Tag Archives: expel

Johnson threatens to remove Tory whip from MPs voting against his Brexit Bill. Deja vu?

Dominic Grieve: here’s a former Attorney General from whom Boris Johnson removed the Conservative whip. Now Geoffrey Cox is facing the same – along with any other Tory MPs who may defy Johnson’s plan to u-turn against his previous policy, breaking international law in the process.

It is indeed reminiscent of last year – but back then, Boris Johnson was trying to coerce his colleagues into voting to uphold his EU Withdrawal Agreement. Now he’s trying to coerce them into voting against it.

What a vacillating political vacuum he is.

He’s gambling on enough of the 2019 Parliamentary intake being so stupid that they think loyalty to their leader is more valuable than loyalty to the law. It isn’t.

The fact is that anybody voting to break international law will have a stain on their reputation for the rest of their life. It will seriously harm their career but Johnson won’t tell them that because he’s too busy forcing them to give him what he wants.

So when Downing Street does this…

… the correct response (and I’m amazed that I’m using this person to present the argument) is this:

I wonder how many of Johnson’s 363 MPs (he is the 364th) actually realise this?

The situation has created contradiction after contradiction:

Plus, of course, if he starts expelling his own MPs, Johnson will make his own position weaker; he won’t have as large a majority in the House of Commons and he will have betrayed the trust of his ministers and backbenchers, who may reasonably expect him to take account of their concerns rather than threatening them.

But in all honesty, it may be too much to ask for enough Tories to defy Johnson’s tyrannical whip.

It would need a minimum of 47 Tories to rebel, and I think they’re too easily-herded.

So this seems likely:

That’s only a stop-gap solution, of course. The Lords cannot stop a Bill becoming law – especially in the face of government with a large Commons majority.

But if they delay it, other developments may render it moot. Trade negotiations are ongoing, and so is the debate within the Conservative Party.

The result of the first vote – today, September 14 – may determine the pattern of future events.

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

Boris Johnson has committed contempt of Parliament and should be expelled

The two-fingered salute: that sign of contempt is all Boris Johnson has for you whenever he speaks.

Why is Boris Johnson still a member of Parliament?

There is an offence, here in the UK, known as Contempt of Parliament (I’ve mentioned it before). An MP is guilty of this if he or she deliberately misleads Parliament, and any MP accused of the offence may be suspended or expelled.

Our odious prime minister is a repeat offender. It is one thing to be “economical with the truth”, as the euphemism goes; it is entirely different to present known falsehoods to the House of Commons as though they were accurate.

Johnson’s latest wheeze involves repeatedly using inaccurate and misleading figures that exaggerated the government’s record on child poverty, in which he stated at Prime Minister’s Questions and in an interview with the BBC that poverty had declined since 2010, and there were now 400,000 fewer families in poverty.

There is no evidence to support the claim. This has been made clear by the Office for Statistics Regulation, whose representatives said that the prime minister had three times used official poverty data “selectively, inaccurately and, ultimately, misleadingly”.

This suggests very clearly that Johnson lied deliberately. This is a clear example of contempt of Parliament. Why has no action been taken against him?

The OSR added: “There is no wrong measure, but there is a wrong way of using the available measures – and that is to pick and choose which statistics to use based on what best suits the argument you happen to be making.”

The complaint, from Anna Feuchtwang, the chair of End Child Poverty, highlighted three occasions when Johnson made inaccurate claims on the government’s record on poverty.

At PMQs on 17 June, Johnson told the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, he was “completely wrong” to say child poverty had risen by 600,000. Poverty had declined since 2010, the PM claimed, and there were now 400,000 fewer families in poverty. Feuchtwang wrote that the 600,000 figure was correct.

When asked by Starmer at PMQs the following week to “do the decent thing” and correct the record on child poverty, Johnson declined and said there were “100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty and 500,000 children falling below thresholds of low income and material deprivation”.

Feuchtwang said that while the 100,000 figure was correct, the second figure was not: she pointed out that “there are actually 1.5 million children classed as low income and materially deprived”.

The third instance was when Johnson was interviewed by Andrew Marr on the BBC on 1 December during the general election campaign, when the PM claimed child poverty had fallen by 400,000 since 2010. Feuchtwang said that official statistics at the time showed the poverty rate had risen on two of the official measures, stayed the same on a third, and fallen by 100,000 on a fourth, suggesting it was unclear where Johnson had found the figure he cited.

