Tag Archives: hearing

Newspaper mangles account of Riley v Sivier court case

Someone brought my attention to the report of Rachel Riley’s application to strike out my defence against her libel action yesterday and I had a good laugh at it.

Considering the fact that my Twitter account appears to have been suspended – presumably over my own fair and accurate account of the hearing – other friends have questioned why this is still up.

It’s a good question.

It was headlined Latest round of Rachel Riley libel challenge heard in court – so far, so good. But the author – “Jewish News Reporter” – went off-beam from the sub-heading onwards:

Lawyers argued about claims of online abuse, harassment and bullying towards the countdown presenter

No, it was claims of online abuse, harassment and bullying by the Countdown presenter. That’s quite a big mistake to start off!

The latest round of a libel challenge by lawyers acting for Countdown presenter Rachel Riley and Vox Political reporter Mark Sivier

Who’s this Mark Sivier, I hear you cry. He’s a cousin of mine who lives in Bristol and has nothing to do with This Site or the case. I do wonder whether he would like to start one of his own against this newspaper, if I bring his attention to it…

reached the courts again on Friday, as lawyers argued about claims of online abuse, harassment and bullying.

The allegations stem from vitriol surrounding antisemitism in the Labour Party, against which Riley has been a vocal critic, and this week’s hearing was centred on a strike-out action.

No, no, no! The allegations stem from Riley’s support for a claim that Owen Jones is anti-Semitic, after he applauded Lord Sugar’s announcement that if Jeremy Corbyn got to be prime minister, he would leave the UK.

The hearing was of a strike-out application. And Riley hasn’t criticised “vitriol surrounding antisemitism in the Labour Party” – which is what Jewish News is saying here; she has caused a large amount of it.

(Consider her call for people to sign a petition saying former party leader Jeremy Corbyn was an anti-Semite (he isn’t); her post that photoshopped a scene from Game of Thrones to include an image of Jeremy Corbyn with a message that someone should “take” him “out” (meaning, have him killed); and the image of her wearing a T-shirt bearing a famous image of Corbyn being arrested for protesting against apartheid South Africa, photoshopped (again) so the board he was wearing stated “Jeremy Corbyn is a racist endeavour”. All of these caused considerable ill-feeling.)

Sivier, who has raised for than £100,000 for legal fees through crowdfunding, called Riley’s latest legal action “a vexatious attack… to have my defence against her libel action struck out… to avoid having the evidence heard at a trial”.

Did I? It looks like selective quoting but in fact the sentiment is more or less accurate. I do consider the strike-out application to have been an attempt to stop a libel trial from taking place – not by proving that I don’t have a case (I do), but by wasting the money I had crowdfunded (yes, more than £100,000 – people really don’t like Riley) to make it impossible for me to fund my defence.

Of course, that was my feeling before the hearing took place. In fact, counsel for both Riley and myself ran through a lot of information about the case in their submissions, meaning if Riley really didn’t want the information about her bullying a teenage girl – and both supporting and encouraging abuse of her by her followers – she failed in that attempt.

The hearing was in open court, meaning the public were entitled to attend – and did – and the material provided in evidence is now public knowledge.

Mrs Justice Collins Rice heard the arguments at the High Court as barristers jostled over Riley’s allegations that Riley engaged in a campaign of online abuse and harassment against her, allegations denied by Sivier.

This will take a bit of unpicking!

Riley did not allege that she had engaged in a campaign of online abuse and harassment, certainly not against herself!

I had made the claim that she had engaged, supported and encouraged such a campaign – against a teenage girl with mental health issues, as described in my article yesterday (December 11).

I haven’t denied making that claim, though. I deny that it is libellous to do so – for the very good reason that she did do those things.

Her application, heard by Mrs Justice Collins Rice yesterday, was that my defence was not substantial enough to justify a trial. But then, it did manage to support a full day’s hearing at the High Court, so I think she should be on a hiding to nothing there.

