Tag Archives: defamation

Riley libel: her lawyers react about her failure to show losses

What a strange way to behave!

After my previous update on Rachel Riley’s libel case against me, in which I pointed out that she had failed to demonstrate any evidence that she had suffered financial losses as a result of my article, her solicitors seem to have taken offence.

You see, Riley may claim for general and special damages: general damages refers to the level of compensation that would make up for any harm caused to her reputation. Special damages is a loss of specific opportunities.

Her solicitors say no claim for special damages has been made, nor is such a claim pleaded on her behalf – which is also, as it happens, exactly what I’m saying.

My point was that they had threatened to make such a claim, as stated in Riley’s Particulars of Claim, paragraph 12: “The Claimant relies upon the inference that the publication of such serious allegations has caused and is likely to cause serious harm to her reputation. Should it be necessary, she relies on the following particulars in support of her case on serious harm to reputation…”

In paragraph 12.2: “The Claimant makes her living in the public eye: her reputation is crucial to the goodwill among public audiences and among broadcasters, production companies and others she relies on for her career.”

And in paragraph 12.3: “The Claimant in her professional and personal life is closely involved in projects and activities concerning children and young persons, such that allegations of misconduct towards a child or young person would be especially harmful.”

Her disclosures show no evidence that Riley has suffered any loss to her reputation among “broadcasters, production companies and others she relies upon for her career”, nor in the loss of involvement in “projects and activities concerning children and young persons”. It simply hasn’t happened.

When describing the damage she has suffered at paragraph 13, Riley expressly links back to paragraph 12.2 and 12.3 then makes a claim for “damages for libel” without distinguishing between general and special damages: “She relies upon the particulars of serious harm set out at paragraph 12 and its sub-paragraphs.”

So I had reason to expect evidence that she had lost work as a result of my article – and she has not provided it.

She can still claim general damages – but her failure regarding special damages suggests that nobody who makes much difference to her has actually changed their opinion of her because of my article.

I look forward to hearing her explain how my words have harmed her reputation among the general public any more than it has been harmed already by her own highly-self-publicised antics.

I would provide examples but I am also very much looking forward to the spectacle of her legal team shooting themselves in the feet (metaphorically) at the trial.

Of course, it means we still need to get this case to trial, so please…

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.

Matters are starting to accelerate again – this isn’t even the only issue between the parties at the moment, and I’m sure there will be more.

I will provide more information when I’m able to.

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

Riley libel case: she can’t show any losses due to Mike’s article

Rachel Riley has not shown that she has suffered any financial losses at all, that she can relate to her libel claim against me. Isn’t that revealing?

We are currently going through a “disclosure” exercise. In my case, this means providing material that would have been available to me before I wrote the article that she considers libellous.

In hers – well, she would have provided proof of financial harm if she could, I feel sure. The court will still have to assess general harm to her reputation, although this may be difficult when taking into account the hugely deleterious effect of her own public behaviour since early 2018, when she began her career as an activist.

She lists 107 of my articles – all written after the article about which she’s complaining, meaning they’re not directly relevant to the case – without explaining why. My best guess is she’ll be calling them aggravating factors if she wins.

Then come 235 Vox Political articles under the tag “anti-Semitism”. The subject of hatred against Jews is much-discussed on This Site and it was a major issue in the dialogue between Riley and a teenage girl, that forms the basis of the case. But I wonder what Riley hopes to gain  – does she think these are examples of me being anti-Semitic? If so, she’s likely to have a nasty shock.

She also includes the other three articles I published on January 26, 2019. Again, I have no idea why. Perhaps she’s suggesting that if I wrote these as well, I didn’t have time to research the material in the article about her? If so, then – again – she’s going to be in for a shock.

Then she starts listing material in general terms – Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and CrowdJustice updates. I have instructed my solicitor to seek clarification of exactly what material this may be. I’m particularly interested in the Reddit material because I do not have an account with that platform!

On Twitter, she seems to have focused on my announcement that I had won my appeal against her strike-out application, on May 14 this year – and the subsequent messages of congratulation from former MP Chris Williamson, Jackie Walker, and former Canary Editor-in-Chief Kerry-Anne Mendoza. These are all people who have been tarred with the “anti-Semite” brush by Riley and others, so I suspect she will be trying to suggest guilt through association.

It’s a long list – even when abbreviated so that I have to seek clarification of it.

And it is weak.

Without being able to show that my article has harmed her, Riley’s position is severely weakened. My evidence will show that I had good reason to write my article, and that it addresses several issues of public interest. Her case is in trouble.

Of course, none of that will count at all if I can’t get the matter to court.