It’s time for Johnson to put up or shut up. He must either admit that he lied to Parliament and to the people in order to justify his despicable treatment of the most vulnerable people in the country…

… or he must be expelled from Parliament like the disgrace that he is.

[Some of you may have noticed a similarity in the words above to an article I wrote about former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, seven years ago, when he was merrily lying to Parliament – also about poverty. This is deliberate. Tories have been lying to Parliament throughout the last 10 years of their rule – and getting away with it. They really do seem to be above the law and we should be demanding that this must change NOW.]

Source: Boris Johnson repeatedly used inaccurate child poverty figures | Boris Johnson | The Guardian

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

Whistleblowers’ bid to blackmail Labour into expelling Corbyn should come to nothing

Time for real change: Jeremy Corbyn’s only crime as Labour leader was failing to remove right-wing/’centrist’ treachery and backstabbing from the party. It stopped him winning the 2017 general election and allowed the hysteria over false anti-Semitism claims that have continued to this day. The sooner party members realise this and eject the cuckoo Keir Starmer, the better.

I use “blackmail” in the headline advisedly. This may very well be a criminal offence.

For those who are unaware, blackmail occurs when a person (or several) make a demand of another person (or indeed organisation), accompanied by the threat of a particular consequence if they don’t comply.

(For example, if a group of so-called anti-Semitism “whistleblowers” threaten the Labour Party with bankruptcy either fighting or settling legal claims, unless it expels Jeremy Corbyn.)

The intent must be to make a gain for someone (not necessarily themselves) – or a loss for someone (not necessarily their victim).

(For example, if Jeremy Corbyn loses his Labour Party membership.)

The demand must have been “unwarranted” – that is, it should not be possible to justify it reasonably, and its reinforcement with menaces should not be proper in the belief of the perpetrator.

(For example, if Jeremy Corbyn has not done anything to justify expulsion from the Labour Party – and he hasn’t – and if those making the threat are able to take legal advice showing that their demand is not proper – and they are.)

So, if the Mail‘s story is true, Labour should file a complaint of blackmail, with the police, against those people taking legal action against the party.

The party’s current leader, Keir Starmer – useless though he has been on anything relating to anti-Semitism accusations so far – should be aware of this, having been a Director of Public Prosecutions (and therefore a lawyer himself) prior to being a member of Parliament.

I note that the Mail states only that “sources close to some of the ex-party staffers” made the threat, so presumably the litigants themselves will be able to deny it.

Even if blackmail could not be proved – and I think there’s a strong case for it – the threat is unwise.

I refer you to this comment on Facebook which states: “The disloyal staffers who would be claimants in this action are claiming personal insult, hurt feelings and career damage. To make an alternative offer of accepting Jeremy Corbyn’s head on a plate would damage their case by giving the impression it was politically motivated.”

And of course they are doing their best to claim that their lawsuits are not motivated by political gain but by injury to themselves. If it could be proved that they are trying to harm left-wing influence in the Labour Party instead, then their cases would fall.

“Secondly, there is no point making such an offer if it would only pacify ‘some’ of the potential claimants.”

True – the party would still face the possibility of having to pay a fortune in compensation.

“If it satisfied them all, they would look like participants in a conspiracy to engineer a right-wing coup in their party, which is surely not the impression they would want to give.”

Again, they would be showing political motivation.

“And thirdly, Corbyn would have excellent grounds for appealing his expulsion.”

He would. If Starmer expelled him in order to avoid expensive litigation/compensation payouts, without charging him under any of the party’s disciplinary procedures, holding an investigation into those charges, and hearing the evidence at an NCC hearing – the very process other (innocent) members have had to undergo – then Starmer would have broken party rules and Labour would be vulnerable to a hugely-damaging lawsuit from Corbyn himself.

The result is that Keir Starmer is now in danger, no matter what he chooses to do.

And this is the man the Labour right – sorry, ‘centrists’ – said was the brilliant leader who would make the party electable again!

Needless to say, the situation has attracted serious amounts of scorn online:

Personally, This Writer’s favourite comment on the whole issue comes from Corbyn’s long-term friend and former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell:

Hear, hear!