It is the latest libel case pursued by Riley and fellow Jewish TV personality Tracy Ann-Oberman, supported by Israel-based lawyer Mark Lewis, whose witness statement was considered in court.

Tracy-Ann Oberman is not a party in the case. It is being pursued only by Riley. Oberman does appear in it – as I allege that she also harassed the teenager, with dozens of tweets in a single day, inviting her to a meal in London with another teen.

Oberman herself has since claimed that 16 tweets in succession constitutes harassment so her own more than 50 (some say more than 60) should certainly qualify, in my opinion.

And no fewer than three witness statement by Mark Lewis were considered by the court. None of them added to Riley’s case as they constituted nothing more than his personal opinions – as my counsel pointed out.

Late last year a High Court judge heard pre-trial submissions over the pending libel case between Riley and Sivier, concerning the latter’s 2019 article in which he called Riley a “serial abuser”, including of a 16-year-old girl who received death threats.

This is the essence of the story. And it is being reported in the second-to-last paragraph of this Jewish News piece. Talk about getting a story backwards!

The judge said Sivier’s argument that Riley’s “irresponsibility” had caused supporters to issue death threats was opinion, as was his description of her as a “hypocrite”.

That would be Mr Justice Nicklin, who presided over the hearing in 2019 – not Mrs Justice Collins Rice. It means Riley will find it extremely difficult to prove that those statements were libellous – even if she succeeds in striking out my argument of “truth” – that my claim about her is factually accurate.

The story does not explain that I referred to “irresponsibility” because she had tweeted false information both to and about the teenager; if she had not done so, her Twitter followers would not have even known about the girl’s existence, let alone filled her inbox with abuse over a period of almost exactly one month.

And I called Riley a hypocrite because my article was a response to a Guardian piece in which she claimed that Channel 4 had been forced to employ a bodyguard for her after she had received threats – without any acknowledgement that her own behaviour on Twitter had led to the teenage girl also receiving threats – and she doesn’t have the funds for a bodyguard.

These points are all pertinent to the case as a whole, and to the hearing yesterday yet, strangely, the Jewish News failed to include them – or got the story points completely wrong.

Can you imagine why that could have happened?

To me, it is indicative of the way the mainstream press has been happy to ignore and distort the facts of the case so they can boost their poster girl and disregard me.

The knock-on intention is to ensure that people turn away from me and I fail.

You know how to prevent that:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

I’m never going to get support from the mass media. Even if I win this case, they’ll try to misrepresent it or bury it altogether. They don’t care about the facts.

But you do – or you wouldn’t be reading this. Let’s make sure the facts are known.

Source: Latest round of Rachel Riley libel challenge heard in court | Jewish News

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

Court hears evidence that Rachel Riley bullied vulnerable teen

The High Court in London: The judge was here, but This Writer was at home in Mid Wales because the hearing took place remotely, via the magic of the internet.

ADDITIONAL, 12/12/2020: I woke up this morning to discover my personal Twitter account – @MidWalesMike – has been suspended. I have received no email providing any reason but can only conclude it is because I tweeted the link to this article, and somebody complained. It is not a breach of Twitter rules to tweet a link to a fair and accurate article like this.

Please contact Twitter to request the restoration of my account.

Judgment was reserved – I could have screamed!

It means the judge will consider the evidence and deliver a written judgment in due course, stating whether or not she considers there to be enough evidence to support my defence against Rachel Riley’s claim of libel against me – and for a trial to take place in order to establish whether I libelled her or whether I was right to make the statements I did.

But the fact that a public hearing took place today (December 11) that mentioned some of the evidence means we can discuss that evidence here.

The claim is that I libelled Riley by saying that she had engaged upon, supported and encouraged a campaign of online abuse and harassment of a 16-year-old girl, conduct which has also incited her followers to make death threats towards her.

There are also claims which are defended as matters of honest opinion, based on these facts.

