Tag Archives: innocent

Corbyn will speed Labour anti-Semitism expulsions – even if the accused members are innocent

Facepalm: And quit right – Jeremy Corbyn should be ashamed of the cop-out he delivered to the shadow cabinet – and the Labour Party at large.

According to the Labour Party, these are the figures on anti-Semitism by members since January:

Between January and June 2019, Labour received 625 complaints about members relating to anti-Semitism, and a further 658 complaints about people who weren’t in the party.

So Labour received more complaints about anti-Semitism by people who weren’t even members than it did about members themselves. What happened? Has Margaret Hodge been submitting complaints again?

[The National Executive Committee] referred 97 members to the National Constitutional Committee [which has power to suspend or expel offenders] over their cases, handed out 41 official warnings and a further 49 “reminders of conduct”.

So cases proceeded in 187 out of 625 cases – less than one-third of the total number of complaints. That’s right – 438 party members were found innocent of any wrongdoing, instantly.

And over those six months, the NCC expelled eight people, gave out three extended suspensions, and issued four warnings.

Another 12 members left the party after being referred to the NCC, and one member’s case was unproven.

We cannot assume that the 28 people mentioned above were among the 97 referred by the NEC. I’m willing to be the “unproven” case involved a member who brought a lawyer.

So, out of 187 people about whom Labour’s disputes team decided there was a case to answer, anything between 69 and 97 cases remain to be closed.

You can understand why Jeremy Corbyn was keen to announce that the process would be expedited, in the face of those numbers.

There’s just one problem:

Labour is still ignoring the main principle of British justice – all 97 of those members are innocent until they are proven guilty by the evidence.

And Labour has a real problem with that.

See, if a member produces evidence to show that they didndo anything anti-Semitic, it is not acceptable for NCC panels – even (especially) those chaired by Maggie Cousins – to reject that evidence out-of-hand.

If the member’s evidence outweighs that of the party – or the party’s representative cannot argue against it – then that member is innocent.

And no, Mr Corbyn – if the evidence is in favour of the member, it is not acceptable for your NCC to say “someone was offended by it” and expel the member on the trumped-up, nonsensical and meaningless charge of “bringing the party into disrepute”.

Trouble is, though, every case that goes up to the NCC has a note on it from the NEC, ordering the panel to find the defendant guilty. I know because I’ve been through the process and seen the paperwork.

What I’m saying is that on anti-Semitism, Jeremy Corbyn has let down the Labour Party yet again.

It is his only significant failure – but it is huge.

And how sad that the right-wingers in his party – and the right-wingers in the mass media – will pretend that he is letting the party down by failing to punish the nonexistent huge proportion of anti-Semites in the party.

Source: Labour anti-Semitism: Corbyn announces plan to speed up expulsions – BBC News

At last – hearing set for Vox Political writer to defend against Labour’s false accusation of anti-Semitism

Mike Sivier (right) with the late, great Tony Benn.

It has taken more than 18 months but at last This Writer will be given the opportunity to explain why accusations of anti-Semitism, made against me by the Labour Party, are a lot of hysterical nonsense.

A disciplinary hearing involving a panel of National Constitutional Committee members will be held on November 13, at a venue in Mid Wales. The NCC was forced to come to me because I am a carer and must be near Mrs Mike, in line with the “reasonable adjustments” described in the Equality Act 2010.

Labour’s charge against me is that I have “repeatedly” posted articles on This Site that support the false claim that there is an “international conspiracy of Jews” that “control and have undue influence over government and other societal institutions”.

Of course I have never suggested any such thing.

Those of you who follow the social media will note the irony of such a matter being discussed so soon after the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews was exposed as having made exactly such a suggestion herself.

The Jewish Chronicle quoted a source who said: “In what world do you use the words ‘Jewish community’ and ‘power’ in the same sentence?

“The community has spent months highlighting antisemitic tropes and then the President of the Board of Deputies herself says Jews have power which they learn how to use.

“I don’t know what’s worse — that this was a spur of the moment comment or that it was actually planned?”

I doubt Marie van der Zyl is a member of the Labour Party but look forward to seeing Labour refusing to deal with her on the grounds that she is an anti-Semite.

The charge against me is supported by seven “particulars” – the actual details on which the case will be judged – five of which have no relation to the stated accusation.

I can’t go into further details now.

But my case has already been discussed widely. Labour’s NEC already found me guilty, at a meeting to which I was not invited and based on false evidence that was leaked to a national newspaper after I refused to accept the verdict. Needless to say, several of the papers who published that story have been penalised after I complained to the press regulator, IPSO.

I relish the opportunity to set the record straight, once and for all.

Afterwards, I intend to take legal action – that’s court procedures, for those including the member of the Campaign Against Antisemitism who suggested I had been considering illegal action – against those people and organisations who have tarnished my good name with these smears for more than a year and a half.

I am not a rich man, so I have launched a crowdfunding scheme that appeals for supporters and members of the public to support my bid for justice with a donation – large or small, I don’t mind.

Please visit my JustGiving site if you can help.

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

‘Dead cat’ allegations against Clive Lewis have been dropped

Clive Lewis had denied the claim, which was made after Labour party conference. [Image: Martin Pope for the Guardian].

