Tag Archives: denier

Riley attacks Jewish poet Rosen as anti-Semite Holocaust denier – weeks after he published book on the Holocaust

Michael Rosen: He’s Jewish, and it seems Rachel Riley has accused him of Holocaust denial after he wrote a book about the relatives he lost in that event. Think about it.

Countdown co-host Rachel Riley is continuing her private little war against anyone she doesn’t like: now she has attacked poet (and former children’s laureate) Michael Rosen as a Holocaust denier, months after he published a book about the family he lost in it.

Also attacked was film director Ken Loach – not for the first time.

It arises from a tweet by anti-racism organisation Show Racism the Red Card:

Dave Rich, head of policy at Community Security Trust and an Associate at the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, then tweeted:

Ms Riley’s accusation came as a response to Mr Rich – and seems to have mysteriously disappeared from Twitter!

Fortunately, we have a screenshot, provided in response to Mr Rosen’s request for evidence:

“The supposed anti-racist football charity #ShowRacismTheRedCard yet again unashamedly promotes deniers/proponents of anti-Jewish racism,” her tweet stated, casually tarring Show Racism the Red Card as fellow-travellers with racists. That organisation should take action over this slur.

“I hope schools don’t touch this competition with a barge pole.”

But Ms Riley’s view is not shared by all Jews. Take representative group Jewdas, for example:

This is true, as the Telegraph clarifies, saying he wrote The Missing (published on December 12 – nearly two months ago, rather than the days suggested by Jewdas) after talking to a teenage Holocaust denier:

We are discussing his latest book, The Missing, an account of his European relatives who vanished during the Holocaust. ‘I was face to face with one of the most virulent forms of anti-Semitism,’ he says, with a long stare. 

The idea for the book was buried in Rosen’s head for decades, as a series of questions he had been asking about his paternal great-uncles, Oscar and Martin, who existed before the Second World War – then vanished from collective memory.

“’I was doing it for the family and for my own stubborn mentality,’ says Rosen, 73.”

Members of the public have supported this view:

But many others, apparently influenced by Ms Riley, now seem to believe in her “Holocaust denier” narrative.

Why did she delete her tweet? Is it possible that she realised she had gone too far and that, unlike some of us, Mr Rosen has the funds to hold her to account for such false claims?

I don’t know – but I do know that this won’t stop her publishing such falsehoods.

It seems clear that this person will continue to make questionably-motivated attacks on innocent people until she is stopped – in court if necessary.

And of course there is a court case already underway – that she launched – that could put a stop to these antics. I refer to her libel action against me.

It was because I stood up for a teenage girl with anxiety issues who Ms Riley had attacked online that she launched proceedings against me. Again, the association was with anti-Semitism.

So allow me to repeat my appeal: if you want to see an end to this nonsense from a so-called TV celebrity who should know better, please support the CrowdJustice appeal for the funds I need to bring the case against me to court and to defeat her claims.

Such a loss would be a serious financial – and personal – setback for her. It is unlikely that Ms Riley would be able to present such questionable views to the public afterwards and expect a sympathetic reception.

So here’s how you can help:

Please consider making a donation via the CrowdJustice page.

Also (or alternatively), 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.

This is a witch-hunt. It will continue as long as privileged people like Ms Riley are allowed to go unchallenged when they attack people, simply for having views that she doesn’t like.

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

Humiliation for two more newspapers that falsely accused Vox Political of anti-Semitism

The Sun and The Express have joined the growing ranks of newspapers that have been ordered to publish a “clarification” after falsely accusing me of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

Press regulator IPSO published the rulings against those publications on January 3.

So now, with one ruling left to be published the score stands as follows: Vox Political – 4, libellous newspapers – 0.

The full ruling against The Sun can be found here. It has been ordered to publish a clarification as follows:

“A previous version of this article reported that Mr Sivier had said it was “not a big problem” if Jews were taken off a list of Holocaust survivors. He has contacted us to say that he was in fact referring to anti-Semitism in the Labour Party as not being a “big problem”. The article also reported that he said he did not know whether thousands or millions of people died in the Holocaust; he assures us this comment referred to him not knowing why the SWP had referred to “thousands” of victims on a pamphlet it had prepared, and that he accepts that around 17 million people died.”

There’s a lot wrong with it – the main issue being that it’s not a matter of me saying the newspaper was inaccurate; the factual evidence proves it was wrong.