The judge seemed most interested in the way Riley was alleged to have bullied a girl who was aged 16 at the time, and who had mental health issues.

She heard that:

“Celebrity adult claimant” Riley first heard of the vulnerable “child victim” (as my counsel characterised them both) after she tweeted in support of claims that left-wing journalist Owen Jones acted an in anti-Semitic way when he tweeted in support of Lord Sugar leaving the UK if Jeremy Corbyn became prime minister.

The “child victim” tweeted in support of Jones, and this attracted the attention of Twitter followers of Ms Riley, who replied with abuse. They would not have seen the girl’s tweets if they had not been followers of Riley, and she sent a tweet to the celebrity, pointing out the abuse she had received.

This led to more abuse, to which the girl responded at one point by saying Riley had been “encouraging a smear campaign” (against Jones).

Riley responded with seven tweets, all sent to the girl within a 13-minute time frame. Some right-thinking people have questioned whether sending a teenager with mental health issues a tweet every two minutes is harassment.

The content of those tweets is also questionable. My counsel argued that Riley ignored the subject matter – her smearing of Owen Jones – and instead tried to gaslight the girl into doubting both her views and herself.

While recognising the abuse the girl had been subjected to, it was claimed that Riley failed to condemn her own supporters who had perpetrated it, patronised the girl, questioned her motives and suggested she was a dupe for the opinions of undesirable other people.

This led to a “dogpile” on the girl, with many more abusive comments from Riley’s Twitter followers. Riley herself wrote a second thread, but again failed to condemn the activities of her followers (despite the fact that every tweet was a reply to her – meaning she would have seen all the abuse).

By this time, she was referring to the “smear” as being about the Labour Party claiming accusations of anti-Semitism generally were smears, rather than about her having smeared Owen Jones.

She accused the girl of having called her a liar, and also of “helping to spread the virus that is antisemitism”.

The thread totalled 16 tweets over 44 minutes. Harassment?

The girl had certainly had enough, it seems, because she tried to end the dialogue, tweeting, “Have a lovely Christmas, I’m putting this debate behind me now.” [This was on December 17, 2018.]

Matters then became more sinister, because the court heard that Riley would not leave the girl alone. She tweeted: “Thank you for listening Rosie, I would appreciate an update to this please, so as to not encourage the smear rhetoric, if you now think there’s more to the story?” The girl also received more abusive tweets from Riley’s followers.

So the following day, she tweeted that she had blocked Riley. This means Riley was not allowed to read or respond to the girl’s tweets, or have anything directly to do with her on Twitter.

The judge took interest in this and wanted to know how we could be sure that Riley genuinely had been blocked. She mentioned it herself in a tweet on January 15 the following year: “I wouldn’t have been able to contact her even if I wanted to.” Riley certainly never contacted the girl directly again, indicating that she no longer could.

So how did she manage to acquire tweets the girl published on December 31, 2018, and January 8, 2019 – which she published in a 13-tweet Twitter thread on January 9?

This led to a discussion of stalking, and whether Riley had stalked this vulnerable teenager who has – let’s bear in mind – anxiety issues.

Riley’s counsel argued that the dialogue between her and the girl had been entirely polite and civilised, and denied that his client’s tweets contained any questionable material.

He said that when Riley mentioned the girl in her thread of January 9, and another on January 15, she had removed the girl’s Twitter handle in order to discourage any more dogpiles – but her name was clearly visible, along with her profile picture, and her father was fully identified in the January 15 thread, meaning anybody who wanted to do it could go back through Riley’s timeline and find all the contact details they needed.

Speaking for Riley, and in addition to his claims that the dialogue between his client and the girl was perfectly polite, John Stables said the “celebrity adult claimant” could not be associated with any abuse directed at the girl because she was not responsible for the behaviour of her followers.

