Tag Archives: guilt

Guilt-shaming Gove should know: people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones

Michael Gove: that’s a Chelsea FC scarf he’s wearing. His love of that team led him to fly to Portugal where he had close contact with people who had Covid-19. He didn’t follow the rules that we must; he put himself on an elite ‘daily testing’ scheme instead, potentially endangering his work colleagues. And now he’s threatening to deny people who don’t have the vaccine access to events like the one he attended. What a barefaced hypocrite.

It’s a classic ‘nudge’ strategy: you want somebody to do something, you make them feel guilty about it.

So Michael Gove probably thought it was perfectly reasonable to say people who don’t want the Covid-19 vaccine are selfish; that they are endangering the rest of us.

Trouble is, he‘s the selfish Tory minister who refused to self-isolate after the Covid-19 app on his phone pinged him for close contact with infected people when he flew off to Portugal to watch the Champions League final. Instead, he availed himself of a ‘daily test’ regime available only to a select few.

So he added another stick to poke the non-vaxxers into the vaccination centres: anybody turning down the vaccine may be barred from events he described as requiring a certain level of safety.

Like football matches?

His argument doesn’t work. His own history makes this another “one rule for Tory ministers, a different rule for everybody else” situation.

And if the vaccine is so fantastically good, then the people refusing it will be the only ones likely to die if they catch Covid-19. Everybody else will be protected – right?

Right?

The alternative is that there really is a covert reason for making us all have these injections.

Are the conspiracy theorists right?

What are these Tories pumping into us?

So now Gove has gone from making us feel guilty if we haven’t had the jab to making us all worry that the injection is secretly an attack against us.

And what does it mean?

It means if I hadn’t already had my jabs, I’d be seriously considering turning them down. I don’t go out much anyway.

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

Tories knew about Elphicke’s sex crimes before he was charged – and did nothing. Why weren’t they arrested as accessories?

Charlie Elphicke: guilty of sex crimes. What about those in the Tory whips office who knew and are therefore accessories? What about Theresa May, the PM of the day, who also knew?

Former Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke has been found guilty of three counts of sexual assault this week, after being charged nearly three years ago.

But did you know that the Conservative Party’s Parliamentary whips had been well aware of his crimes before he was charged?

Their so-called “dirty dossier” of MPs (during the 2017-19 Parliament) who were known for their inappropriate behaviour included this line: “Charlie Elphicke: inappropriate with female researchers.”

Indeed.

We now learn that in 2007 he kissed and groped a woman at his home, while his wife was away for the night. He went on to chase her around the house, chanting, “I’m a naughty Tory.”

That woman was not identified as a researcher but in 2016 he tried to kiss and then groped a Parliamentary worker, afterwards allegedly saying, “I’m so naughty sometimes.” A month later he ran a hand up her thigh.

That he will be sentenced for his sexual assaults next month will come as scant comfort to the women he assaulted – or to the unknown number of other women (and men) who remain subject to sexual attack by predators who justify it by saying they’re “a naughty Tory”.

The copy of the Tory sexual offenders’ dossier available to me is nearly three years old. It became public knowledge in October 2017; Elphicke was charged in early November.

Who knows how many of the new intake of Tory MPs have joined those who kept their seats in the December 2019 election (Elphicke did not) on that list?

The simple fact is that a crime is a crime, even if committed by a member of Parliament, but these creeps seem to think they are above the law.

Knowing about a crime but hiding the evidence makes a person an accessory to the crime – equally guilty.

So why have the police not arrested those who occupied the Conservative whips’ office in October 2017 – and then-prime minister Theresa May, who was also aware of the list – as accessories to Elphicke’s sex crimes?

Source: Charlie Elphicke: Former Tory MP found guilty of three counts of sexual assault – Mirror 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

Accusation is guilt in the Guardian/Observer version of Labour’s fight against anti-Semitism

Jennie Formby: Her reforms of the complaints process regarding anti-Semitism seem to be making matters worse.

You’d have to be weak-minded in the extreme to disapprove of Labour’s refusal to suspend members accused of anti-Semitism in this Observer story.

Weak mind enough, that is, to believe that an accusation makes a person guilty; no evidence needed.

That is what Michael Savage and Toby Helm wanted you to believe, of course, when they wrote: “Members of Labour’s high command opposed recommendations to suspend several party activists accused of antisemitism, according to internal emails seen by the Observer.”

The implication is clear; that these Labour leaders were wrong to make decisions based on the evidence – that they should have responded in knee-jerk manner and suspended (or indeed expelled) anybody who has been accused.

These people are really revelling in the witch-hunt, aren’t they?