It’s no surprise the sexual harassment allegation against Clive Lewis has been dropped. It served its purpose – it distracted us all from what the Tory government was doing back in October.

That was the time the Tories ignored a Parliamentary vote demanding the pausing of the Universal Credit rollout until its many problems are fixed; when Theresa May confirmed she would not spend a single penny to make tower blocks safer after the Grenfell Tower inferno; and when the Tories had been caught charging people without any money at all 55p a minute to phone the Universal Credit helpline – among many other scandals.

So the right-wing Guido Fawkes blog dug up a ‘dead cat’ allegation about Mr Lewis saying “On your knees, bitch!” to a man at a Labour conference fringe event, and this was followed by an allegation of sexual assault. The allegations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein had just broken, so the claim was certain to garner a great deal of attention.

(A ‘dead cat’ is, as everyone should know, a tactic to distract attention from an important issue – equivalent to throwing a dead cat onto a table and shouting, “Look at this dead cat!”; everyone looks, and forgets about whatever they were discussing before).

Now we see there was no substance in the sexual assault allegation. We already knew there was nothing more than manufactured outrage about the incident at the Labour event.

They served their purpose. For the Tories, the problem is that worse crises were to follow – and have yet to come.

Clive Lewis, the Labour MP and former shadow business secretary, has been cleared of allegations of sexual harassment after a party investigation.

Lewis, the MP for Norwich South, was accused of grabbing a female Labour member’s bottom at a fringe event at the party’s conference in September. The woman told the Independent last month: “We had a hug and while we were having a hug he gave my bum a big squeeze.”

Lewis had previously apologised after it emerged he told a man to “get on your knees, bitch”, understood to be at the same event, part of Momentum’s The World Transformed festival.

An internal investigation has dismissed the claim of sexual harassment against him… Labour MPs Kelvin Hopkins and Ivan Lewis remain under investigation.

Source: Clive Lewis cleared by Labour over sexual harassment claim | Politics | The Guardian


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

Detention of leftie journo’s sister shows police are letting themselves be political tools AGAIN

Political activist: Eleanor Jones.

This is disgraceful.

As the story shows, Eleanor Jones is a political activist – but there’s nothing wrong with that.

She is also the sister of leftie journalist Owen Jones, and that makes this story even more sinister – in the opinion of This Writer.

Are the police using anti-terror legislation to gather information on the political enemies of the current (Tory) government?

That would be a misuse of their powers. But when police can arrest people who are not under suspicion, and don’t have to divulge the information they possess about those people, how can anything be proven?

Clearly the law is inadequate and the public need proper protection.

A political activist has accused Police Scotland of “disgraceful” treatment after officers used controversial anti-terror powers to detain and question her for hours at Edinburgh Airport.

Eleanor Jones, who had been in Edinburgh to attend her grandfather’s funeral, said she felt “violated” after handing over her mobile phone and laptop passwords to the officers.

She was also quizzed about the political beliefs of family members, including her twin brother Owen, who is a high-profile columnist for the Guardian.

Her treatment has fuelled calls for a rethink of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 – the legislation used by the single force – which gives police sweeping powers in an airport.

The force was able to detain Jones in this way due to the Terrorism Act 2000.

The legislation’s notorious Schedule 7 gives police huge powers to stop, search and hold individuals at ports, airports and international rail stations.

It can be invoked without an individual being suspected of involvement in criminal activity and there is no right to remain silent.

Officers can detain a person for hours and retain their belongings for up to seven days. It is an offence to wilfully fail to comply with a request made by an officer under this legislation.

Jones said Police Scotland was responsible for a “misuse of the Act” in her case and said the legislation was used as a “power tool”. She added: “Being an activist is not the same thing as terrorism.”

She added that the force will not tell her what, if any, information Police Scotland retains on her.

Source: Revealed: how Police Scotland treated a political activist like a terrorist | HeraldScotland


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

Forced adoption tragedy for innocent parents

Richard Carter and Karrisa Cox [Image: Facebook].

Richard Carter and Karrissa Cox [Image: Facebook].

A couple whose baby was adopted after they were wrongly accused of abuse are unlikely to ever see the child again despite being cleared, their lawyer has said.

Three years ago, Karrissa Cox and Richard Carter, from Guildford, Surrey, took the then six-week-old infant to accident and emergency after noticing bleeding in the baby’s mouth following a feed.

Bruises and what were thought to be fractures were noticed by hospital staff and a few days later the couple were charged with child cruelty and the baby was taken into care.

However, the criminal case against the couple collapsed at Guildford Crown Court after new medical evidence showed there were no signs of abuse.

It was… discovered that the child was suffering from a blood disorder, Von Willebrands II, which causes someone to bruise more easily, and a vitamin D deficiency that causes infantile rickets.

Mr Carter, a former soldier, and Ms Cox, both 25, now plan to try to win custody of their child back. “We took our child to the hospital seeking help and they stole our baby from us,” Ms Cox said.

However their lawyers believe it is unlikely the adoption – made legal by a Family Court earlier this year – will be overturned by a court as such rulings are usually final.