The judge summed up his submissions as saying, not that there had been no online abuse of the girl but that Riley had not taken part in it or encouraged it, and any such campaign was nothing to do with her.

If that was the case, then why did the abuse follow – and refer back to – Riley’s tweets? Isn’t it more accurate to say that the abuse the “child victim” received would not have happened if Rachel Riley had not tweeted about her and to her?

Stables also suggested that we do not know to what extent the “child victim” suffered Twitter dogpiles. This is also not true, as the defence lists exactly the number of retweets, ‘likes’ and replies each of Riley’s threads received.

There was much more argument but these were the main sticking-points.

Bearing in mind that this hearing was only to establish whether there was enough evidence for a trial, what do you think?

If you reckon I have a strong enough defence, please help me fund it in the now time-honoured manner:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

The evidence may seem obvious from the above – but I have to admit that it is impossible for me to be objective about this case as I am the defendant. The judge may see matters differently.

It seems unlikely that the judge will throw the whole case out completely – as Stables had to retreat from a claim that my defence that I said what I did in the public interest should also be struck out.

But any decision in Riley’s favour could result in a crippling costs order against me.

And even if I beat this application to strike out my defence, I still need to fund the actual trial.

That won’t happen for some time yet, but I need to be ready for it, when it does happen.

I must thank everybody who has supported the crowdfunding effort already. Without your help I would not have been able to get to court at all.

Please help me see this through to the end.

Prolonging the agony: Riley libel ‘strike-out’ application is adjourned

The Royal Courts of Justice in London.

What a mess.

Let’s discuss the good things first: thanks to everyone who donated, the CrowdJustice fund sailed past the £100,000 mark within hours of my last update on the Rachel Riley libel case.

What a message that sends! I hope Ms Riley has received it and I’m deeply grateful to all of you who contributed.

But yesterday (November 4) was very stressful because the High Court reversed a decision that the hearing would take place remotely – online, with all of us in our respective offices/homes – and demanded that we all appear in person at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

I live in the middle of Wales, which is still in lockdown, and I am a carer. I cannot ask anyone else to take over my caring duties while I go away because we are not supposed to go into anybody else’s homes – and it would be at too short notice anyway.

Last year, when I attended a hearing, I was able to arrange care for Mrs Mike – but I would have been able to take her with me to my family home, which I used as a stop-off point overnight before proceeding to London. That option wasn’t available because England is now in lockdown and my brother is being treated for a rare form of cancer, and is therefore shielding.

It is impossible for me to go at this time.

This meant that my team would have been at a considerable disadvantage. While my legal representatives would have been able to attend, my absence would have required them to request pauses in proceedings if they needed advice from me (and I know from experience of my recent case against the Labour Party how disrupting those can be). Also my absence could have been interpreted as an indication that I did not consider the case to be particularly important, which is far from the truth.

So it was a highly-distressed and disturbed Mike Sivier who finally got to sleep at around 4am today (November 5).

I woke to an email from my solicitor saying that my barrister has suffered an eye injury. I shan’t go into all the details of what transpired in the hours between then and now; suffice it to say that the case has been adjourned to the first available date in the future.

It is a good result.

It gives my team time to refine our case, and it gives me an opportunity to work out ways to provide care for Mrs Mike and get to the hearing, if the court decides that the new one will be ‘in person’ as well.

But it does mean that this fiasco of a bid to strike out my defence will drag on a little longer.

The case will run on after that hearing anyway – we have to face the prospect of a trial lasting several days, sometime in 2021 – so please continue donating to the fund.

Here are the details, as always:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

I will let you know the date of the new hearing as soon as I get it.

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Riley libel: new statements show she’s flailing – so support Mike

 

Remember that new witness statement that had me concerned about Rachel Riley’s libel case against me?

I have now seen it and it seems I need not have worried so much.

I can’t say much about it because I don’t want to prejudice anything that happens in the hearing on November 6.

This will be her attempt to strike out parts of my case – and mine to strike out a significant part of hers.