The ruling against The Express is here. That publication must publish this clarification:

“Mr Sivier has contacted us to point out that his statement “I’m not going to comment” had been made in reference to not knowing whether the SWP had referred to “thousands” rather than “millions” of Holocaust victims on a flyer, and was not a reference to his own beliefs about the number of victims of the Holocaust. He also says that his reference to there not being a “big problem” was made in relation to the general issue of anti-Semitism on the left and not in reference to the specific issue of omitting Jews from the list of Holocaust survivors, as the SWP was alleged to have done on the flyer. Mr Sivier denies making any comments that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic and we are happy to make this position clear.”

Again, the fact show that this isn’t about what I said or denied; it’s about the facts of the matter which the Express ignored.

IPSO’s ruling also fails, in both cases, on a major point, referring to a comment by the late Tam Dalyell that Tony Blair, as prime minister, had been “unduly influenced” by “a cabal of Jewish advisors”. This had been raised by a commenter on this website, who put it forward as an example of left-wing anti-Semitism and demanded that I provide an opinion on it. In response, I stated that it was impossible to do so, as the commenter had provided no background information to either corroborate or disprove the claim. Therefore, “(without further information) concerns that Tony Blair was being ‘unduly influenced’ by ‘a cabal of Jewish advisors’ may have been entirely justified.”

IPSO’s adjudicators, in their ruling, stated that “The complainant said that he had not intended to suggest that this was accurate, but that it might theoretically be accurate.” This is a straightforward lie.

I have written to IPSO on many occasions pointing out the correct meaning of my words, despite the fact that it is self-evident to anybody who reads them. I wrote: “I said that a person hearing such a claim may have been entirely justified to be concerned – unless or until they had further information to corroborate or disprove it.”

There is no way this can be interpreted as me saying Mr Dalyell’s words “might theoretically be accurate” and IPSO’s adjudicators, being in full possession of the wealth of information I have provided to them, must have known this. Therefore they deliberately lied in their ruling.

There is one adjudication left outstanding – regarding The Sunday Times, the first newspaper to publish the false claims about me. I have made the facts of this matter clear, so it will be interesting to see whether the ruling changes in that case.

But I am also aware of the passage of time. Libel cases may not be initiated more than 12 months after publication of the words that form the basis of the complaint. As I mention above, those words were published on February 4 or 5 last year, and it is January 5 at the time of writing. I wonder whether IPSO has been deliberately running down the clock to make it impossible for me to take these newspapers to court.

Such court action would also have to prove that I have suffered serious harm – in this case, financial harm – due to the damage to my reputation. This would be difficult to prove as my income from This Site has always been low. In addition, the number of people visiting Vox Political skyrocketed after I started reporting that IPSO had adjudicated in my favour – first against The Mail and then against the Jewish Chronicle. So it could be argued that the IPSO rulings have achieved my aim and turned public opinion back to my favour. It could even be argued that I have benefited from this affair. It would be a twisted argument, but that’s British litigation for you.

It now seems unlikely in the extreme that anybody genuinely believes me to be an anti-Semite, or to harbour any ill-feeling toward Jewish people based on their religion or ethnicity. Anybody professing such a belief is likely to be doing it for political purposes.

That being said, I will consult my legal advisors on possible action against IPSO if it persists in the lie, and I will continue raising funds to fight false claims of anti-Semitism against me. I may also consider using these funds to help other people who have also been falsely accused. These lies harm the fight against genuine anti-Semitism (which is increasing), and it is important to identify the perpetrators of these false complaints.

There are also other cases that I need to bring to court in the very near future. I’ll say more about that in a future article.

So these are important victories, and the failings of the adjudication won’t make any real difference. They support the fight against false accusations of anti-Semitism. And you can help that fight by contributing to my crowdfunding campaign – the details are directly below.

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


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Mail goes Back To The Future with latest smear against Jeremy Corbyn


This is priceless.

Now the Mail is accusing Jeremy Corbyn of having given a speech at the wedding of a Holocaust denier.

The only problem is, the wedding happened in 2010 and Husam Zumlot’s claim that the Nazi Holocaust in Europe was fabricated by Jewish people was not made until 2014, four years later.

How was Mr Corbyn supposed to know?

Does Mail deputy political editor Glen Owen think Mr Corbyn is also a personal friend of Marty McFly and Dr Emmett Brown, and they gave him access to their time-travelling DeLorean?