So please, if you want to see me win…

Consider making a donation yourself, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

I’ve said all along that this case is about buying justice; if Riley can afford a trial and I can’t, then I will lose automatically.

But if I can afford the trial, the situation may well be reversed. And we’d all like to see that – wouldn’t we?

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

Riley libel trial: there’s only one way to beat these online bullies

A nasty incident occurred while I was discussing the Labour Party conference on Twitter earlier this week.

An online supporter of Rachel Riley butted into the thread to threaten me, although it might not seem obvious from his words:

He was implying that, when I am defeated in court by Rachel Riley, the cost will be so much that I will have to sell my house to pay it off – or give it to Riley.

People like him have been saying it since early 2019 when I was first threatened with litigation.

One one level it is a completely false threat because I rent, but that doesn’t stop them.

My response, as you can see, was to throw it back in his face; I’m more likely to win than she is, and her costs would be equally high.

On another level, of course, it is psychological intimidation. I could lose the case, and if I do, I will not have the wherewithal to pay a huge combined costs and damages bill.

And I still have to get the case into court. At the moment, even that is looking decidedly dicey as donations have plummetted.

It is the easiest way for Riley to win, of course – for me to be unable to defend myself because I cannot afford to pay my legal team.

I need around £60,000 more than I have, if I’m to be in a comfortable position – and although I’m not expecting the trial to happen until next spring, that time will creep up on us surprisingly fast.

And in September the crowdfund increased by £2,000. A good figure! But not enough if that trend continues.

If I can’t fund my defence at trial, everything we have achieved so far will be for nothing.

I know you don’t want that.

And I certainly don’t think you want that odious Twitter troll to have the last laugh!

So, please, if you can afford it:

Consider making a donation yourself, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

I know it’s a lot to ask, especially as this case is now well into its third year. But this is a fight for justice, against those who think they can buy it because they have more money.

I can’t change the system so I’m hoping that we can change their minds.

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

Riley libel trial: common sense prevails

Rachel Riley’s lawyers have relented and agreed to the trial lasting three days on the basis that – as stated in the previous update – it is a waste of time having a day in court arguing about whether or not to have a day in court.

I cannot claim that the update I posted at lunchtime today (September 9) had anything to do with the change; my solicitor sent an email informing me of it immediately after I had posted the article, which suggests that the decision happened as I was writing it.

I did not see the email until much later.

Yes, I could claim it as a victory for my side of the case, but it’s really a victory for common sense. I’m glad that the team at Patron Law agreed that there was no point in arguing about something that would not benefit anybody.

I still need funds though!

Those of you who saw the last update have responded admirably and the fund is almost £1,000 better-off as a result. The trial will cost a lot more than that, though, and the best thing to do is keep a steady stream of funds flowing, so I can build up to readiness by the time the hearings happen – probably next April.

So if you haven’t donated today, please do one or more of the following:

Consider making a donation yourself, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

We are now closer to getting this case behind us.

Next come disclosures – of documents that influenced our choices regarding the facts of the case. I have very little to add to what is already known to the court.

It will be very interesting to see what Ms Riley produces.

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

Riley libel: is her fuss over trial length the return of an old fund-draining tactic?

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.

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

Riley libel trial: will her lawyers waste your money by getting trial length wrong?

It seems Rachel Riley’s lawyers are sticking to their guns – they reckon the High Court will only need two days to hear her libel trial against me.

Of course, the length of the trial is within their gift, to a large extent. If they decide they don’t need a lot of time to cross-examine me, they could probably reduce the court’s time significantly.

But if they get it wrong; if they overrun and force an adjournment, with all the extra expense that entails, then they will be ramping up my costs by more than half as much again, just for a single day (there would be extra “reading-in” costs for both legal teams and for the judge, among other spending requirements, no doubt).

That would be unreasonable, so I’ve told my solicitor they only way I would not oppose their demand for a two-day trial is if Riley promises to pay all costs associated with any adjournment.

I’m willing to bet a pound to a penny that I’ll be told I can’t make such a demand, but I think it is important to stand up to people who would use money as a coercive device without a second thought.

On a more positive note, it seems that even though I cannot influence the choice of judge (I was concerned that the judge who got last year’s strike-out application wrong may then go on to hear the trial), the judiciary does tend to take a pragmatic approach and the judge in question may prefer not to hear a public interest defence she has already – wrongly – struck out.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to you all for pushing the CrowdJustice donations up to £170,000 by the end of August. That’s a brilliant achievement at a time when developments have been relatively slow.

I’m hoping to hit £180k by the end of September (the trial will cost a lot) so please keep donating if you can and encourage others to donate too. Here’s how:

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.

Next up is the issue of disclosure – telling the court about background documents that are relevant to the case, even if they might harm our relative sides.