I expect to succeed in my bid. Hers is looking less and less likely.

But I still need funds if I am to get anywhere at all. After my last update there was a welcome surge in contributions and we are now within £2,000 of that £100,000 milestone.

Reaching that before the hearing next week would be a huge psychological victory for all of us, so please – if you can afford it in these Covid-ridden times – follow these instructions:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

Riley wanted this hearing – pointless as I expect it will be for her. I reckon she thought she could use it to drain my campaign of its funds.

Let’s show her that this was a bad mistake – and knock her off-balance before next Friday’s court 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

November 6 libel hearing: Rachel Riley is submitting a new witness statement

 

The High Court has now confirmed that the hearing of Rachel Riley’s application to strike out part – or all – of my defence against her ridiculous libel claim will be heard on November 6.

I live in Wales and will still be in a lockdown imposed by the Welsh Government, so it will have to take place online.

This is likely to take some of the force out of Ms Riley’s advocates – she may have two barristers, including a QC, but only the QC will be allowed to speak.

Meanwhile her solicitor, Mark Lewis, has indicated that he intends to submit another witness statement. I have concerns about this.

Obviously I don’t know whose statement it will be or what it will contain. More pertinent, though, is when will my team get to see it?

November 6 is only 10 days away. I’m wondering whether Lewis intends to ambush me with a statement delivered late on the evening before the hearing – as the Labour Party did with its skeleton statement of defence against my ‘breach of contract’ case at the beginning of October.

Of course a new witness statement against me means more work for my solicitors and more expense for me, so I must appeal to your generosity again.

The response to my last update was fantastic, meaning we are now less than £4,000 away from the milestone of £100,000! I had not expected to reach that until the end of 2020 at the earliest and it would be a huge psychological victory to manage it with months to spare.

And the closer we get to the £125,000 target, the more obvious it will be to Ms Riley’s advocates that they can’t expect to win by draining my funds. So:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

This case needs to go to court, so all the details – embarrassing as they are – can be heard.

With your help, it will.

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

Next court hearing in Riley libel case against Vox Political’s Mike: November 6

The clock is ticking again: the next court hearing in Rachel Riley’s long-running libel case against This Site’s writer will be early next month.

The summer break is definitely over.

With the next hearing in Rachel Riley’s libel case against me set to take place on November 6, my legal advisor is warning me to brace myself for mischief.

Her solicitors have already disgraced themselves with a barrage of nonsense attacks and court applications aiming (I think) to drain me of financial resources. The hearing next month arises from one of these.

As the actual trial draws closer, they’ll be getting more desperate. Who knows what else they’ll try?

I’ve said all along that I don’t think Ms Riley actually wants a trial. I reckon she thought she could bully me into giving her some money and that she will struggle to prove her case against me.

So I expect more expensive delaying tactics – and this is why I’m launching a pre-emptive call for more funds.

I know this year has been hard on everybody and there’s not as much money around as there has been in the past, but if you can spare a little, please follow these instructions:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

The hearing on November 6 – Riley’s bid to strike out parts of my case and mine to strike out much of hers – will most likely be decided on the paperwork, rather than on anything said on the day.

But we must be prepared for all eventualities. This is a nerve-wracking time – but you can help make it easier. Please 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

A small victory as judge in libel case postpones Rachel Riley’s ‘strike out’ bid


Rachel Riley’s attempt to drain my funds – by demanding that the High Court holds an early hearing on her libel case against me – has been foiled.​

She wanted a court to hear her application to strike out part of my defence before the end of July, which would have hugely strained my entirely-crowdfunded budget for the case.

But I argued that the court must treat us fairly – as detailed in my previous update – and a judge has agreed.

The application will be listed in the next term – between October and December.

This means we now have more than two months to raise the money needed to pay for my defence at that hearing.

Please continue donating to the CrowdJustice site – but bear in mind that there is now considerably less urgency and you should (as always) put your own needs first.