Do that rag’s editors think he has personal access to the Tardis?

Perhaps they think he has a working crystal ball?

Are they deranged enough to believe that either of those time machines are real?

I doubt it. But here it is, in black and white:

Jeremy Corbyn was embroiled in a fresh anti-Semitism row last night after it was revealed that he gave a wedding speech for an alleged Holocaust ‘denier’.

Jeremy Corbyn spoke at alleged Holocaust ‘denier’ Husam Zomlot’s wedding, five years before the MP became Labour leader.

Mr Zomlot, 44, told the BBC in 2014: ‘They [Israel] are fabricating all these stories about beheading journalists in Iraq… as if they are fabricating also the story of the Holocaust, that it happened in Europe.’

Mr Corbyn became Labour leader in 2015. Five years before that was 2010, and the offensive comment was made in 2014.

He could not possibly have known that Mr Zomlot was going to say such a thing.

But I bet the usual suspects are lining up to make fools of themselves by pushing this lie as strongly as all the other smears.

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


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Press regulator rules Jewish Chronicle WRONG to have called Vox Political writer ‘Holocaust denier’

What was it the Jewish Chronicle was saying about the Labour Party being an “existential threat” to Jewish people?

From a purely objective viewpoint (of course), it seems clear that the main threat to Jewish people is coming from rags like the Chronicle, making false claims about perfectly decent people like me.

It stirs up distrust in the community, you see.

And people like Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard should not be allowed to get away with it. This is why I am raising funds to take those who have libelled me to court, so a financial penalty can be imposed on them that is of equal weight to the damage they have caused. Regular readers of This Site will be aware of the existence of my JustGiving page, and I apologise for having to keep mentioning it, but if you have contributed already, please consider making a further donation, or ask a friend to do so.

The Jewish Chronicle had accused me of Holocaust denial, following up on an article in another newspaper (on which judgement is pending). I took the matter to the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which announced a ruling. This happened two weeks ago, but I had to wait for the all-clear to mention the fact. Here it is:

The complainant said that it was inaccurate for the article to say that he had said he “could not
comment” on whether thousands or millions of Jews died in the Holocaust because he ‘didn’t
know’. A commenter on the website had been listing incidents of anti-Semitism on the Left, and
had referred to a leaflet which he said omitted Jews from a list of Holocaust survivors, and put
the number of deaths from the Holocaust at thousands, rather than millions. In response to a
comment about the leaflet, the complainant had said “I’m not going to comment on ‘thousands’
instead of ‘millions’ because I don’t know, but the Nazi holocaust involved many other groups
as well as Jews, and it seems likely that the SWP was simply being ‘politically correct’”. He said
he was referring to not knowing why the leaflet made this claim, rather than to not knowing the
number of Jews who died.

The publication denied that the article was inaccurate. In respect of the ‘thousands or millions’
claim, its interpretation of the comments thread was plausible, and there was no significantly
inaccuracy.

The complainant had not expressly said that he “could not comment on whether thousands or
millions of Jews died in the Holocaust”. There was no reference in the discussion surrounding the
leaflet to “whether thousands or millions of Jews died in the Holocaust”, because the leaflet had
explicitly not referred to Jews among the victims of the Holocaust. The publication was entitled to
give its own interpretation of what the complainant had meant by his comments. However, the
article did not make clear that it was reporting the publication’s interpretation of the
complainant’s comments. This represented a failure to take care, in breach of Clause 1(i). The
article gave the impression that the complainant had said something which he had not, on a
subject liable to cause widespread offence.

As with MailOnline previously, IPSO has let me down as far as punishment is concerned.

The Jewish Chronicle gets off with a light slap on the wrist: “Having upheld the complaint… the Committee considered what remedial action should be required. The publication had offered a clarification which set out the complainant’s position in relation to the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust, and on the meaning of his comments. This clarification made the complainant’s position clear, and addressed the article’s misleading presentation of his comments. This was sufficient to meet the terms… and should now be published.”

A full clarification, admitting that the paper had misled readers and apologising to me, would have been more appropriate.

And there are other outstanding matters that will now require a court ruling – which is why I am appealing for funds.

But for now, the score stands thus: Vox Political – TWO        Libellous newspapers – NIL.

Please be sure to share this information far and wide.

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


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

One down: Press regulator rules against MailOnline in Vox Political ‘anti-Semitism’ case

This is a welcome victory.