I have already been up-front about the material that influenced me. I look forward to discovering whether Riley can show the same honesty.

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

Don’t fund this fake cause – give your money to Mike instead

It seems Rachel Riley just can’t help herself.

She took to Twitter on July 16 to promote a new crowdfunding effort by the fake charity Campaign Against Antisemitism:

 

This page is also supported by Tracy-Ann Oberman and Riley’s solicitor, Mark Lewis.

Clicking on the page link – on July 16 – revealed that the aim was to raise £100,000 with which to sue a person named Sally Eason:

 

Justified? That’s not entirely for me to say. I haven’t gone deeply into Ms Eason’s affairs.

But I can say that she was mentioned by the teenage girl involved in Riley’s libel case against me, as having been hugely supportive of her while Riley and her cronies had been bullying and abusing her on Twitter, between December 2018 and January 2019.

So it seems to me that Riley is trying to attack someone who has upset her, through a third party.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism (or CAA for short) is itself a fake charity that seems to pursue individuals in public life with accusations of anti-Jewish hatred. It is odd that it would then wish to attack Ms Eason, who is Jewish.

Its focus appears to be political in nature, attacking people on the left wing of politics far more than anyone else, despite the fact that, according to statistics, anti-Semitism is far more common among right-wingers. This political bias invalidates its charitable status as Charity Commission rules state that charities must not be seen to be acting for political gain.

It mixes fake accusations with genuine cases of anti-Semitism in order to make its political attacks seem more plausible.

I state this from a position of experience – the CAA published false accusations against me, way back in 2016. You can read about it – and see my rebuttals of the false claims, in this article.

My piece, from 2017, shows that the CAA exists to raise funds for private prosecutions against people it brands as anti-Semites – so one has to question why someone called Caroline has had to launch a page on a separate site to make it possible for this to happen. Perhaps people have seen through its cover story?

Viewing the Total Giving page now, it presents a different reason for the crowdfunding, removing the name of the individual under attack and replacing it with a more generic cause:

 

I got in touch with the victim and she told me the change happened after she had contacted the site’s owners and suggested that they rethink their decision to host this funding campaign.

That’s all very well but it seems clear that she will be the first person to be sued using money gained under the pretences put forward on that page – not because of any anti-Semitism on her part, but because she supports a political view that Riley and her cronies despise, and because she provided help to a person that they attacked.

And Ms Eason won’t have access to £100,000 of crowdfunded money when the CAA launches its proceedings against her, so it seems to me that this is another attempt to buy justice – exactly as I’ve always believed Riley’s case against myself has been.

I say: don’t support this fake fundraiser at all! And tell your friends not to support it either.

Instead, tell them to support my defence against the libel case that Riley has already brought – against me.

Funding the defence of a person Riley is already persecuting via the legal system will send a clear message that she and her fellow travellers may not manipulate justice to support their political campaigns.

Here’s how you can do it:

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.

The fact that Riley is supporting another organisation’s hate campaign, rather than launching legal proceedings herself, suggests that she has less of a taste for litigation than before. Perhaps it is not going as well as she originally expected.

Your contribution could help finish off her court claims – for good.

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

Riley libel: she consents to Mike’s amended defence but claims he’s misleading over delays

The High Court in London: by the time Mike’s case gets there, Covid-19 restrictions will have been lifted, it seems. At least that removes one form of pressure!

Even in accepting elements of this case, Rachel Riley manages to be graceless.

Her solicitor has accepted the amendments to my defence against her libel claim – no, it doesn’t mean I’ve won; it simply means she won’t try to stop me putting forward my points at trial.

But the letter from Patron Law suggests that this is being done to prevent me from continuing “misleading his followers and supporters that our client has somehow delayed matters in order to avoid a trial of these issues”.

It is nearly two and a half years since Riley filed her libel claim against me and if I had had my way, the case would have gone to trial long ago. I haven’t caused any delays.

Even now, Riley is quibbling: she reckons I am repeating my Truth and Honest Opinion defences that were dismissed by a High Court judge. In fact, I will rely on factual evidence that was quoted in those defences, and will show how that material brought me to particular conclusions about the events of the case.

She intends to make submissions about it at the trial, which I expect a judge to hear politely before batting them away without a second thought – as has happened previously with other submissions she has made.

My opinion – to which I am entirely entitled, I remind everybody reading – is that this will be an attempt to drag out the hearings, and therefore the costs associated with them.

Even when denying that she’s trying to artificially lengthen the case, that’s exactly what Riley tries to do.

Or so it seems to me.

In practical terms, this means the case can move forward to trial – at long last!