Lawyers for the couple said Ms Cox and Mr Carter had been refused legal aid to fight the adoption in the Family Court and criticised the decision to finalise adoption before the criminal court had made its ruling.

Defence lawyer Emma Fenn said: “This tragic case highlights the real dangers of the Government’s drive  to increase adoption and speed up family proceedings at all costs”.

Source: Couple wrongly accused of abuse ‘unlikely to see their child again’ | Crime | News | The Independent

According our friends at Wikipedia, the government “states that children are only removed and adopted out without parental consent when it is in the child’s best interests to do so. There is a legal process that must be followed and the decision ultimately rests with a judge who must decide the evidence against the parents on the balance of probabilities. Legislation requires that children are only removed from their parents if they have suffered, or are at risk of suffering, significant harm or neglect”.

But “critics have objected that the term ‘risk of significant harm’ is undefined, giving social workers too much leeway to remove children. Julie Haines, of the pressure group Justice for Families, stated in 2012 that ‘Parliament has given the courts free rein to define the term “significant harm” within case law authorities and has not deemed it necessary to provide a definitive meaning within the Children Act 1989. There is no check list of harm, no clues as to what the courts could be looking for.’

“Concern has also been raised over the provisions of the Children and Families [Act 2014], which sets out plans to speed up adoption and care proceedings.”

You can read about these provisions here.

The commenter who brought this story to Vox Political wrote: “Here’s the latest example of what happens when the adoption process is already ‘speedier’ than the process to ‘defend yourself and prove your innocence’.  Absolutely tragic.  But hey ,they have to get those doubled adoption quotas filled somehow, right?”

What do you think?

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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!

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

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

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

Police: ‘To protect and serve’ their own interests?

Unfit to wear the helmet: How deep does corruption run within our police? Do most officers still uphold the law without prejudice? Or do they use the uniform to pursue their own personal vendettas against innocent members of the public?

Unfit to wear the helmet: How deep does corruption run within our police? Do most officers still uphold the law without prejudice? Or do they use the uniform to pursue their own personal vendettas against innocent members of the public?

When did you lose faith in the British police?

Was it after Plebgate, the subject of a considerable controversy that has resurfaced this week? Was it after Hillsborough? Do you have a personal bad experience with officers whose interpretation of their duty could best be described as “twisted”, if not totally bent?

The Independent Police Complaints Commission says that the row involving whether former Conservative Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell used offensive language against a policeman who stopped him from riding a bicycle through the gates of Downing Street should have led to disciplinary action for the officer involved, along with others who supported his story.

IPCC deputy chairwoman Deborah Glass questioned the “honesty and integrity” of the officers involved and said that West Mercia Police, who investigated the affair, were wrong to say there was no case of misconduct for them to answer.

Now, there is plenty of evidence that this police complaints commission is anything but independent, and that it provides verdicts as required by its superiors – either within the force or politically. But the weight of the evidence that we have seen so far suggests that, in this instance, the conclusion is correct.

The Plebgate affair began less than a month after serious failings were identified in the police handling of the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. It was revealed – after a 23-year wait – that serious mistakes had been made in the policing of the infamous FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, during which events took place that killed 96 people and injured a further 766.

In addition, post-mortem reports on the deceased were falsified and the police tried to blame Liverpool fans for the disaster.

These were both events that received national news coverage – but what about the local incidents that take place all around the country?

Sir Hugh Orde, chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers said, “130,000 police officers are delivering a good service” – but are they really?

This blog has already mentioned the experiences of several people here in Mid Wales who have had unsatisfactory experiences with the police, including victims of serious physical, psychological and sexual abuse who were told to go back and suffer more of this personal hell by policemen and women who either couldn’t care less or were complicit in the crimes. Years later, attempts to get justice fell on the equally deaf ears of officers who didn’t want to know.

And this week the front paper of my local newspaper (the one I used to edit) carried the headline ‘Hello, hello, what’s going on here then?’ over a story about two local police officers who, while on duty, seemed more interested in having sex than upholding the law.

One was an inspector; the other a (married) constable. The inspector, prior to her promotion, had been instrumental in sending a friend of mine to prison on a particularly unsavoury child sex charge. There was no concrete evidence and the case hinged on the opinion of a doctor that was hotly disputed by other expert testimony. But my friend’s path had crossed this policewoman’s before and she had failed to gain a conviction on the previous occasion. It seems clear that she had not forgotten him.

I have always believed that the jury convicted my friend because its members were worried that he might be guilty – despite the lack of evidence – simply because he had been accused. “There’s no smoke without fire,” as the saying goes. It seems likely now that this conviction reflects the policewoman’s preoccupations with sex, rather than any criminal activity on the part of my friend.

It also seems to be proof of the fear raised by Andrew Neil on the BBC’s This Week – that police have been sending innocent people to jail and letting the guilty go free.

My friend is still inside, by the way. He has maintained his innocence throughout the affair but, having been released on parole and then dragged back to jail for a breach that was more the fault of the authorities for failing to give adequate warning against it, he is now determined to serve his full sentence rather than face the heartbreak of having his freedom stolen with another excuse.

Who can blame him?