But in the words of somebody much nastier than me: It is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it may well be the end of the beginning.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation has upheld my complaint against MailOnline, that it misrepresented me in an article accusing me of Holocaust denial and other examples of anti-Semitism.

It is the first adjudication among five complaints against news organisations that made similar allegations against me on or around February 4. You’ll see the issues when you read the full adjudication below. IPSO was supposed to publish it on the organisation’s website last Thursday but, for some unaccountable reason, this has not happened. As I have assurances that it is not being challenged, I’m going ahead and publishing it here.

The ruling regarding the alleged statement about a “cabal of Jewish advisors” to Tony Blair is wrong; I did not suggest that anyone could be justified in suggesting that Mr Blair was influenced in such a way – I stated that anyone hearing such a claim could be justified in being concerned about it, at least until they were presented with the evidence on the matter. There is, therefore, a world of difference between what MailOnline – and now IPSO – attributed to me and the fact of the matter, and claims that the publication’s interpretation of my words is reasonable are false. I will have to pursue this in the courts.

The punishment is completely inappropriate. Ordering MailOnline to do something it had already offered to do – and which I had rejected because it was not enough – is frankly pathetic. MailOnline has been found to have been inaccurate in its reporting of me and should be forced to admit that it was wrong and apologise.

IPSO’s view is that “the Committee decided that the footnote clarification was sufficient on this occasion… [and] there is no requirement for MailOnline to publish the decision; it will be published on our website. Again, were the Committee to have considered that the breach of the Code was such that [publication of] an adjudication was required, the publication would have been required to publish this in a position determined by the Committee.” Weak.

The ruling in my favour over the false claim of Holocaust denial is very interesting, as the original allegation came from a leaked Labour Party report on me. Labour has raised several charges of anti-Semitism against me – among which, Holocaust denial is notable for its absence. But the Information Commissioner’s Office has ordered the party to provide me with all the information it holds about me, after it was found to have broken the law by failing to honour a Subject Access Request I sent out in February – so I will see the information that led to the news outlet’s claim (or I will know that Labour has not sent all the information required of it).

That will have a huge bearing on the outcome of Labour’s investigation. As the party has been caught lying about me, this casts a shadow over all its other claims.

But the main benefit to come from this will arise when I launch my court cases against the organisations that have lied about me but are not subject to IPSO regulation. Having a ruling in my favour here will weigh heavily against my opponents in that arena.

But I need the funds to be able to do that, which is why I have a JustGiving page dedicated to that purpose.

If you want to help put an end to frivolous, lying accusations of anti-Semitism, please visit the page at https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/mike-sivier and donate some cash. I’m hoping to raise £25,000 and have a long way to go.

Here’s the IPSO adjudication:

Decision of the Complaints Committee – 02821-18 Sivier v MailOnline
Summary of Complaint
1. Mike Sivier complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that MailOnline breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Journalist accused of anti-Semitism and ex Militant member among the far-left activists who have been let back into Labour after Corbynistas tightened their grip on the party”, published on 4 February 2018.
2. The article reported on “secret documents” seen by a different publication, which showed that the Labour Party had allowed “far left activists” back into the party. It said that the complainant was being given back his membership after being “expelled…over claims he had posted anti-Semitic abuse online”. The article said that the complainant “reportedly said it ‘may be entirely justified’ to say Tony Blair had been ‘unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers’”, and that he also “said he was ‘not pretending it was a big problem’ if Jews were omitted from a list of Holocaust survivors”. It went on to say that, according to the other publication, the complainant “claimed ‘I’m not going to comment’ on whether thousands or millions of Jews died in the Holocaust as ‘I don’t know’”.
3. The complainant said that he had not been “expelled” from the Labour Party: he had been suspended while an investigation was carried out into allegations that he had posted material which might be interpreted as anti-Semitic – not for posting “abuse”. He said that another commenter on his website had stated that a Labour politician had said that Tony Blair was “unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers”. He said that, without further context, it was impossible to analyse this claim; he had replied saying “I would point out that (without further information) concerns that Tony Blair was being ‘unduly influenced’ by a ‘cabal of Jewish advisers’ may have been entirely justified”.
4. The complainant said that the other comments reported had been distorted by being removed from their context, and denied that they were anti-Semitic. A commenter on the website had been listing incidents of anti-Semitism on the Left, and had referred to a leaflet which he said omitted Jews from a list of Holocaust survivors, and put the number of deaths from the Holocaust at thousands, rather than millions. The complainant denied having said that he didn’t know whether thousands or millions of Jews died in the Holocaust. Rather, in response to a comment about the leaflet, he had said “I’m not going to comment on ‘thousands’ instead of ‘millions’ because I don’t know,
but the Nazi holocaust involved many other groups as well as Jews, and it seems likely that the SWP was simply being ‘politically correct’”. He said he was referring to not knowing whether the leaflet made this claim, rather than to not knowing the number of Jews who died. He had gone on to say “Nobody has said anti-Semitism on the left doesn’t exist…But it isn’t organised and is mostly the work of aberrant individuals”. The commenter had then accused the complainant of “pretending that there isn’t a problem”. The complainant had replied “I’m not pretending there isn’t a problem, I’m just not pretending it’s a big problem”. His comment that he was “not pretending it was a big problem” had been referring to the problem of anti-Semitism on the Left in general, and not to the omission of Jews from the list.
5. The publication denied that the use of the word “expelled” was significantly misleading; the article did not suggest that the complainant had been permanently removed from the party, as its entire premise was that he and others had been readmitted. It nevertheless removed this word from the article and substituted the word “suspended” in its place. It also denied that the term “abuse” was misleading since the allegations related to the posting of content which might be interpreted as anti-Semitic. In addition, the publication said that it had accurately reported the complainant’s comments in relation to the “cabal of Jewish advisers”.
6. The publication said that the article was entirely accurate in reporting the complainant’s other comments; the interpretation that had been made of the comments was reasonable. It acknowledged that the complainant may have a different interpretation of the comments, and offered to publish a footnote clarification as follows:
Since first publication Mr Sivier has contacted us and asked us to point out that his refusal to comment on the issue of why the SWP flyer referred to “thousands” rather than “millions” was a reference to the choice of wording by the SWP on their flyer and not a reference to the number of victims of the Holocaust. He also says that the reference to there not being a “big problem” was directed to the general issue of anti-Semitism on the left and not the specific issue of omitting Jews from the list of Holocaust survivors. Mr Sivier denies making any comments that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic and we are happy to make his position clear.
It also offered to publish a standalone clarification on its website as follows:
An article on 4 February entitled “Journalist accused of anti-Semitism and an ex Militant member among the far-left activists who have been let back into
Labour after Corbynistas tightened their grip on the party” reported on allegedly anti-Semitic comments made by mike Sivier. We now understand that Mr Sivier denies that these comments could be interpreted as anti-Semitic and we are happy make his position clear.
7. The complainant denied that the article contained a reasonable interpretation of his comments. In reference to the claim regarding the number of Holocaust victims, his original comment had made clear, through the use of quotation marks, that he was referring to the use of the words in the leaflet, rather than to his own beliefs. The commenter had said that the complainant was “defending the indefensible, and pretending that there isn’t a problem” with anti-Semitism on the Left, and it was in response to this that he had said “I’m not pretending there isn’t a problem, though. I’m simply not pretending it’s a big problem”.
Relevant Code Provisions
Clause 1 (Accuracy) i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text. ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator. iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for. iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Findings of the Committee
8. The Committee noted that the article had reported claims about the complainant which had previously been published elsewhere, and had presented them in this light. However, the comments which the article reported on were publicly available, and the publication was responsible for reporting them accurately.
9. The article had originally stated that the complainant had been “expelled” by the party. The Committee acknowledged that, read alone, this might suggest that he had been permanently barred. However, the sub-headline indicated that he had been ‘suspended’, and the article made clear that he was eligible to be readmitted; indeed, this was the premise of the article. In these
circumstances, stating that he had been “expelled” was not significantly misleading, and there was no failure to take care over this claim. Similarly, it was not misleading for the article to say that the complainant had been expelled “over claims” of “abuse”: the suspension had related to allegations of anti-Semitic comments made online, which the publication was entitled to characterise as “abuse” when the basis for this was made clear. In addition, the newspaper had not stated as fact that he had in fact engaged in “abuse”, but had stated that he was suspended “over claims” of such behaviour. There was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.
10. In response to a commenter referring to comments by a Labour politician stating that Tony Blair was “unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers”, the complainant had written “(without further information) concerns that Tony Blair was being ‘unduly influenced’ by ‘a cabal of Jewish advisors’ may have been entirely justified.” This comment was accurately reported by the publication, and it was entitled to rely on the words the complainant had used. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.
11. The complainant had not directly said that he was “’not going to comment’ on whether thousands or millions of Jews died in the Holocaust as ‘I don’t know’”. There was no reference in the discussion surrounding the leaflet to “whether thousands or millions of Jews died in the Holocaust”, because the leaflet had explicitly not referred to Jews among the victims of the Holocaust. The publication may have inferred this meaning from the complainant’s comments, but it reported this as something he had said. The article did not make clear that it was reporting the publication’s interpretation of the complainant’s comments; they were presented as direct quotations. Because the comment thread was publicly available, this represented a failure to take care, in breach of Clause 1(i). The article gave the impression that the complainant had said something which he had not, on a subject liable to cause widespread offence, a clarification was required to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii).
12. As set out above, the complainant had suggested that omitting Jews from a list of Holocaust survivors in a leaflet may have been for “’politically correct’” reasons. However, he had not explicitly stated that omitting Jews from the list was “not a big problem”, as the article said Claiming that the complainant had said this, when his comments were publicly available, his represented a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, in breach of Clause 1(i). Because the article gave the misleading impression that the complainant had made a claim that he had not made, it required clarification to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii).
13. The footnote clarification addressed the two inaccuracies identified in the article, and made clear the complainant’s position with respect to these two points. It was therefore sufficient to address the inaccuracy and avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii). The Committee welcomed the offer of a standalone clarification; however, the footnote correction was sufficient to address the inaccuracies in the article, and the Committee did not require a standalone correction in this instance.
Conclusions
14. The complaint was upheld under Clause 1(i).
Remedial action required
15. The publication had offered a footnote clarification which set out the complainant’s position in relation to his comments. This clarification addressed the inaccuracies within the article, and was sufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1(ii). It should now be published.