Here are the details as usual:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

On other social media platforms, please mention the campaign there, quoting the appeal address.

This small victory shows that the Riley machine can be defeated; she’s not having it all her own way.

And don’t forget that I’m making an application of my own, to strike out a significant proportion of her case against me.

My only immediate concern, now, is that she will dream up yet another vexatious plan to waste my time and our money.

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

Here’s why it costs so much to fight a lawsuit brought by Rachel Riley

I’ve just had the monthly bill from my lawyer. It clears me out of everything that you have raised and leaves me owing a few hundred pounds – with the huge extra cost of a court hearing looming, possibly this month.

This is the reason Rachel Riley has made her application to strike out parts of my defence against her ludicrous accusation of libel, of course; she knows she doesn’t have much chance of success – but defending against it will cost me a huge amount of your money.

That’s why she keeps making these frankly vexatious demands on court time.

I’m sure she is also hoping that the disappointment of being constantly dragged back to square one will demoralise those of you who contribute to my CrowdJustice fund – put you off helping.

Indeed, one contributor, who donated quite a large amount of cash last month, also questioned why I am paying anything at all – suggesting that if my costs continue to rise I should rid myself of my current legal team and seek pro bono advocacy instead.

That would be a disaster, in my opinion.

You get what you pay for. One of my reasons for choosing the team I have is that I could not be sure of the quality of free legal advice; it would be better to have paid advocates who really know what they’re doing. That’s not to disparage good pro bono lawyers – but how many people can tell the good from the not-so-good?

Also, there is a particular attractiveness about this case, simply because it is crowdfunded. A win for my side will have a significant effect on civil justice in the United Kingdom – and a consequent boost to the reputation of the legal team involved. For that reason, we have been able to negotiate terms that are mutually satisfactory.

And of course it makes no sense at all to stop using my team, halfway through the case, and to try to instruct another in all its intricacies.

So I am left with the task of re-enthusing you, with the possibility that only a few weeks are left until a very expensive court hearing (remember that Ms Riley’s legal team has demanded that it should take place in July). Fortunately, I have a juicy announcement:

I will be making a counter-application to strike out a large part of Ms Riley’s case against me, during the forthcoming hearing.

I’m not at liberty to release the details but I can say that I expect my application to be granted without argument.

I have lodged my application with the court already – all I need now is the opportunity to have it granted at the hearing.

So I’m sure you know what’s coming next. Please…

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via my CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

On other social media platforms, please mention the campaign there, quoting the appeal address.

I know it’s a lot to ask. It always was. But the cause is just and the case can be won.

And the consequences for justice – if it isn’t – are dire. It would mean that rich people can buy justice, using the court system to take money from anybody poorer than them, simply for telling the truth.

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Riley libel case: she’s trying to buy justice again – will you help me stop her?

Countdown: the clock is ticking, and Rachel Riley is trying to force a court hearing of her duff bid to strike out my libel defence next month. If she has her way, I do not have the funds to fight it.

Rachel Riley seems determined to tell the world that she wants to buy justice – so who am I to get in the way?

Let’s discuss her latest tactic.

You’ll be aware that she has launched a court application to strike out all or part of my defence against her claims. It will cost up to £17,000 for me to defend myself against this part of her court action alone.

The High Court has indicated that it may have time to consider the application in July – meaning I would have less than a month to crowdfund a very large amount of money.

But the members of my legal team have pointed out that it is not possible for them to attend court in July as they have other cases and childcare commitments due to the Covid-19 lockdown.

Here’s the nasty bit:

Ms Riley’s representatives have responded furiously, demanding that the court force a July date for this application to be heard.

They say crowdfunding should not be a reason to delay a libel case and this could establish a precedent.

What they don’t say is that such a precedent would enhance justice by keeping both sides in a civil case on an even footing.