Oh, and one more thing: My own court case against Labour is still set to take place on October 2.

If I win, then Labour will be vulnerable to further court action from me.

It has been suggested that Labour is in fact extremely vulnerable because members are leaving en masse, taking their subscription money with them. I’ve seen rumours that more than 300,000 – half the membership under Corbyn – have voted with their feet. So aggressive action from a party member who has suffered genuine wrongdoing over a period of years could be crippling.

I’ll have a much stronger case than these others and I won’t be inclined to be lenient.

Source: Labour anti-Semitism whistleblowers could drop legal action if it expels former leader Jeremy Corbyn | Daily Mail Online

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

Coronavirus delays former Labour member’s day in court

The arena: The lies Labour used to expel one member are to be exposed at Bristol Civil Justice Centre.

Remember the court case This Writer launched against the Labour Party, after I was expelled on a trumped-up anti-Semitism charge?

It was set for trial at Bristol Civil Justice Centre on May 26 – until the Covid-19 lockdown happened.

Obviously the lockdown won’t be lifted by next Tuesday, which is when May 26 actually falls, so the court got in touch with both myself and Labour’s solicitors to see if a telephone hearing or a hearing based on the papers alone could take place. We have agreed that they cannot.

So the case has been adjourned.

It has now been set down to be heard on October 2 this year, at Bristol Civil Justice Centre (Redcliff Street, Bristol), starting at 10am. I am happy for press and public to attend.

My case is that Labour faked evidence and then passed it to like-minded members of the press, in order to create a false impression that I was an anti-Semite. The party then used this as an excuse to expel me.

As I stated before:

The party breached its own disciplinary rules and regulations, and data protection procedures – in the process breaking the Data Protection Act – in its determination to expel a perfectly innocent member with one of the most abhorrent smears there can be.

But party leaders did not realise that they had laid themselves wide open to a legal challenge in the courts – over breach of contract.

The party is governed by its rule book and it broke those rules in its attack on me. I feel sure that other people will have been similarly wronged.

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

Starmer stumbles on anti-Semitism: will he kick out Corbyn & make Labour a haven for racists?

Bringing racism back to the Labour Party? Actress Frances Barber (here as the villainous Madame Kovarian in Doctor Who) has applied to rejoin the Labour Party. She has been accused of murderous prejudice against Muslims.

Keir Starmer’s hard line on anti-Semitism could make him the most unpopular leader in Labour Party history, haemorrhaging members from his first full day.

He has written a letter to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, following up on his pledge to “tear out this poison by its roots”, offering a meeting with groups representing the select group of British Jews who claim there is a problem:

He offers a video conference with the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Community Security Trust and the Jewish Labour Movement. Note that Jewish Voice for Labour, Jewdas and the Jewish Socialists’ Group are excluded. Why?

The letter was seized by other organisations, such as the hysterical Campaign Against Antisemitism, which has put Mr Starmer in a very difficult position:

Starmer is now caught between a rock and a hard place – knowing that he put himself there.

Jeremy Corbyn – and the socialist vision of the Labour Party that he represented – attracted more than 300,000 people to join (or rejoin) that organisation.

If Starmer decides to launch disciplinary procedures against Corbyn – especially on the basis of the scanty evidence put forward by the CAA or any of the other witch-hunt groups – the party will haemorrhage members.

It will be reduced to the status of a minority interest fringe group with outlandish ideas about the way Jews are (and should be) treated.

But if he doesn’t, the BoD, the JLC, the CST, the JLM and the CAA will accuse him of anti-Semitism – just as they accused Corbyn – and the right-wing mass media will seize upon the claim.

And there’s a further question about the quality of Starmer’s leadership.

He fell into this obvious trap like a complete and utter muppet. How can anybody expect him to be any use as Leader of the Opposition?

We should not also that this development has been accompanied by a sudden inrush, back into Labour, of all the “anti-Semitism!” screamers who so publicly flounced out over the last five years of Corbyn’s leadership.

It is probably safe to suggest that they have done this in order to flounce out again if Starmer fails to do what he’s told.

So let’s put a little perspective on that.

One of these candidates for Labour membership is an actress called Frances Barber (pictured above). She spent much of yesterday (April 4) in a row with left-wing journalist Owen Jones over claims that she is frothing with racism against Muslims:

“Please stop killing us” as a response to Muslims denouncing the actions of killers and saying true members of their faith have nothing to do with such actions? Clearly prejudicial against Islam, and it could be argued that there’s a racial motive.