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


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

How can activists against anti-Semitism not be ashamed by this campaign of online HATE?

It’s now nearly four days since the Sunday Times and its reporter Gabriel Pogrund published a cocktail of cobbled-together nonsense accusing me of Holocaust denial, and it seems the national media are just starting to realise that I’m not putting up with it.

Mr Pogrund’s screed prompted a feeding frenzy among the right-wing press, many of whom probably thought Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party had offered them an open goal. Big mistake.

Libel is a serious matter, and falsely accusing a person of Holocaust denial is one of its most serious forms. All the offenders have received my demand for an apology, correction and retraction. Some have responded – inadequately – and have been told to think again. I’m still waiting for a response from others – but I won’t wait forever.

One of the reasons I’m not prepared to wait very long can be found on my Twitter feed (@MidWalesMike), which has received a phenomenal amount of hatred from people of all walks of life – few of whom seem willing to read my side of the story, or to accept that there might be a sliver of truth in it (what with it containing the actual dialogues on which the allegations against me are supposedly based, and all).

I thought it might be worthwhile to show you some of the abuse I’ve been receiving. Even the worst of what follows is mild in comparison to some. The most rabid of my haters either delete their tweets to keep from being exposed, or have blocked me. In some cases, I have blocked them. It will be interesting to see whether any of those published below are deleted after being shown here.

But you should get a flavour from the following, none of which contain anything approaching rational discourse:

https://twitter.com/ExSpAd/status/960047297492025344

https://twitter.com/Dickens9121/status/960972996444917767

https://twitter.com/engrugger9/status/960251340726382598

https://twitter.com/KenAidel/status/960187585887899650

This is only part of the story on Twitter, I should add. I remain overwhelmed by the number of people who have rallied to my side – especially those who have donated to This Site using the box below to show their support (although I am just as grateful to those who can only show moral support by speaking up in my favour).

If I don’t hear anything new from the offending newspapers and TV channel tomorrow, I’ll dig out the tweets by people who may be considered to be more high-profile.

I wonder how many of those will have been deleted by the time I try to retrieve them?


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

Newspapers respond to demands for apologies over #antisemitism libels

My first newspaper editor once told me, “Mike, don’t quote from other newspapers. It’s always best to check the facts yourself.”

That’s good advice, as the papers who blindly repeated the phenomenal Sunday Times ‘Holocaust denial’ libel against me are starting to find out.

I mentioned in a previous article that I spent an evening contacting the editors of the various journals and pointing out the fact that they have very clearly printed lies. They seem to have become very uncomfortable about it.