“The correspondence, dating from March to May last year, covers a period immediately after leader Jeremy Corbyn vowed to be a ‘militant opponent of antisemitism’ and to have ‘zero tolerance for antisemites’,” they wrote, implying that this must be a lie as long as his officers consider the evidence.

Worse still is the knot in which Labour tied itself with its response.

A “party source” is quoted as saying the advice on which these decisions were made was part of the old system that current general secretary Jennie Formby has overhauled – implying that the new system doesn’t pay attention to the evidence?

Sadly, that is what my own first-hand experience of the new system suggests; when I attended my own disciplinary hearing all the evidence I had assembled was ignored in favour of a claim that someone (unnamed) had complained that my articles had “upset” them.

No evidence was provided to prove that such a person even exists – therefore they don’t. If a hearing is said to be quasi-judicial, it should respect the law, and the law does not accept anonymous evidence; a defendant must always know the identity of their accuser.

So the claim on which I was expelled from Labour has no weight at all. If this is indicative of Labour’s new way of handling anti-Semitism accusations, then they must all be similarly suspect.

And that isn’t the worst of it!

The “party source” is quoted as saying the suggestion that party advisors said some people accused of anti-Semitism should not be suspended because the evidence doesn’t support it was “deeply unfair”.

The “source” added that staff were “working in good faith to apply the party rule book to individual cases.”

“Apply the party rule book”?

I was expelled for breaking the new rule on anti-Semitism – Rule 2.1.8 – but there’s just one problem:

When I wrote the articles that formed the basis of Labour’s case against me, that rule was not in force; the articles appeared in late 2016 and early 2017 but it did not appear in the rule book until 2018.

And Labour’s rules cannot be applied retrospectively.

Yes, there can be no doubt. Whichever way you look at it, Labour’s process of dealing with allegations of anti-Semitism is nonsense – in practice, if not in theory.

The only thing that could be worse would be making Tom Watson a part of the process.


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

Weird tactics by wannabe witch-hunters: When did This Writer start leading Jewish Voice For Labour?

Wannabes: The fakes who are accusing decent people of anti-Semitism are like cartoon witch-hunters. They’d be funny if they weren’t trying so hard to harm decent people.

These obsessives get stranger by the day.

For the record, I am not Jewish, nor am I currently in the Labour Party, therefore I am not allowed to be a member of Jewish Voice for Labour. It only admits as full members people in the Labour Party who are Jewish.

But that didn’t stop troll “David Simon” (@DavidSimonSPG) from making that suggestion as part of a bizarre attempt to smear JVL for taking an interest in Islamophobia in Poland. Apparently this person reckons Jewish people thinking about Poland should only be able to think about the Holocaust:

There’s a case for suggesting that this is an anti-Semitic attitude in itself – denying Jewish people the right to self-determination.

But then he went one worse:

We’ll take these in order. Here’s JVL talking about anti-Semitism in Poland:

This addresses the issue that “David Simon” addressed initially – anti-Semitism in Poland being discussed by JVL. He had modified this to “anti-Semitic violence” but we may discard this.

I’ve already discussed why I can’t be a member of JVL, let alone leader of it. As for that hackneyed lie about me, here’s proof that I never said anything of the sort:

I think it was a clumsy attempt at guilt-by-association, and also at extending a false and disproved claim by repeating it until someone believes it again.

There was an attempt to double-down, with a claim that I must be a member of JVL because I used the word “let’s”. It’s very silly – look:

That’s right; we were discussing someone like “David Simon”, who was likely to be a paid troll or a bot. I had written “Let’s move on” – meaning everybody else in the conversation.

But “David Simon” wanted people to believe it meant I was a member of JVL.

That is the silliness of the fake “anti-Semitism” witch-hunters.

Fortunately this smear didn’t get very far, despite a second, flailing attempt at it:

Oh wait – there was another bit, to do with the leaflet that led to the claim that I was a Holocaust denier. Marvel at the silliness here:

Complete misrepresentation. I never had anything to do with the leaflet. I was challenged about it by a commenter on This Site and my comment was pointing out that there wasn’t enough information to make an educated response on the reasons it was written the way it was.

So that’s guilt by association, misrepresentation, anti-Semitism, and an attempt at “the big lie” (repeating a lie until people believe it) – which was, I believe, a Nazi tactic.

What a nasty person – if it is a person. And what a shining example of the people he represents. Next time you see anyone like “David Simon” making unevidenced accusations like these, the advice is clear: Ignore and block.


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

Luciana Berger has prejudiced anti-Semitism investigations with evidence-less claims. Labour should expel her

Luciana Berger misportrays Peter Willsman’s words and the position of the Board of Jewish Deputies, then presents two still-to-be-investigated party suspensions as definitely guilty, which may be indictable on grounds of prejudicing the inquiry.

This Site’s colleague over at The Critique Archives makes an important point about the behaviour of Labour MP Luciana Berger, who has been whipping up outrage by faking complaints of anti-Semitism.

Ms Berger was the most vocal critic of Peter Willsman’s recorded outburst against Trump-supporting members of the Jewish community who, he said, were “making up daft information without any evidence at all” – referring to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Ironically, he was then subjected to exactly the same treatment. As you can see from the extract below, Ms Berger’s complaint about Mr Willsman contains no evidence at all.

The point is that Ms Berger seems to subscribe to the false interpretation of what’s become known as the Macpherson principle – that an accusation of racist (in this case anti-Semitic) behaviour must be true if the person making it belongs to an ethnic minority.

It is a transparently false assumption. Suppose the police received such a complaint – do you honestly think they would take legal action against the alleged perpetrator without first having investigated the facts of the matter for themselves? They would be laughed out of court. In fact, the case would never even get that far.

But I reckon it is under that principle that Ms Berger made her big mistake – prejudicing the cases of two Labour councillors who have been accused of anti-Semitism.

My concern, as a person who is experiencing Labour’s prejudiced disputes system for himself, is that nobody investigating these cases will care. My own case indicates an automatic presumption of guilt, simply because I have been accused.

(If you doubt that, allow me to remind you of the paragraph on my charge sheet, urging Labour’s NCC to find me guilty, no matter what the evidence shows: “There are current and potential Labour voters of all backgrounds who are watching carefully what the Party does with cases like Mr Sivier’s. Taking definitive action in this case would send a clear and unambiguous message to all of them that Mr Sivier and the views he published extensively have absolutely no place in the party.”)

I agree that Ms Berger has brought the Labour Party into disrepute by publicly accusing other party members and by endangering the (claimed, if not actual) impartiality of the investigation process.

She should be punished for these offences – behaviour for which, let us remind ourselves, there is clear evidence, unlike her own claims about other people.

It will be interesting to see whether Labour’s disputes mechanism actually allows any action against her – or if its bosses wish to declare their own prejudice for all the world to see.

If you wish to report Berger’s appalling behaviour, please e-mail the Labour Party’s complaints office at [email protected]. The more reports the party receive about what Berger has done, the more pressure they will come under to bring her to book.

In her determination to prove that the ‘anti-Semitism-in-the-Labour-Party’ controversy is something more than a semi-fantasy, [Luciana Berger] has overstepped an important line.

Berger was interviewed on 31st July – much too gently as usual – by Shelagh Fogarty on LBC Radio about the deafening furore. In particular, Berger was asked about this week’s kerfuffle over Labour NEC member Peter Willsman‘offensively’ suggesting that some British Jews were disturbingly happy about Donald Trump becoming US President.

Fogarty rightly asked Berger to clarify precisely what was anti-Semitic about Willsman’s words. It was noticeable that Berger did not clarify, beyond waffling in a strident but roundabout way about Willsman’s statements being ‘unacceptable’, which really just put the implication of the question in different words. She also failed to explain why Willsman’s words were even untrue. Which of course they were not; the Board of Jewish Deputies, in particular, were tellingly eager to congratulate Trump on becoming President. Given Trump’s ignorant enthusiasm for Zionism, largely based around trying to please Christian fundamentalists in the USA, that is perhaps to be expected.

Fogarty – again as usual – managed to miss Berger’s evasion completely and moved on. To her credit, she soon asked Berger a question she does not get asked nearly often enough in the mainstream media; what evidence is there that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party really is as widespread as she claims? It was here that Berger overstepped from mere McCarthyite cynicism to a possibly indictable violation.

She then cited two Labour councillors who had been suspended during this week as supposedly definitive examples of anti-Semitism being out of control.

In so doing, Berger has risked prejudicing the investigations, while increasing public pressure on the party to find the two councillors guilty, irrespective of the investigations’ findings. She is also guilty of a lazy form of fallacious thinking that is as worrying to observe in a national legislator as is her poisonous maliciousness; by assuming that the accusation is evidence, instead of the accusation requiring evidence, she has lapsed into infantile circular reasoning. “I know they must be guilty because they’ve been accused, because if they’ve been accused they must be guilty.”

No, It does not work like that, it must never work like that. The accusation must be followed by evidence. When the accusation is the evidence, we enter a world in which anyone can be accused of anything, and they are automatically guilty. Chaos and endless injustice lie down that path.

Source: Expel Luciana Berger | TheCritique Archives

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