And they say if my legal team cannot attend, I should instruct alternative counsel.

Again, what they don’t say is that this would place an extra cost burden on me.

Rachel Riley is far, far more wealthy than me. She could afford to spend £60,000 on the “meanings” hearing last December alone. Rushing the hearing of this application so that it happens next month would put her at a huge advantage if I am unable to raise the funds to fight it.

Her application itself is drivel. My legal team and I can defeat it – if we get the chance.

We are fighting Ms Riley’s demands, and we have good arguments. Courts should deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost so that both parties are on an equal footing. But the hearing will be listed at a time that best suits the judge.

So I must try to be ready for a court hearing within a few weeks. And that means I must appeal to your kindness again.

I am bitterly sorry that I have to ask you for more help, especially at a time when we are all feeling the financial squeeze of the Covid crisis – but justice is at risk of being bought, and the facts are at risk of being denied.

So, please:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via my own CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

On other social media platforms, please mention the campaign there, quoting the appeal address.

This is more vital now than ever before, so I’d like to appeal to you especially to make an effort to encourage other people to donate.

You can tell that Ms Riley’s team are trying to use her huge financial advantage to influence the courts. They want to make sure not only that I fail, but that a precedent is set to ensure that everybody like me, who has to crowdfund for legal action, will fail in the future. It is vital that they be stopped.

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

Anti-Semitism ‘campaigner’ in racism outrage – and an URGENT APPEAL for help

Tracy-Ann Oberman should be well-known to readers of these updates.

After the teenage girl at the centre of my case was engaged in an argument over anti-Semitism with Rachel Riley – and had been subjected to appalling abuse by her followers, Ms Oberman sent dozens of tweets to her – all on the same (school) day – inviting her to a meal in London (as recounted in this article).

The poor teenager, who suffers from anxiety, was terrified at this unwanted attention, which she could only conclude had an ulterior motive.

When I wrote about it (read the article here), Ms Oberman threatened me with a libel action – but eventually left it to her friend, Ms Riley, to take a case to court.

One has to question the validity of her position after yesterday’s (June 11) interaction with an American rapper who happens to be black.

It seems a rapper known as Ice Cube had made remarks which had been interpreted as anti-Semitic. I pass no comment on that as I have not yet seen those words. Ms Oberman responded:

 

The problem here is that the owner of the Twitter handle @FINALLEVEL is Ice T – a completely different person – and one who was completely bemused by the attention:

 

Ms Oberman apologised… if you can call this an apology:

 

 

Is that an apology? Judge for yourself.

People are drawing the obvious conclusion, though – as follows:

 

“Tracy Ann Oberman tagged the wrong black man in a post about racism because they all seem to look the same to her.”

That’s the “they all look the same” trope – on Twitter, where people are only represented by words, remember.

And it was perpetrated at a time of heightened sensitivity to racism against black people too.

All from a person who once said she was in a “gang” including Ms Riley who had started to speak out against racism.

And Ms Riley is suing me because I stood up for the girl that both she and Ms Oberman targeted – again, on Twitter.

Her current tactic is an application to strike out all or part of my defence. It will take me a day in the High Court in London to defend against this nonsense  – at a cost of up to £17,000.

And that’s cheap – the last application of hers, in December last year, cost me £28,000!

This is where the “URGENT APPEAL” in my headline comes in. This hearing could happen as early as next month (July). If you think individuals like Ms Oberman (and, by association, Ms Riley) should not get away with the behaviour they exhibit on Twitter, then please contribute to my crowdfunder – otherwise I simply will not have enough money.

And that would be a real shame, because my legal team and I have worked out a little surprise that we would love to deliver at that hearing.

Given current unspent funds, we need around £14,000. Here come the instructions, so please:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via my own CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

On other social media platforms, please mention the campaign there, quoting the appeal address.

I have a chance to deliver a legally-binding rebuke to these individuals.

But I can’t do it without you. Will you help?

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