I had an acknowledgement from the Sunday Times. Letters (!) editor Stephen Bleach responded: “Thanks for your email concerning Gabriel Pogrund’s article. We will carefully consider your points and I will come back to you in due course.” Fair enough. It means that – probably right now – highly-paid people working for the Murdoch paper are trying to find holes in my argument.

Good luck with that, guys. Facts are facts.

And if you’re a new reader thinking that the papers actually published the facts, read this.

Now that everybody reading this knows what’s been said about me and why it isn’t true, let’s consider the response from the Israel National News. I sent that particular publication the facts and it published them in a new article:

“UK Labour activist Mike Sivier clarifies comments he made on his website that led to his suspension from Labour party,” the article states. No, I didn’t. The suspension of my membership of the Labour Party arose from comments made on the Campaign Against Antisemitism’s website, not mine. So I’ve had to write again, pointing out that they haven’t apologised, haven’t corrected their original article, and haven’t retracted it – and I’m going to have to seek legal advice on my next steps if they don’t.

Think that’s bad? Check out the following email from Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle:

“Having re read the piece, in the contect of your email, I accept that the reference to your book may be inaccurate. We will change that.

“I also see that there may new context to the Holocaust denial allegation – although it is of course correct that this is one reason you have been suspended, even if you dispute the basis for the suspenstion.

“I will have the piece changed to include your own explanation.

“I see no reason to change the words describing your comments about Tam Dalyell’s statement.”

Not good enough. I didn’t request changes; I requested an apology because this so-called newspaper printed lies about me. The online version is still printing lies about me.

So I responded:

“Thank you for your prompt response to my email. I am afraid it is unacceptable.

“Your article claims that I have done things that I have not done – as I have demonstrated by showing you exactly what was done. You must apologise, print a correction, and retract the piece – or I will be seeking legal advice on the next steps I must take.

“The reason you must retract the words describing my comments about Tam Dalyell’s statement is that they are misleading. Without pointing out that I said it could cause people concern to hear such a statement without further information, you are changing the meaning of my words.

“Allow me to remind you that defamation is a very serious matter, and falsely suggesting that a person is a Holocaust denier is one of its most serious forms. The fact that this libel appears in a publication entitled the Jewish Chronicle compounds the seriousness of it still further.

“Let me know where I can find your apology, correction and retraction.”

Of course, The Sun appears to be irredeemable. After I complained about one article, it published another with the same claims.

So it seems there may be a big lawsuit on the way. I’m already researching how to crowdfund for legal advice. In the meantime, I’m extremely grateful to those of you who have made donations since the Sunday Times dropped its little spite bomb.

If any of you haven’t donated and want to – or if any of you want to donate again, the ‘donate’ box is below the text of the article. I’ll publicise details of any crowdfunding plan as they become clear.

The amount of support I have received from friends, readers of This Site – and a large number of people who don’t know me at all but sympathise with my situation – has been phenomenal.


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

Suspended by the Labour Party again – but this is a GOOD thing

Oh yes it is.

It seems unlikely that anybody who reads a newspaper or watches TV can have missed the fact that This Writer has been libelled left, right and centre by the mainstream media, with claims of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

They have used an article by the Campaign Against Antisemitism, that is nothing more than hate literature, to support their claims – but there is one serious problem: None of the allegations against me that appear in the article are true. It is a mishmash of doctored quotes, comments attributed to me that are in fact by other people, and words taken out of context.

The trigger for the current round of outrage is the publication of “leaked” Labour Party documents that showed I had been readmitted into the party after my membership was suspended last year (on suspicion of having published material which could be inerpreted as anti-Semitic, after someone sent the CAA article to Labour HQ). I find this very strange, as I reported the decision to readmit me when it happened – along with my reasons for rejecting the terms.

(The idea was to give me a warning and require me to go for “training” with the Jewish Labour Movement. If I were to accept those terms, I would be admitting guilt – and I’m innocent of any wrongdoing in this respect.)

So far, the following newspapers have falsely accused me of Holocaust denial – with absolutely no evidence to support them: The Sunday Times, The Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Jewish Chronicle, Israel National News, Jerusalem Post. Robert Peston falsely accused me in his TV show Peston on Sunday. I’ve just spent a merry evening writing complaints to all of them.

The Metro at least had the decency to say that I was facing allegations – admitting that nothing has been proved.

Particularly disappointing is the number of Labour MPs who have lined up to condemn me on the basis of nothing at all, including: John Mann, Wes Streeting, Gareth Snell, Anna Turley… If you know of any more, feel free to send your evidence in to the comment column.