In turn, this means I must make another appeal for funds. As I understand it, everything raised so far has been spent fighting off Riley’s previous applications – whether she accepts that they were time-wasting money-drainers or not – so in real terms, I’m back at square one.

So, please:

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.

The pressure is likely to ramp up and up from now until the end.

So far, I’ve been extremely fortunate in having your support, for which I am enormously grateful.

Now we’re coming to the last lap, the home stretch, the endgame or whatever other sporting or narrative term you wish to use for it.

I’ll have a lot of things to think about over the next few months.

Please help me make sure money isn’t one of them.

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

As Riley libel trial approaches, Mike needs your help more than ever

It has been hard work, but This Writer’s amended defence against Rachel Riley’s ever-ridiculous accusation that I libelled her has been completed and I am ready to take the matter to court for trial.

I don’t think it will be giving away much if I tell you that I’m saying my article is on the following matters of public interest:

  • Online bullying and harassment including death threats.
  • The  power of an adult celebrity compared to the relative powerlessness of a vulnerable child suffering anxiety.
  • Mental health.
  • Anti-Semitism.
  • The public conduct  of  Rachel Riley, a prominent public figure and, in particular, statements she had made or caused to be made publicly in national print and     broadcast media and on Twitter.

I don’t think there is any doubt that the article did focus on these issues. Riley’s advocates will try to argue that I did not have reason to say what I did, with regard to them.

And now we begin the run-up to the trial itself, which is likely to take several days, when it happens, and will therefore cost tens of thousands of pounds. I don’t know how much yet because it depends on the amount of fuss Riley is likely to kick up beforehand.

Let’s all bear in mind the fact that this matter was delayed by a year because Riley decided she wanted to try to strike out all my defences – and failed.

She’ll still want to find ways of delaying a trial because, as far as I can tell, she still thinks her best (only?) chance to win is by depriving me of the funds I need to pay for my defence.

So far, she has been proved entirely mistaken in that belief, too.

But now the pressure is really on and I must rely on you to give as much as you can, as often as you can, until the case is finally closed:

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.

Please, please, please tell as many people as you can about this case, and encourage them to contribute too.

I’ll endeavour to post at least one update per week – more if event warrant them.

The current situation is that I have submitted my amended defence to Riley’s legal team, who may object if they so wish. If they do, I’ll take action to handle it.

Then… well, we’ll see what happens then, won’t we?

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

Is Mike facing cruel & unusual treatment for daring to seek justice while poor?

Money: it seems this is what matters to Rachel Riley and her lawyers – filthy lucre. Their latest move is yet another attempt to make justice too expensive for me; to claim that I do not deserve the protection of the law, because I am poor.

It seems my earlier claim that time is running out was more accurate than even I thought.

The judge who presided over Rachel Riley’s application to strike out my defence against her libel claim – Mrs Justice Collins Rice – is minded to allow Riley’s costs order in full. This is for an amazing sum of more than £27,000.

Allow me to explain why this is amazing:

Her solicitor Mark Lewis’s costs have been allowed at City rates – which is “unreasonable and disproportionate” according to a long-standing principle in defamation cases.

This states that “City rates for City solicitors are recoverable where the City solicitor is undertaking City work, which is normally heavy commercial or corporate work. Defamation is not in that category, and, particularly given the reduction in damages awards for libel, is never likely to be.  A City firm which undertakes work, which could be competently handled by a number of Central London solicitors, is acting unreasonably and disproportionately if it seeks to charge City rates”.

The Civil Justice Council expressly restated that rule in a report on solicitors’ hourly rates it published only last month.

Allowing Lewis to charge £500 per hour – which is what the judge seems minded to do – is a significant departure from the recommendation and it seems there is no extraordinary circumstance that justifies it.

Furthermore, despite the costs order not having been handed down yet, and the fact that such orders are usually payable within 14 days, Riley’s solicitor intends to enforce it within eight days – by February 9, which happens to be the day before the deadline for me to appeal against the strike-out ruling. Coincidence?

I’m told I have reasonably good prospects of resisting the costs enforcement. And I am considering the unusual step of appealing against the costs order.

But doesn’t this strike you as extremely cruel and unusual treatment, prompted by Riley’s people?

It seems to me that Riley’s legal team have tried to arrange matters so that I have to pay far more than a “reasonable” amount in costs – before I can lodge my appeal against the judgment that means I have to pay any costs at all – in order (yet again) to price me out of justice.

What a nasty, underhanded ploy. One might even consider it to be psychological warfare.

I will do what I can to fight this. If you are as disgusted by this as I am – as any right-thinking person should be – then please help in the way we have established:

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.

If this is the way Riley’s employees behave, what does it say about the character of the person who has hired them?

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