In fairness to Ms Barber (which is more than she ever gave me – she sided with Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman when they falsely accused me of libelling them) she has claimed that she did not send the offending tweet… by sending another offensive tweet, as you can see, above.

So Mr Jones provided some more evidence. I present this with no comment:

If you want to see some of Ms Barber’s comments on former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, here’s an article.

The response was, I suppose, predictable – considering the behaviour towards This Writer of her friends Riley and Oberman:

Mr Jones’s comments have been roundly condemned by supporters of Ms Barber – who seem to have made ad hominem attacks (against him personally) rather than addressing the issue he raised. Others have offered evidence in support, or simply expressed their horror at the thought that this person might be allowed back into the party:

https://twitter.com/JackGamble/status/1246547909002362886

As I say, I’m not going to offer an opinion on Ms Barber and her behaviour. I merely present the information and it is for you, dear reader, to decide whether the claims about her are true or false.

But if you decide they are true – and you’re a member of the Labour Party – you need to decide whether you want to share your party with somebody like that. Labour may be a “broad church” but I’m sure it has never offered open support for racism and the kind of people who offer violence to party leaders past or present.

And you need to decide whether you want to stay in an organisation whose leader allows that kind of person to join while perversely claiming it is a blow against racism.

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

Deaths mount as people buckle under the strain of false accusation

Pauline Hammerton: She was falsely accused of anti-Semitism and expelled from the Labour Party, and it seems the strain led to her untimely death.

The stories that follow are not tragedies. They are the results of small-minded persecution by petty creeps who want a few cheap kicks. Remember that.

As I write this, it is still only a day since This Site published its article on the 25 Labour Party members who were expelled in a single day.

Within hours, I received this, via Twitter:

https://twitter.com/moodynews101/status/1228592972419215361

It’s true.

Pauline Hammerton, a long-term Labour activist from Hulme, in Manchester, had been expelled on February 4 under one of the fast-track processes I described in my article.

It seems she had been unaware that the party had been planning to expel her, and was left distraught by the decision.

It is believed that the shock triggered a haemorrhage that killed her.

Those who knew Ms Hammerton (I did not) have described her in glowing terms.

Here‘s The Critique Archives: “I had met Pauline a few times at demos and other meetings, and so, although I did not know her well, her death has come as a shock, to me personally, and to other activists across the north-west. Her dedication to justice was tremendous, and the callous mistreatment she received from a party that she had given so much to must have been the bitterest blow imaginable.”

And this is from Tony Greenstein’s blog: “A cursory look at Pauline Hammerton’s Facebook page shows that she was anything but a racist.  She was a decent, kind, concerned person who hated all kinds of oppression. Pauline was Chair of Manchester Socialist Health Association… Pauline was the kind of person who should be welcomed and respected.”

Mr Greenstein has also been expelled from the Labour Party on trumped-up charges of anti-Semitism, as has This Writer.

I can’t speak for him, but I have had more than a quarter of a century’s experience as a reporter, and know the kind of backstabbing that can take place.

But not everybody is made of such stern stuff. False allegations alone can cause a huge amount of stress, especially on people whose health is not the best – and tangible harm as a result of such lies, like expulsion from a political party to which one has devoted a large amount of one’s life, can end a life. That is what we have seen.

But we cannot expect the Labour Party to own up and apologise. Nor can we expect any of Ms Hammerton’s false accusers to take anything like the honourable course of action.

They’ll be covering their tracks. If you don’t believe me, consider The Sun and the way that publication rushed to delete a story attacking the late TV presenter Caroline Flack after her apparent suicide (again on February 15).

Ms Flack had been under huge pressure after being removed as the host of a piece of ITV fluff called Love Island amid allegations that she had assaulted her boyfriend.

She had been due to go on trial in March. She had called the period after her arrest and departure from the TV show “the worst time of my life” and had since admitted that she was still having a “really rough time”.

But that didn’t stop content providers like The Sun from hounding her. The headline on the deleted story was “Brutal Caroline Flack Valentine’s Day card mocks troubled star with ‘I’ll f*** lamp you’ message”.

I don’t personally know what happened between Ms Flack and her significant other and I’m not the kind of person to rush to judgement, but I’m sure many people seeing that headline would have believed that it depicted her as a woman of extreme violence and that this was the impression it was seeking to give.

Put yourself in the position of a woman at the sharp end of messages like that – and who had been subjected to a constant stream of them for many months.

It is easy to understand how she could snap.

https://twitter.com/ScouseGirlMedia/status/1228787351452823552

And now at least one candidate to be leader of the Labour Party (remember Labour?) is threatening to open up a new set of floodgates for false accusations, by supporting a call to expel members who express transphobic views.

And just who would decide whether these views were transphobic or not? The same kind of people who decided that simply being accused of anti-Semitism meant members had to be guilty of it?

Labour has a piss-poor record on disciplinary matters and this will make it much, much worse.

Yes, I know that there is a huge argument raging between the so-called TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) and people who, as I understand it, are demanding a widening of the definition of transsexual people.

Neither side seems to have much to recommend it. I fell foul of some particularly odious people who claimed to be representative of the trans community on (again) February 15; they seemed to be just as bigoted and intolerant as those they claimed to be defending against.

And Rebecca Long-Bailey is taking their side.

Wouldn’t it be better to tell both gangs to pipe down, and follow a policy that ensures the maximum protection for everyone?

Beastrabban has written an extremely informative piece on this matter, which is not simple and it is vulnerable to takeover by agents of malice and hate.

Coming back to the fact that people are dying over false anti-Semitism allegations, I can say that I wish to raise this when my own case against the Labour Party comes to court on May 26.

It’s a long time to wait, because justice is a slow process, and I’m sure that Labour will try to obstruct my case as much as possible (those who were at the hearing earlier this month will know what I mean).

But it’s the best I can offer. What will you do?

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Labour expels 25 members for anti-Semitism in a day. Did any get to argue their case?

Jennie Formby: Labour’s plan for Britain’s Future seems to be to persecute its members.

Is this justice?

According to a few of our news media, the Labour Party recently expelled 25 members on anti-Semitism charges, in a single day.

Here’s the Huffington Post:

The expulsions follow reforms that allow officials to fast-track disciplinary procedures and to review cases of social media abuse without the need for full ‘in person’ hearings with those accused.

Some of the 25 ex-members were expelled by an NEC (National Executive Committee) panel using the new expulsion powers, which were approved at Labour conference in 2019.

Others were expelled by the National Constitutional Committee (NCC), the party’s main quasi-judicial body for handling disciplinary issues, which reviewed the cases on paper rather than holding a separate hearing for each.

Party sources say that under new guidelines, the NCC hears cases which relate to social media posts on paper rather than conduct full hearings for each case, which are similar to court proceedings and can take days.

So let’s get it straight:

Some of these people were expelled under a new system in which they don’t get to speak up for themselves.

And the rest were expelled under a new system in which they don’t get to speak up for themselves.

How do they know that their judges were presented with the facts?

They don’t, as far as I can tell.

Don’t get me wrong. If any of those people were genuine anti-Semites, good riddance to bad rubbish.

But I know that my judges didn’t get the facts, when my case went before the NEC.

The investigator’s report was handed to the press and five papers ended up having to correct their reports after publishing a libel that I was a Holocaust denier.

That was a lie made up by the same Labour Party operators who just kicked 25 people out of the party without a chance to stand up for themselves.

Mind you, things didn’t go much better when I did get a chance to state my case.

The NCC hearing was a kangaroo court, as This Site has described previously.

So I ask again: Is this justice?

Or is it victimisation?

Source: Labour Expelled 25 Members For Anti-Semitism In A Single Day, Party Reveals | HuffPost UK

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Labour: the party of bigotry and intolerance?

Labour: is it becoming a party of intolerance and bigotry under the misguidance of those at the top.

This is ugly and Labour’s leadership candidates need to own it.

You will all be aware, already, of the illegal behaviour of Labour’s leadership in “tackling” (their word) anti-Semitism, whereby the party faked evidence to make it appear that I was an anti-Semite, broadcast the lies to the newspapers in order to induce people to believe them, and then used them as an excuse to expel me from the party.

I believe the current plan is to change the rules so even an accusation will be enough to justify expulsion.

Today, it seems at least one leadership candidate has announced that she is keen to spread the bigotry around, with a plan to expel people accused of being transphobic.

Wouldn’t it be better to talk to them instead? What happened to the art of discussion and explanation?

I have trans friends. I recently supported a person who – originally female – spent some time determined to become a man. Now she has had second thoughts and has decided not to go through with it, and that’s okay too. I supported her throughout, because that’s what friends do.

But I know that some people have a problem with that and I have talked some of them through. Sometimes it’s simply a matter of showing them a way of thinking that they haven’t considered before.

So when I saw on Facebook Rebecca Long-Bailey advocating the immediate expulsion of “transphobes” (I put the word in quotation marks because her interpretation of it and mine are likely to be very different), I couldn’t help but react with the “Ha ha” icon.

“What happened to the idea of Labour being inclusive?” I asked.

The initial response gave me a moment’s hope. James Waterhouse stated: “It should be mate. The amount of transphobia by some people whether members or supporters is depressing.”

But then the conversation went downhill:

Let’s have a look at this:

Lianne Powell: “I don’t think he’s being supportive considering he laughed at the post. Mike probably thinks we should be inclusive and allow transphobes to stay…”

According to whose definition are people to be tarred as “transphobes”, now? Is it to be on the same lines as Labour’s definition of “anti-Semite” – anybody who is accused of it?

That’s not acceptable and it isn’t inclusive. Hence my answer: “Don’t be silly, now.”

Lianne responded: “Says the person who thought it appropriate to laugh at this post…”

But it was appropriate. Labour’s record in dealing with anti-Semitism accusations is a disgrace, and now a leadership candidate is planning to eject anybody accused of something else? Ridiculous! Who will they be throwing out next – people with freckles?

I have to admit that my response – repeating “Don’t be silly, now,” wasn’t the best I could possibly have devised. I was disappointed that this person was so determined to see the matter in black and white, refusing to accept that it is possible for people to make mistakes and to learn from them. To be honest, I didn’t see the point in trying to reason with that kind of bigotry.

But worse was to follow:

In Lou Kilmartin we see a genuine, gold-plated bigot:

“What’s funny about the original post?”

I replied: “The idea that that is any way for an inclusive leadership candidate to behave.”

The response: “Seems pretty inclusive to me. No tolerance for intolerance is a pretty good jumping off point.”

No, it is not.

It is an opportunity for unscrupulous people to attack people they don’t like, tar them as something they aren’t, and ban them from a group – as we have seen with the anti-Semitism fiasco. The instant you start banning anyone for even questioning the wisdom of a course of action, you have left the progressive path and joined the fascists.

Who’s right?

I said: “Not at all. You don’t leap to expulsion. You discuss and you educate. This is just an attempt to find an excuse to purge the party of “people we don’t like”. Or didn’t you think of that?”

The response: “If you genuinely believe that the terf movement [it means Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminst] in the Labour Party is open to discussion or education, then you’re either incredibly naive or a flat out moron.”

Really? It seems to me that Lou Kilmartin is the one who isn’t open to discussion or education. But Lou Kilmartin does seem very keen, on the other hand, to engage in accusation and vilification. That encourages me to suggest that Lou Kilmartin is on the wrong side of this argument.

“Why do you expect trans people to constantly justify and debate our existence?”

I don’t. I never suggested that they should. And falsely attributing that attitude to me is a false argument.

“Would you be so accommodating to racist or homophobic factions within the party?”

I think readers of This Site know its author well enough to know that I would not – but nor would I be willing to accept someone else’s word on it. Who says they’re racist? Who says their homophobes. And why are they saying it?

Now look at this:

“Or DiDnT yOu ThInK oF tHaT?”

What is this? Was this person trying to belittle me with alternate caps? What’s that all about?

It seemed very silly to me, so I ignored it and focused on the accusation and vilification I noticed at the start of the comment:

“That is an intolerant attitude. Shame on you.”

No response to that, notice.

Then I added: “For the record, I have trans friends.” This is true, as I have explained above. I should admit that I wrote it to see how the bigot would respond.

I wasn’t disappointed: Ridicule. “i HaVe TrAnS fWeNdS”

The bigot was incapable of accepting the possibility and had to try to belittle me instead. What do you think of that?

Then Lianne re-entered the conversation. Clearly a follower, rather than a leader, this person had seized on Lou Kilmartin’s lead, and had also apparently done a minimal amount of research into me:

“Weren’t you accused of AS and suspended with the offer of being allowed back if you took the education course offered to you??? Bit rich to preach about education if that’s the case.”

It’s an interesting comment for what it omits. I was accused and suspended – on the basis of lies. I was offered “education” with the Jewish Labour Movement, that had secretly recorded another person at one of its courses, edited the recording to create a false impression, and handed it to the press and the Labour Party as proof of anti-Semitism. That is not education. It is despicable. And if Leanne wants to use that as justification for attacking me, then Leanne is on the side of the demons.

Still, Lou Kilmartin seemed pleased: “Lianne Powell Holy shit I love you.”

I made a brief response: “No – because the accusation was false and I have taken the Labour Party to court over it. Labour is expected to lose.”

Now look at this from Lou Kilmartin: “Mike Sivier you’re right on one count, I am intolerant to intolerance. Sounds like you’re a fucking gem all round. No room for bigots in the party.”

Looking at all of the above, is this person intolerant to intolerance? Or are we seeing intolerance to differing viewpoints? That’s just intolerance. I’m big enough to shrug off the flat-out insult – although anyone reduced to ad hominem insults automatically loses any argument; if that’s all they can say, then they don’t have anything to say. As for the last line, here’s my response:

“In that case I hope you are not a member. You seem intolerant of anybody who does not agree with anything you say. Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the fascists.”

It is a fascist attitude to demand that other people agree with the pronouncements of a leader-figure, no matter how insane they are.

“That’s very rich coming from the guy suspended for accusations of antisemitism.” This person didn’t have anywhere to go. I had already pointed out that the accusations were false but, hey, let’s go back to that if it’s all we’ve got!

I figured it was time to point out the obvious: “Shocking behaviour by some people on this thread. Desperate to kick out people they don’t like. Try talking. It doesn’t cost anything.”

But I couldn’t resist responding to that last jab: “Did you not read my response to that? I think you did and I think you need to grow up.”

And what witty gem did Lou Kilmartin grace me with by way of reply? “Okay, boomer.”

Ageism.

It’s a response to people born in the baby boom of the 1940s and 1950s (I wasn’t): “Oh, you’re old and you don’t understand.”

So there you have it. This is the kind of Labour Party Rebecca Long-Bailey (and, presumably, the other leader candidates because none of them have distinguished themselves in these matters) wants to lead.

A party of intolerance, bigotry, liars, ageism, and fascism.

If you’re still a member of the Labour Party, is that the kind of organisation you want associated with you?

Because I don’t.

I’m staggered that a membership of half a million has allowed the situation to degenerate this far.

There is only one answer to the kind of attack I experienced on Facebook today.

Rejection. These people, along with everybody who agrees with them, can – and I don’t say this often – FUCK OFF.

Postscript: In a move typical of those exposed as bigots, those responsible for the disgraceful display chronicled above have removed it from Facebook. Draw your own conclusions.

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

Vox Political boss’s court joy is first step in new battle

Lawyers for the Labour Party have been sent away to think again after entirely failing to understand the allegations against them in a court battle – against me.

That’s right, This Writer has challenged the Labour Party over its decision to expel me from membership on charges relating to anti-Semitism, using a compromised disciplinary procedure that, I am alleging, breaches the terms of the party’s contract with its members.

My contention is that the party breached our contract by failing to follow its own disciplinary rules in investigating a complaint against me, by charging me with breaking a rule that did not exist at the time the complaint was made (let alone when I wrote the articles to which it related), and with two data protection breaches: passing information about me – including false information – to third parties and failing to honour a subject access request.

As I was making a money claim, I had to attach a value to the allegation. So I pointed out that my party membership had been suspended – and I had been denied permission to take part in any party activities – from the moment the disciplinary process against me was activated. As that process had been prejudiced against me, the outcome was wrong and I should not have been expelled. Therefore my party subscriptions for that period should be returned to me.

And I requested a declaration by the court that Labour had been wrong to expel me.

The party’s lawyers had failed to realise that a data protection breach can also constitute a breach of contract and had tried to say the part of my charge relating to them had not been properly made out. The judge disagreed.

To my joy, he explained that he had read the claim against Labour in exactly the way I had intended – and that it was Labour’s mistake to see it otherwise.

I think I’m right in saying we all agreed, though, that the online submission form run by HM Courts and Tribunals Service was not clear in its instructions and had failed to provide me with the information I needed, in order to provide the court – and the defendant – with the necessary information in the form it expected.

Labour had expected a charge, followed by itemised particulars, but the online form had not requested that – it had called for me to write the reasons for my claim, which I did in narrative form.

(I had expected to be contacted again with instructions on how to provide a properly made-out charge sheet, but this had not happened, hence the confusion).

The judge kindly decided that this was not the fault of either myself or the defendant.

But he said it would be unfair to try the case there and then – not only because Labour had not properly grasped the issues but because there was only an hour’s time left to do so, and there was far too much evidence to consider.

So he adjourned the case, to allow me to prepare a charge sheet, with particulars, and for Labour to draft a new response, and possibly to gather evidence and witness statements.

He also pointed out that this case has implications that go far beyond a small money claim.

If the court finds against the Labour Party, it can only harm that organisation’s reputation.

And think what may happen if the court declares that the party wrongly expelled a member charged with offences relating to anti-Semitism!

On hearing this, the party’s advocate asked for the case to be transferred to the next level of civil court proceedings – the ‘fast track’, in which the costs to the parties are much higher. The judge told me I would have to pay £7,000-£10,000 over the course of only a few months.

But he had already offered us the opportunity to change track and we had both turned it down (Labour in the knowledge of what a finding against it would mean), so he ruled against Labour’s request. He said the reputational damage to Labour would arise from a finding against it, not from the remedy.

The judge also expressed surprise that no members of the press were present at the hearing in Bristol Civil Justice Centre yesterday.

Well, I’ll give them ample warning before the next hearing.

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Labour’s new ‘summary expulsion’ system will only be used on ‘clear cases’ – as decided by whom?

Jeremy Corbyn: He has put himself in an extremely difficult position by trying to pander to the backstabbers accusing Labour of “institutional anti-Semitism” – and his new offer on disciplinary procedures is unlikely to help.

The details of the new system to speed up expulsions of Labour Party members accused of anti-Semitism are deeply disturbing.

Apparently the procedure put forward by Jeremy Corbyn yesterday (July 22) would mean that high profile cases and those that seem, on the face of it, to be extreme would go to a panel of NEC members plus the general secretary.

This panel would be advised by an independent barrister who is an expert in discrimination law.

And it would only be activated in “clear cases”.

As defined by whom?

I have no doubt that there are still people in the Labour Party who would describe my case as “clear anti-Semitism” – even though there wasn’t a single particular of it that fits any accepted description of that offence!

Remember: This is the organisation that wrongly expelled me for suggesting that British Jews are more loyal to Israel than the UK. A commenter on This Site had claimed that most British Jews identify with that country in some way. I asked: “If Jews in the UK identify with the state of Israel, why aren’t they Israeli citizens?“ This is the line used by the party to expel me. But later in the conversation I stated: “How about applying the most simple answer: They aren’t Israeli citizens because they don’t identify with the state of Israel, to anything like the degree required. Possibly because they actually disagree with the actions of the Israeli government.” My Labour Party accusers would certainly have read those words – but ignored them in order to frame me as an anti-Semite. That is the problem here.

Steve Walker, over at Skwawkbox, may be optimistic about this (see link below), but he has not been through the process.

Any panel dealing with any particular case needs to be provably impartial – that is, its members must not be affiliated to any part of Labour that is unsympathetic with the defendant’s own political views, nor should they be part of any organisation with sympathies to Israel or Zionism (or hidden sympathies to the same, as with the Jewish Labour Movement).

No panel should be allowed prior site of the details of any case it is to handle.

And the Labour Party’s case should not include instructions to any panel that it is to find a defendant guilty whether the evidence indicates this or not.

Would a defendant be present at meetings of such a panel? Or would they simply be informed that this organisation had kicked them out? This would violate the right of any accused members to defend themselves.

The addition of the right of appeal (which I didn’t have after my case was heard) is a good sign – but who would handle such an appeal and in what manner?

The devil is indeed in the detail – but from the details on offer so far, this arrangement is just as diabolical as the last and I can see no justice in it.

Source: Excl: how Labour’s new ‘summary exclusion’ will work – if approved by NEC | The SKWAWKBOX

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