In the midst of all this sound and fury today, I received an email from the Labour Party. It stated:

Notice of administrative suspension from holding office or representing the Labour Party

We acknowledge receipt of your email of 19 January 2018. In this email you reject the training, which
the NEC Disputes Panel on 16 January 2018 decided was a necessary condition of your membership.

In light of your refusal to comply with the requirements of the panel you have been automatically
placed under administrative suspension from Party membership and your case has been referred to a
hearing of the National Constitutional Committee (NCC) under rule6.I.1.A of the Labour Party Rule
Book:

“In relation to any alleged breach of the constitution, rules or standing orders of the Party by an individual member or members of the Party, the NEC may, pending the final outcome of any investigations and charges (if any), suspend that individual […] the NEC may instruct the General Secretary or other national officer to formulate charges against the individual or individuals concerned and present such charges to the NCC for determination in accordance with their rules”.

If you have any questions, please find enclosed appendix 6 of the Labour Party Rule Book which
explains the procedural guidelines in disciplinary cases brought before the NCC.

The Secretary of the NCC will be in touch in due course to arrange the hearing.

I can’t wait.

A hearing means I will be able to see the evidence against me, find out who my accuser actually is, and present evidence in my own support – at last.

You see, Labour’s disputes process means the actual defendant doesn’t actually get to see any of the evidence against them until they are at the point of being expelled – at a hearing by the National Constitutional Committee. Does anybody think that’s right?

After my membership was suspended in May last year, I was made to wait nearly six months until being called to an interview with a party officer. I was invited to bring a witness, documentary evidence and a list of any other people who could provide useful information. I don’t know why I bothered because my contacts went uncontacted, my documents went in the bin and my witness – I thought the point of having a witness was to ensure fair treatment, but she has never been offered the chance to ensure that the contents of the officer’s report tallied with what was said at the meeting. What was the point of her presence?

After the interview, I had to wait until the NEC’s disputes panel met in January to discuss my case. I was initially told, by the officer who interviewed me, that it would go straight to the NCC, but then my representative on that committee made the point that this was unconstitutional and they had to agree to put it on the disputes panel agenda. Someone in the Labour Party really wants to get rid of me, it seems.

It gets better. My case was left off the agenda of the disputes panel meeting in January, meaning those who were willing to speak for me were left rather unprepared when it was included after all, under “Any Other Business”. This treatment has been branded as “disgusting” – and not by me. It goes to show that someone really wants to get rid of me.

And in the end I was offered a warning and “training”. Perhaps that’s why the fake “leak” happened – so the party’s leaders would be forced to rethink their decision.

This seems likely. After all, I sent my email rejecting the disputes panel’s decision in mid-January, and the new suspension has only just happened – after the current controversy began. Doesn’t it all seem very suspicious to you?

Some have suggested that This Site has been attracting too much attention to events that are actually happening, in contrast to the distractions provided by the mainstream media, and that this is an attempt to poison minds against me.

If so, the move has failed. Views are up, and so are donations. Please keep them coming, via the “Donate” box below the text of this article!

The NCC meeting will not happen for at least six weeks after I receive delivery of all the evidence that will be used against me, so it won’t happen for a while yet.

We’ll have to see what happens then.

Whatever it is, it will be big.

UPDATE: Today (February 6) I found defamatory articles in The Times of Israel and the Huffington Post and have demanded apologies and retractions. Please let me know if you find any.


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

Holocaust denier dealt brutal put-down by Labour MP [WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE]

Jonathan Reynolds in Parliament.

I’m not sure I should even give this bonehead the time of day, but it’s a good story that makes an excellent point.

After Labour MP Jonathan Reynolds tweeted that he had written in the Holocaust book of remembrance, he received the following tweet from a Holocaust denier called Steve Steglitz:

https://twitter.com/steve_steglitz/status/957174884383248384

In case he deletes the tweet, he said: “You politicians are not doing your duty to the public. The Holocaust is one big lie. Time you put pressure on the media to do their job and start asking a few questions. But politicians and journalists are either owned or brainwashed themselves.”

The claim is highly-offensive nonsense of the kind that may conservatively be described as (and I’m sorry for the language but you’ll see the reason in a moment) bullshit.

Mr Reynolds made this clear in his put-down:

And, in case you think he didn’t mean it:


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook