is a promoter, supporter and/or sympathiser of Islamists or fundamentalist terrorism or to suggest that Ms Sarkar condones paedophilia in any way. I also now understand that it is blasphemy for a Muslim to worship Prophet Muhammad and I had no basis for stating that Ms Sarkar does so. I accept that there is no truth in any of these allegations, and I recognise that such comment play into Islamophobic tropes and did so in this case.
I also accept that I was wrong to continue to tweet to and about her after that date. I should not have sent these tweets, some of which included racist and misogynist comments regarding Ms Sarkar’s appearance and her sex life. I was also wrong to have “liked” other posts on Facebook and Twitter about her which were offensive, including one which called for her to kill herself, and another which speculated whether she had been a victim of FGM. I regret that I did not pay much attention to them at the time. On reflection, I accept that these “liked” posts included callous and degrading comments about Ms Sarkar and I should not have liked them. I can confirm that I have deleted all my posts and tweets and likes about Ms Sarkar.
I have also now seen messages that were sent to Ms Sarkar following my posts about her which are abhorrent, and I wish to make clear that I do not condone any such messages. I did not know when I published my posts that Ms Sarkar had previously received death threats and other violent threats and abuse, some of which emanated from a far-right conspiracy theory circulated about Ms Sarkar during summer 2020, of which I had not been aware.
I deeply regret having reacted in the way I did. I accept that I should have behaved better. On reflection, I accept that I misjudged the situation, and made statements that simply are not true, which I now want to put right. I also wish to make clear that I accept that Ms Sarkar did not call for my publisher to break ties with me and bears no responsibility for this.
I unreservedly and unconditionally apologise for the hurtful and unacceptable statements I made to and about Ms Sarkar, particularly those concerning her religion and Prophet Muhammad. I have undertaken not to repeat the allegations or any similar allegations about her, undertaken not to engage in any course of conduct amounting to harassment of Ms Sarkar, and undertaken not to contact her directly other than for legal reasons.
I have also agreed to pay substantial damages to Ms Sarkar for the distress I caused and her legal costs.
Ms Sarkar’s victory has received support on Twitter:
Forcing Julie Burchill to publicly admit to “racist and misogynist comments” is the best thing I’ve seen today https://t.co/PRvNb7VG4K
In December Julie Burchill accused me of worshipping a paedophile and called me an Islamist.
After legal action, she has apologised in full for these falsehoods, for playing into “Islamophobic tropes” and making “racist and misogynist” comments about my appearance and sex life. https://t.co/7scZBelq5w
Back in December, Julie Burchill encouraged people to “wade in” on social media, and referred to me as an Islamist and a nonce. For weeks after, Julie Burchill continued to publish posts on social media about me.
She also published an article in The Guardian, part of which states:
Some of the worst abuse I’ve received is either from journalists or the direct consequence of their actions in spreading misinformation about me.
The parallels with my own case, in which Rachel Riley has portrayed herself as the victim of an unreasonable libel perpetrated by me, should be clear to anybody familiar with it.
In fact, the teenage girl Riley exposed to abuse could very easily have written similar words to Ms Sarkar: “Some of the worst abuse I’ve received is either from celebrities or the direct consequence of their actions in spreading misinformation about me.”
Riley responded to a girl’s criticism of her for mischaracterising Owen Jones (and Jeremy Corbyn) as anti-Semitic by presenting the girl as a supporter of anti-Semitism (by being a supporter of Corbyn and his Labour Party).
While she did not directly call on her followers to dogpile the girl (nor did I suggest that she did in the article for which she is suing me), several dogpiles resulted from the series of Twitter threads she wrote about that girl, and this abuse was a direct result of Riley’s decision to publish them.
This can be proved with the answer to a simple question: would this girl have received this abuse if Riley had not published tweets about her? The answer can only be a resounding no.
I published my article, back in 2019, on the basis that it is in the public interest for people to understand the patterns of abuse on the social media; how they happen and who should take responsibility.
Julie Burchill has taken responsibility for the vile abuse that she caused, either directly or indirectly.
Rachel Riley seeks to take huge amounts of money from me by denying having done so, even though many of her actions were exactly the same.
I am not rich. It has always seemed to me that the intention has been to financially ruin me by forcing me to participate in a costly court exercise that I could not afford.
I have been fortunate enough to be able to fend her off for nearly two years with support from thousands of members of the public who have seen the evidence (it is still on Twitter) and drawn their own conclusions.
I am currently being forced to appeal against a High Court decision to strike out my defences against her accusation, because the decision to strike out my defence of publication in the public interest was clearly unsafe – as you can see from the information I have provided, above.
This means I am being forced to spend more money that would be better spent on a trial. Riley doesn’t care. It means I have less money for that purpose and makes her more likely to win by default.
If, having read the details of the abuse Ash Sarkar suffered and the comparison with my own case, you are willing to help me, you are heartily invited to join the thousands who have already supported my case by contributing to my CrowdJustice fund. Please:
Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, 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 CrowdJustice site.
As I understand it, the Court of Appeal is planning to hear mine on an expedited basis – that is, at a time that suits the court rather than one that is convenient to either or both of the parties involved. This could take place at any time between April 15 and the end of May.
That means there is very little time to raise the thousands more that are needed.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
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.
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!
I must find a new image to use with these updates.
The Court of Appeal has been in touch to ask whether it would be possible for Rachel Riley and I to solve our differences via mediation.
I heard about it shortly after reading a comment on the social media that the justice system is creaking under the weight of its caseload, so my immediate thought was that this was an attempt to clear the books.
My second thought was to check how much it would cost: something like £950 plus VAT. Is that a reasonable use of the money that you have sent me?
Finally, I considered the facts of the matter:
As a reporter, I am always open to the idea of mediation at the appropriate time. Everybody in my profession knows that we can get stories wrong – because we don’t have a particular piece of information or because an act was presented to us in a particular light, or for any other reason.
That’s why we listen to complaints about stories, investigate them if necessary, and make alterations. It’s why newspapers have a “corrections and clarifications” column.
Rachel Riley had the opportunity to make a complaint about my article after it was published in January 2019 but she did not. Her solicitor, Mark Lewis, contacted me publicly on Twitter with a threat of litigation that I refused to take seriously because it was made inappropriately. He did not provide any details of factual inaccuracies. Without such details, either from Riley or Lewis, I could not go back and check. I had been given no reason to.
When Lewis’s law firm Patron Law sent me notice that it was to pursue legal action on behalf of both Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman in March 2019, the letters included copies of the pre-action protocol on defamation which mentions mediation. As this had been sent by Riley’s solicitor, I expected to be contacted with a request for mediation to take place but, again, I heard nothing.
I would have been happy to discuss Riley’s issues with her at any of those times. It seems extremely late to do it now. What would it achieve? We’re at a point where she has forced me to raise and spend an eighth of a million pounds fighting what I very much consider to be a false claim against me – is she likely to pay that money back? I don’t think so. My name has been smeared left, right and centre across the national news media and the social media as well. Even if she offered to make reparations for that, how could she possibly achieve it? Mud always sticks.
For those reasons – and I’m sure you could think of more – I think mediation this far along the process is a waste of time. If the other side has something worthwhile to say, though, I will still be happy to consider it.
I understand the other side has communicated with my legal team to say that, while we may not agree on much, they feel sure we agree that there is no point in mediation. So it seems that is settled.
In the meantime, it seems that we are still in this for the long haul – and that means I need funds. Please:
Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, 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 CrowdJustice site.
Remember: I have no idea when my appeal is likely to be brought before the court.
Please help me ensure I am ready for it.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
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.
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!
After considerable discussion, the High Court has decided the next hearing in Rachel Riley’s libel case against me will happen on November 6.
If you think the only fireworks that week will be the night before – or the night after – you may be surprised.
This will be the hearing on Rachel Riley’s bid to strike out all – or part – of my defence, that she was desperate to force into a courtroom before the end of July.
So, what’s she planning to do with all the spare time that the court has presented to her?
This:
How interesting.
It could be read as an enticement for her followers to entrap people into making comments about her, so she can burden the court with more libel cases.
The offer to give the proceeds to charity would be the enticement.
I have always claimed that she launched her case against me in the belief that her huge wealth and my own comparative poverty would mean I could not defend myself and she would therefore buy justice. Does that seem the case here?
It looks like grifting – “influencing anybody, anywhere, at anytime, into doing whatever they choose to have them do, that will result in the grifter’s personal gain.”
And it is also right on the boundary of vexatious litigation – a pattern of behaviour leading to possibly frivolous lawsuits.
A court may consider such behaviour to be an abuse of the judicial process and may choose to impose sanctions against the perpetrator. Repeated instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in disbarment.
Already we have seen what I consider to be vexatious attempts at running down the crowdfunded cash supporters of This Site have provided to help me fend off Ms Riley – the silly “shifting sands” claim last December, that the judge threw out without blinking, was one; my opinion is that the current “strike-out” bid is another.
I hope to monitor this situation; if she or her solicitor starts legal action against more people as a result of this tweet, I want to know about it.
In the meantime, I hope you agree that the courts do not exist to further enrich already-overpaid TV parlour game-players – or the charities they support (and we don’t know exactly which charities those might be, either).
If I am successful in defending against her claims, then this might all go away. You are, of course, invited to support me in the usual ways:
Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, 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.
On other social media platforms, please mention the campaign there, quoting the appeal address.
And tell everybody you know what you think about Ms Riley’s behaviour – in a non-libellous way, of course.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
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.
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 clock is ticking: Rachel Riley seems desperate to force a court hearing this month because she thinks Mike will run out of money. Only you can prove her wrong.
The High Court has suggested that an application by Rachel Riley to strike out part of my defence against her libel claim should be heard before the end of July – despite the fact that this will create a huge strain on my funds.
There is absolutely no urgency for this application to be heard and there is likely to be no shortage of urgent cases that could take priority over this one – and there is no date before the end of July on which both my solicitor and my Counsel will be available.
I understand Ms Riley’s solicitor, Mark Lewis, has written to the court with a suggestion that I want to delay in order to crowdfund the cash I need to fund my defence, saying he is concerned that this would establish a precedent that will clog up the administration of justice.
He has suggested that, besides being deprived of time to raise funds for my defence, I should also produce the extra cash that would be needed to obtain and instruct alternative Counsel.
We should all be concerned if this argument has swayed the court, because it is unjust.
Firstly, my reason for wanting to delay the hearing is that my Counsel is not available – not because I need to crowdfund. Courts are obliged to make efforts to accommodate Counsel, especially in a case in which the court would benefit from hearing from the Counsel who wrote my defence.
Secondly – yes, forcing me to change Counsel, to meet a July hearing date, will almost certainly put my defence fund in debt. Allowing the case to be heard later in the year will almost certainly not do so.
While the strain on my finances may not burden Mr Lewis, the court is required to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost to ensure that the parties are on an equal footing. This means that the court must take account of the financial position of each party.
Let’s have a look at Ms Riley’s financial position in relation to mine: she is a very highly paid television celebrity who is able to afford both leading and junior counsel, while I am a full-time carer and am, yes, reliant on crowdfunding to finance my defence.
Speeding up this hearing deprives me of the ability to afford representation against a very well-resourced opponent. It is hard to see how the court can say this is just and proportionate treatment.
Finally, Ms Riley has put forward no reason to suggest that her case will be prejudiced if the hearing is not listed later; it will make no difference to her at all.
My own representatives have made these points to the court and we are awaiting a response.
But it seems clear that Ms Riley is once again trying to win her case by using my poverty against me. I think this is utterly despicable behaviour.
If your opinion of her behaviour is similar, then there’s only one way to help:
Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, 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.
On other social media platforms, please mention the campaign there, quoting the appeal address.
I had been hoping to write an update this week, saying that the pressure was off for a while, then this happened.
Please help foil this latest dark development in a very nasty story.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
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.
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!
How sad to see that the London Evening Standard (oh, and Mail Online, although this is less surprising) is incapable of reporting a simple judgment in an ongoing libel case properly!
The High Court, in the case of Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman v Jane Heybroek, has reached a judgment with regard to the meaning of the words that are at issue, and whether they are statements of fact or expressions of opinion.
And the Standard‘s interpretation of this judgment is arse-backwards.
“Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman win first round of libel battle” trumpets the headline – wrongly. The judgment was neutral. Nobody has won or lost anything.
But if any advantage were gained, This Writer would say it had to have gone to Ms Heybroek.
Here are her own comments:
Note her words [italics mine]: “This was a hearing we asked for in order to narrow down the claimants’ claims and, in my opinion, we have successfully done so.”
“Significantly, the Judge has found that the first meaning… and the italicised words in the second meaning… were statements of opinion. This is a potentially crucial development because statements of opinion are afforded a defence where the basis of the opinion is indicated, and an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of facts existing at the time.”
Reference to the judgment on the court website Bailii shows that Ms Heybroek’s representative, Mr Helme, won more points than the claimants’. Consider the Judge’s agreement with him at paragraphs 61, 63, 72, 75, 77, 79, 81 and 83; and the Judge’s disagreement with the claimants’ representative, Mr Stables, at paragraphs 58, 59, and 65.
In brief, Ms Heybroek won her arguments that the words at issue were expressions of opinion rather than statements of fact. Whether they were defamatory was never likely to be in doubt – but of course that doesn’t mean that they were libellous. If they were statements of honest opinion, and the facts on which they were based were accurate to the best of her knowledge at the time, then they were not.
And it is to be noted that these are all secondary considerations; Ms Riley and Ms Oberman’s complaint is not about an article by a third party (the matter on which this judgment is made) but about whether Ms Heybroek libelled them by retweeting a link to it. Ms Heybroek states: “Note that this ruling on meanings is without prejudice to my contention that I am not liable for publication of the article by virtue of my re-tweeting a tweet containing a hyperlink to it. That issue remains to be determined, either at trial or before.”
So it seems clear that Ms Heybroek won far more than Ms Riley or Ms Oberman. But that information seems to have zoomed right over the head of whoever reported the case to the Standard and the Mail.
Far be it from me to attribute malign intentions, but this failure of accurate reporting can have a serious harmful effect on justice.
Libel cases are hugely expensive and people like Ms Heybroek and myself – This Writer is fighting an ongoing case brought by Ms Riley, remember – cannot afford to defend against the accusations without help.
We ask sympathetic members of the public to support us with donations – but they may be discouraged from doing so, if they read or hear a report claiming that Ms Riley (and Ms Oberman, in Ms Heybroek’s case) is somehow winning.
Conversely, if they discover that such claims are false, I would hope members of the public would find their determination to support the defendants redoubled.
The expense of the hearing has put Ms Heybroek out-of-pocket. She is crowdfunding to pay for her case and if you can afford to help, her CrowdJustice site may be found here.
As for my own case – the request is the same as usual. Please:
Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via my own 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.
On other social media platforms, please mention the campaign there, quoting the appeal address.
It would be nice to see Ms Riley and/or Ms Oberman distancing themselves from the inaccurate media reports.
But, considering my own belief that they would be as happy to win their cases by starving us of funds as they would in a courtroom, I fear I may have to wait a long time for that.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
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.
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 gossip-magazine and showbiz-column stories about Rachel Riley and her new baby are all very pleasant but they mask an unpleasant fact: she is still pursuing innocent people like This Writer and Jane Heybroek through the courts, for daring to point out her own bad behaviour.
Ms Heybroek is being sued for libel, because she retweeted a link to an article criticising Ms Riley for attacking a teenage girl – with anxiety problems – who dared to question the celebrity’s accusations of anti-Semitism against others.
Ms Heybroek’s case is on the “warned list” for a court hearing in the week beginning March 23. If it happens, a judge will hear arguments about the meaning of the article to which she linked.
After that, her case will have reached the same position as mine. I had my hearing in December. It referred to my own article about the same episode, and the judge ruled that most of it represented a classic expression of opinion. He said I would need to defend a few assertions of fact, but I foresee no difficulty in doing that – if I get the chance to do that in court.
For both of us, our difficulty is not the facts of the case – it is the cost of the case.
Defending against a libel suit costs an astronomical amount of money. When I launched my CrowdJustice campaign I made it clear that I think Ms Riley never intended for my case (or, now, Ms Heybroek’s) to actually reach court.
I think she expected us poverty-stricken plebs to be unable to afford a court case, meaning that she would win by the mere fact that her TV-derived wealth dwarfs ours. In effect, she would buy justice.
She has been wrong – so far. Thousands of people have rallied round to help out with tens of thousands of pounds of vital funding.
That’s what has kept her at bay. But now I reckon she has a new tactic.
I reckon she thinks that by restricting her public displays to pretty baby-related photoshoots, she’ll be able to starve my CrowdJustice campaign – and that of Ms Heybroek – of the funds we need; people will think she isn’t bothering with the court cases any more.
You know that isn’t true; she’s just carrying on her attack in the background.
So I must beg for your help to continue funding my defence in the courts. Here’s how:
Email five of your friends, asking them to pledge to the CrowdJustice site.
Post a link to Facebook, asking your friends to pledge.
On Twitter, you could tweet in support, quoting the address of the appeal.
On other social media platforms, please mention the campaign there, quoting the appeal address.
Rachel Riley may not be making as much noise as before, but she is still trying as hard as ever to harm innocent people. Are you going to let her?
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
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.
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!
This Writer’s legal team has been putting together our defence against Rachel Riley’s claims that I libelled her – and it is full of information she won’t want the public to see.
I’m not referring simply to what we know of her behaviour already – the many ill-informed attacks on Jeremy Corbyn (including an incitement to violence against him) and Noam Chomsky, her own anti-Semitic claim that she didn’t look like a “typical Jew”, likening the Durham Miners’ Gala band to the Ku Klux Klan, defaming a Labour candidate in the general election – it’s a very long list.
I’m referring to her behaviour toward a teenage girl with anxiety problems who dared – how dare she? – to have a different opinion. Some of it is astonishing.
And it will never see the light of day unless you help me get it into court.
I can’t reveal any of it here because it would prejudice the court proceedings – and Ms Riley’s lawyers would take great pleasure in attacking me for making fresh allegations, I feel sure.
Fundraisers have already achieved miracles, raising a huge amount that has already been put to good use fending off Ms Riley’s lawyers so far.
But compiling the defence has been a huge, intensive amount of work. I know because I spent many days over the Festive Season, battling through illness to put much of the raw information together.
Almost all the money that has been raised has been spent. If we don’t get more, we can’t go forward.
It’s as simple as that.
Libel is hugely expensive. From the start, my belief has been that Ms Riley thinks she can use her vastly-greater wealth to crush me and – in effect – buy the result that she wants.
I think her attitude is that the facts can go to Hell – she wants to make me pay.
I know you don’t accept that. Please put some more into the pot so I can keep fighting against this cruel and unnecessary attack.
Email five of your friends, asking them to pledge to the CrowdJustice site.
Post a link to Facebook, asking your friends to pledge.
On Twitter, you could tweet in support, quoting the address of the appeal.
On other social media platforms, please mention the campaign there, quoting the appeal address.
I know times are hard and money is tight for everyone – except the likes of Ms Riley.
Please do what you can to support justice.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
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.
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!
A desperate Twitter troll tried to claim people supporting my CrowdJustice campaign would be liable to pay any costs if I lose.
It was a desperate attempt to undermine the huge amount of public support I have received, with nearly £35,000 provided for the campaign.
As is now well-known, celebrity game-player Rachel Riley is taking This Writer to court, claiming that I libelled her over her ill-treatment of a teenage girl with mental health issues.
It seems she wanted to bully me into paying her thousands of pounds, by threatening me with a court action in which I could not possibly afford to defend myself.
So I launched a funding campaign with CrowdJustice, drawing a huge number of donations from more than 1,000 contributors.
Meanwhile, on Twitter, I have been subjected to a near-constant barrage of lies, insults and other vilification from supporters of Ms Riley – often the same people who have also falsely accused me of anti-Semitism in the past.
This one turned up after another Twitter user posted a list of fellow socialists – including Yr Obdt Srvt – calling for others to support us. He/she claimed that one of us was a Holocaust denier so I called it out as a troll:
Another troll for you all to Mute/Block/Avoid and warn all your friends. https://t.co/UomlqtDtXW
Notice the lack of any evidence in support of the claims and the threat to report the original tweeter to the Labour Party – which has proved sadly supine in complying with the wishes of these hatemongers.
This one turned its focus on me, repeating false claims of anti-Semitism and claiming I was a misogynist – I have no idea if this anonymous person is male or female – before turning its attention to the Riley libel case.
Lies from the troll. Nobody contributing to my CrowdJustice appeal would be responsible for paying costs – if she means the penalty if I lose.
Besides, I'm not going to lose. I just wanted to reassure everybody. https://t.co/p24sovCbi5
Let us be clear about this: Nobody supporting my CrowdJustice campaign will have to pay any more than their initial donation, even in the remote possibility that I lose.
This is nothing but scaremongering, based on unproved speculation.
But now I have a question:
How do you feel about this attempt to manipulate you?
This is a person who has tried to mislead you and others like you who may otherwise want to support my CrowdJustice campaign, trying to help Ms Riley by making me unable to fund my defence.
I think that’s despicable, don’t you?
If you do, then please make your disgust count by contributing to the campaign. Libel cases are notoriously expensive and I need more funds if I’m to mount a successful defence.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
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.
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!
It seems my CrowdJustice site, that has been running for the last few months, is finally set to close.
With it ends the first phase of my campaign to raise cash to pay the legal eagles I need to beat the false claims against me – in or out of court.
The initial aim was to demonstrate to Rachel Riley, Tracy Ann Oberman and their solicitors that there was no truth in their claim that I had libelled them, and that there was no point in trying to take it to court.
This has fallen on deaf ears.
So the next phase will concentrate on ensuring we have enough cash to go into court and mount a defence that will convince a judge that my accusers don’t have a leg to stand on.
We have almost enough to pay for a preliminary hearing, which may take place in the autumn. I won’t know whether further hearings will take place until we get a ruling from the judge.
So please allow me to appeal, one last time, to your generosity. If you would like to help me win:
You could also post a link to Facebook, asking your friends to pledge.
If you’re on Twitter, you could tweet in support, quoting the address of the appeal.
If you use other social media platforms, please mention the campaign there, quoting the appeal address.
And if you can afford it, please consider pledging some cash yourself.
Money isn’t an issue for my opponents. They are trying to use my lack of it to bully me into giving up – in effect, to buy justice.
I find that attitude utterly repulsive, and I hope you do too.
So please help, while there’s time.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
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.
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.
