Tag Archives: Jewish

Don’t believe the Daily Brexit’s hard-right reporting – support the boycott of JLM anti-Semitism training

The Daily Brexit (otherwise known as the Express) has used concerns over planned training on how to spot anti-Semitism in the Labour Party to trot out the tripe that was used to attack Jeremy Corbyn – again.

“HARD Left supporters of Jeremy Corbyn have started a social media campaign to stop Labour members from carrying out antisemitism training,” the article begins – but nowhere does it provide examples to show that any of these people are Communists.

The reporting continues in a way that – although it avoids direct lies – may be considered dishonest.

“The course… has been recommended to members after the party became mired in an antisemitism scandal under Mr Corbyn’s leadership,” it states – failing to note that the majority of accusations were false. The entire campaign was an attempt to undermine Corbyn with lies.

“Among its objections to the training is that it is being run by an organisation which was vehemently critical for the former Labour leader.” Really?

Or would it be more accurate to say the objection to JLM is the fear that it will record members’ contributions, selectively edit them and then send them to media organisations like the Brexit as further proof of anti-Semitism?

“Several … cited the case of former Labour member Jackie Walker, who was expelled following comments she made during an antisemitism training session, in which she criticised Holocaust Memorial Day for only commemorating Jewish victims.” Ms Walker was the victim of this recording-selective-editing-and-release-to-the-media tactic, yet the Brexit skates over that fact without mentioning it.

“They are also furious that JLM successfully persuaded the party to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism which recognises that attacks on Israel are often antisemitic.”

More accurately: the IHRA working definition confuses anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the actions of the Israeli state, making it possible to accuse people of anti-Semitism when they are actually – and accurately – criticising Israeli persecution of Palestinians.

There’s no mention in the article of the fact that the man who wrote the IHRA definition has himself admitted it is not fit for purpose, for this very reason.

It seems likely that whoever wrote the story – David Maddox, political editor (I don’t know him either) – was simply quoting from a press release he had been sent, and hadn’t actually done a scrap of work to check the facts.

Who would send such a press release? My bet is on the person quoted in the article – Euan Philipps of that famous hate group, Labour Against Anti-Semitism.

LAAS has submitted hundreds – maybe thousands – of spurious anti-Semitism accusations against party members, most of which failed to trigger an investigation. Because they were false?

It typically scrapes information from Labour members’ activities on the internet and then presents it as evidence of anti-Semitism – often with little or no justification. The Brexit‘s claim to have seen 300 WhatsApp messages supports LAAS involvement.

None of the comments quoted in the article demonstrate any evidence of anti-Semitism – although some will claim that the way Zionism is mentioned qualifies.

Zionism, in its simplest form, is the desire for Jewish people to be able to live within the historic borders of Israel.

But the ideology has been perverted to justify the forcible removal – including killing – of Palestinians who have lived on that land for many hundreds of years by the contradictorily-named Israeli Defence Force.

Criticism of such racist hate crimes is habitually dismissed as anti-Semitism, remember. You see how this accusation game works?

This Writer has already called for these “training” sessions to be ignored.

The Jewish Labour Movement is not an acceptable provider. Evidence supporting claims of its affiliation with a racist party in Israel, that it was revived specifically to undermine Corbyn, and that it supports the aggressive Zionism I have described above is demonstrable.

What a shame the zealots who launched – and perpetuate – this campaign against decent Labour Party members are supported in their aims by so-called news reporters who appear to be little more than typists.

Source: Hard Left bid to stop Labour antisemitism training in attack on Starmer’s authority | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Labour members: be careful not to be recorded at new anti-Semitism training. They may use it to accuse you!

Don’t go: if the Jewish Labour Movement is organising training on anti-Semitism, the session will probably be an attempt to indoctrinate attendees into the pro-Israel, aggressive Zionist ideology that the JLM supports.

The Labour Party has announced that it is running an online “awareness training session” for members to learn about anti-Semitism.

The session will cover “what anti-Semitic incidents look like in the UK and the world today, identifying different elements of anti-Semitism and how the Labour Party can create a welcoming environment for Jewish members”.

Does that seem good? Well, it isn’t.

Because the session between 6pm and 7pm on June 14 is being run by the Jewish Labour Movement. Anybody attending is likely to have their contribution recorded with a view to releasing it to the press as part of an accusation of anti-Semitism.

Ask Jackie Walker about it, because that’s what happened to her. JLM members recorded her, twisted the meaning of her words, and had her expelled from the Labour Party.

The organiser and chair of the meeting at which Ms Walker was framed was Mike Katz. He’s now chair of the Jewish Labour Movement and will be introducing the “training session” on June 14.

I’m not saying this means the event is definitely an attempt at entrapment, but historical evidence certainly suggests it may be.

You can check it yourself, in these articles:

Another anti-Semitism row that completely misses the point

‘Anti-Semitism’ accusation against Momentum vice-chair was ‘outrage’, say witnesses

Black and Minority Ethnic representatives line up to support Jackie Walker

Jackie Walker ruling betrays Momentum members | Letters | The Guardian

Jackie Walker’s crowdfunded action means Labour’s general secretary is facing TWO legal cases against him

As Ms Walker herself puts it: “Undertaking AS training led by the JLM? Ask for assurance you won’t be filmed, reported to the Party or the media.”

The reference to a “discredited definition of anti-Semitism that deliberately confused it with anti-Zionism” is important because the Jewish Labour Movement supports to the hilt the aggressive Zionism currently being practised in Israel, where Palestinians living on land that has been theirs for centuries are being forcibly removed by Israeli troops following a programme to restore the ancient borders of Israel (in defiance of the UN resolution that created the modern country in the first place).

Look on the organisation’s website. Last time I checked, its own mission statement read: “The Jewish Labour Movement is also affiliated to the Board of Deputies of British Jews*, the Zionist Federation of the UK, and organise within the World Zionist Organisation… Our objects: To maintain and promote Labour or Socialist Zionism as the movement for self-determination of the Jewish people within the state of Israel.”

“Zionist”… “Zionist”… “Zionism”… “within the state of Israel”.

As I wrote, several years ago: “It seems clear that “Jewish Labour Movement” is a misnomer. It should be “Zionist Labour Movement”.”

And – I reiterate – it is the poisonous, aggressive Zionism that (apparently) shoots Palestinians’ legs off just because they exist.

This is what Mr Katz is likely to be peddling at his training session on June 14 – and woe betide anybody attending it who does not agree with him!

So tell me, Labour Party members who have been invited to attend: Are you still keen to go, now that you know what might happen to you?

*Why is the Jewish Labour Movement associating itself with the Board of Deputies, an organisation dominated by Conservatives? Good question. But then, the JLM is open to people who aren’t members of the Labour Party. I wonder how many of them are dyed-in-the-wool Tories too.

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-left wing propaganda paper forced to pay damages and apologise to Marc Wadsworth

Marc Wadsworth.

If anybody reading this doesn’t understand the significance: Marc Wadsworth is a left-wing campaigner who Labour MP Ruth Smeeth had ejected from the party after she made a false accusation of anti-Semitism against him.

I explained what happened in a 2016 article on This Site:

Smeeth had [Wadsworth] kicked out of the Labour Party after an incident at the launch of Shami Chakrabarti’s report into alleged anti-Semitism in the Labour party on June 30.

Telegraph reporter had handed her a leaflet Marc Wadsworth had been distributing, allegedly (I haven’t seen it) accusing Labour MPs who had rebelled against Mr Corbyn of treachery, and asked her (we’re told) for a comment.

Mr Wadsworth’s comment was: “I saw that the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP so you can see who is working hand in hand. If you look around this room, how many African Caribbean and Asian people are there? We need to get our house in order.”

He is a person of colour himself and says he had no idea Ms Smeeth is Jewish. But she had him booted from the party for anti-Semitism.

Here‘s some video evidence.

A report on that incident by the Jewish Chronicle prompted Wadsworth to take a complaint to newspaper regulator IPSO, who upheld it.

The paper had claimed that Wadsworth’s “verbal abuse” of  a Jewish MP, during the launch event of a report into “Jew-hatred in labour” had caused outrage among moderate party members and the Jewish community.

Under investigation by IPSO, the paper changed its reference to abuse, so that the article now states that he “challenged” Smeeth.

But that hasn’t stopped the Jewish Chronicle from publishing false information about this man. According to its own standards, he would be well within his rights to bring an action against it for racism.

This time, the paper’s correction reads as follows:

We reported that Marc Wadsworth had spoken at the launch event for the ‘Labour in Exile Network’ (LIEN), a group that aimed to discover the addresses of Jewish Labour activists to “take care” of them, and that he was thereby complicit in a conspiracy to intimidate, threaten or harass Jewish activists into silence. We also suggested that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that such activities were criminal. Our story was wrong. Mr Wadsworth did not speak or even attend the online event. Mr Wadsworth is not a member of LIEN and we accept that he has not been involved in any of the group’s activities. We apologise to Mr Wadsworth for our error and have agreed to pay damages to him.

How does a reporter make a mistake like that? To say, not only that somebody was at an event when he wasn’t, but that he had taken an active role?

If it’s a case of “all black people look the same” then it is time for a serious investigation – not only into this propaganda sheet’s political bias, but into racism as well.

Source: Jewish Chronicle again forced to pay damages and apologise – this time to Marc Wadsworth – SKWAWKBOX

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Most members think Labour has no problem with anti-Semitism. The Jewish Chronicle spins…

Wrong again: Starmer’s insistence that Labour is anti-Semitic has created a huge backlash, with 70 per cent of members saying there is no major problem.

You have to laugh. In the week after the Jerusalem Declaration that provides a new definition of anti-Semitism to stop it being confused with criticism of the hard right-wing Israeli government, the Likud-supporting Jewish Chronicle accuses Labour Party members of delusion.

It is reporting that a YouGov survey has found 70 per cent of current Labour members – that’s the people who are left after Keir Starmer and David Evans’s purges – don’t believe the party has a major problem with anti-Semitism.

There’s a good reason for that: the Labour Party does not – and never did have – a major problem with anti-Semitism. That attitude has been found within the party – but on a smaller scale than among the UK’s population generally and a much smaller scale than in right-wing parties like the Conservatives.

Hacks like the JC‘s Lee Harpin keep carping on about it because they have an anti-left wing political agenda of their own, it seems.

Consider the language Harpin uses in his story:

An exclusive poll for the JC reveals a party that remains in denial about the scale of the crisis, with large numbers still in thrall to Jeremy Corbyn.

There’s no evidence in the poll itself of any kind of denial at all, and agreement with Jeremy Corbyn’s opinion is not blind servitude to him.

The story goes on to say that, “in echoes of Mr Corbyn’s claim that the issue had been ‘dramatically overstated’, almost half  (46 per cent) thought the scale of the allegations were ‘exaggerated’, while 24 per cent said the party did not have a serious problem.

Harpin editorialises (which is highly unprofessional among reporters who claim to be writing the news rather than opinion pieces):

Significant support for the toxic former leader remains, with a striking 72 per cent of members insisting that he should not be expelled from the party.

No evidence is put forward to explain why Corbyn should be considered toxic – unless it is his accurate point that anti-Semitism claims had been “dramatically overstated” and “exaggerated”.

Almost a third of those polled, 29 per cent, thought that Sir Keir was doing a worse job than Mr Corbyn, who quit in 2020 after leading Labour to its worst general election defeat since 1935.

There’s a debatable claim! Corbyn lost a lot of seats but still won more votes than Tony Blair in 2005, Gordon Brown in 2010 and Ed Miliband in 2015. And that’s (allegedly) fighting the huge drag factor of Labour Party officers working to ensure that the Conservatives won.

The poll also disclosed that hostility towards Israel remains rampant amongst Labour’s rank-and-file, with almost half of respondents (49%) agreeing with the suggestion that Israel is an “apartheid state” .

It is. Palestinians are treated as an underclass by law – a law passed by the Likud government under Benjamin Netanyahu. Of course, this doesn’t mean Labour members think Israel will always be an apartheid state. South Africa used to be and isn’t any more so there’s always hope. It isn’t an anti-Semitic attitude to oppose the bigotry of that nation’s current government.

The revelations highlight the scale of the challenge that still faces Sir Keir, who pledged on his first day as leader to tear antisemitism out by the roots and restore trust with the Jewish community.

More accurately, they show that, rather than restore trust with the Jewish community (that was lost when Labour started paying attentions to the rantings of its pro-Likud Israel critics), Starmer has lost the trust of Labour Party members.

He will never regain it.

Starmer nailed his colours to the mast when he made his grovelling apology for anti-Semitism in Labour on his first day in office. He has spent his time since then pursuing, suspending and expelling party members under the pretext of anti-Semitism, when their real crime – as far as he is concerned – is Socialism.

But Labour is a Socialist party. It’s right there on the membership card. If Starmer disagrees with that, he should not be a member, let alone a leader. Nor should any of his cronies who take his side.

He will lose many seats in the local government elections next month because he simply can’t understand that anybody who supports the policies he likes will vote for the party that originally put them forward – the Tories.

His reliance on watered-down Conservatism, and his insistence on pursing a crusade against an enemy that doesn’t exist in any meaningful form will kill Labour as a political movement.

People have started to believe that this has always been his intention.

So, ultimately, Harpin’s hack-piece has the issue arse-backwards (as usual).

Starmer’s challenge isn’t ridding the Labour Party of anti-Semitism; Labour’s challenge is ridding itself of Starmer.

Source: EXCLUSIVE: 70% of Labour members still think the party has no problem with Jew hate and don’t want Corbyn expelled – The Jewish Chronicle

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

Hostilities recommence over alleged #Labourantisemitism ahead of EHRC report

After a relatively quiet summer when we all had other things on our mind, it seems the controversy over alleged anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is about to well up all over again.

Hostilities have resumed ahead of publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report on alleged institutional anti-Semitism in the party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

According to The Guardian,

Senior Labour figures are braced for the equalities watchdog to rule that the party acted unlawfully in its treatment of Jewish members.

Sources close to the inquiry said an earlier draft report found evidence of indirect discrimination in the operation of the party’s processes, which would be a breach of equalities law.

A draft report is known to have been shared with the Labour party in July, as well as with a small number of key figures from the Corbyn administration.

There are understood to have been multiple challenges to the draft report and the EHRC’s final conclusions have been kept under wraps.

[Current Labour leader Keir] Starmer is likely to accept all of the report’s recommendations, though a legal challenge to the EHRC’s findings is planned by Jewish supporters of Corbyn if they disagree with its conclusions.

But we should all bear in mind that the anti-Corbyn Graun is widely considered to have played a large part in stirring up the scandal in a bid to see him forced out of the Labour leadership.

As an example of the hostilities that are breaking out, consider the last paragraph quoted above, saying that Jewish supporters of Jeremy Corbyn will launch a legal challenge to the EHRC’s findings if they disagree, and then consider this (with apologies for subjecting you to some vile language):

As you can see, the insults are already flying without a scrap of evidence one way or another.

Source: Labour braces for damning ruling in EHRC antisemitism report | Politics | The Guardian

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Labour anti-Semitism row: members should use their votes to send a message nobody can ignore

Marie Van Der Zyl: The president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews needs to think before issuing bigoted press releases.

Congratulations are due to Labour deputy leader candidates Dawn Butler and Richard Burgon, who refused to kowtow to the Board of Deputies of British Jews by supporting their frankly anti-Semitic “10 pledges”.

In a hustings on Saturday, both confirmed that they did not support the demands, even though their fellow candidates for the deputy leadership – and all the leadership candidates have.

Ms Butler said she intended to wait until she had seen the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report on antisemitism in the party – and that she would support whatever it said. Personally, This Writer thinks that statement is premature; she should wait to find out what the verdict is before deciding whether it is worth supporting.

Mr Burgon, who has a history of questioning the so-called “witch-hunt”, said he had concerns about some of the demands. He made it clear that he would not support any move to pass investigation of anti-Semitism accusations to any external organisation.

He also said that he did not accept the Board of Deputies’ demand that only Jewish organisations it supported should be consulted on issues relating to all British Jews; all Jewish groups should have a voice. And he said the BOD needed to explain how the IHRA “working” definition of antisemitism could be implemented in the Labour Party without compromising freedom of expression or the rights of Palestinians.

(See this article for a full report – including video.)

Like the knee-jerk bigots they are, the Board of Deputies responded almost immediately – and stupidly.

“It beggars belief that after four and a half years of failure on antisemitism, Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler still think that they know better than the Jewish community how to fight this vile prejudice,” the BoD said in its statement. Trouble is, the Board of Deputies doesn’t represent “the Jewish community” because there isn’t a single, unified Jewish community in the United Kingdom.

Not only that, but neither of them said they knew better – this is falsely attributing words to people who did not speak them.

Oh, and after four and a half years, there is less anti-Semitism in the Labour Party than in the UK at large – and much less than in right-wing parties like the Conservatives. But we never hear the Board of Deputies complaining about that, do we? Because they are predominantly Tories, perhaps? (And don’t try to call this whataboutery; this is a political issue and the politics of BoD members is relevant.)

“No other minority would be treated in this way and this sort of thing is the very reason why Labour is being investigated for institutional antisemitism by the EHRC.” True in part: no other minority is treated the same as Jews, because the Board of Deputies has demanded that they be singled out for special treatment. This may be viewed as anti-Semitic in itself – applying double-standards by treating them differently from any other ethnic group.

And it is hypocritical to use the EHRC investigation against these candidates when one of them – Dawn Butler – specifically said she is waiting for its outcome.

Here’s a link to the tweet. Be sure to read the comments because many of them are scathing.

But don’t just take my word for it.

Jewish Voice for Labour has been a voice of sanity in this affair since the start, and its comment on the “10 pledges” is a damning indictment against the Board of Deputies.

“This organisation, deeply unrepresentative of British Jewry, presumes in effect to dictate to a major political party how it should run its internal affairs,” JVL states.

“Make no mistake – these are not ten requests: they are ten demands and one threat. The threat to each of the candidates for leader of the Labour Party. is in effect. accept our demands or we will attack you as enablers of antisemitism just as we contributed to making Jeremy Corbyn virtually unelectable. This not only brings shame on the Board of Deputies. It also brings danger to Jews living in the UK who will be seen as claiming a privileged place in determining how the country will be governed.” Applying double-standards by demanding that they be treated differently from any other group – see?

“It is deeply regrettable that all the Leadership candidates have succumbed to this blackmail.”

The statement goes on to explain what’s wrong with the “10 pledges”:

“Demand 1 is that all outstanding disciplinary cases should be swiftly concluded with a fixed timescale. That sounds good, but some cases are more complex than others. Those accused of something as serious as antisemitic behaviour must be allowed appropriate time to mount a defence, may need extra time because of serious illness, etc. Justice is complicated. The Board is simplistic. And underlying its attitude is the clear view that the only verdict that will satisfy the Board is ‘guilty’.”

Labour has a historic problem here, in that This Writer’s experience is that the party automatically assumes any accusation made against a member to be proof of that member’s guilt in any case.

“Demand 4 is that prominent offenders who were expelled or who left while under investigation should never be readmitted to membership. Never is a long time. The current Labour rules allow for the possibility of readmission after any offence, depending on behaviour, after a 5-year period. There is no reason, other than malice, that for this sole category of disciplinary finding the possibility of behavioural and attitudinal change should be excluded.

“The aim of this demand is revealed by its inclusion of the word ‘prominent’. How can it be just or appropriate to specify different penalties for people depending on how well known they are or have become? How can it possibly be acceptable to single out people by name? The explanation is that the two people mentioned [Jackie Walker and Ken Livingstone] were prominent ‘scalps’ claimed by a political campaign to extend the meaning of antisemitism. This is political vengefulness.”

Indeed.

“Demand 3 is that “Jewish representative bodies” (read, BoD) be given access to details of ongoing disciplinary cases. The confidentiality owed to ongoing investigations into allegations that have not been established to have merit is to be tossed out of the window. It beggars belief: the BoD is demanding the right to information that would give them, and their allies on the right of the Party, the ability to put pressure on how individual cases are determined. Out goes the independence of the judicial process. And what about the breaking of hard-won data protection laws?”

I seem to recall mentioning this myself.

“Demand 2 is the very purest chutzpah. The demand is that processing of all complaints, in effect the whole disciplinary process, be outsourced to an independent provider. This would mean that the Party would lose control of who was entitled to be a member! No autonomous organisation could implement such a scheme, least of all a political party. It strikes at the very heart of the freedom to organise for political change in this country. Parties are voluntary associations of people who come together to achieve shared ends, within national legal constraints. Their freedom of discussion and action and of self-regulation is the very fabric of our democratic processes.

“Demand 5 is headed “Provide no platform for bigotry”. But honesty in advertising would require it to be retitled “No platform for those who disagree with us”. What it says is that when people are going through the out-of-control disciplinary process assured by Demand 2, and while the details of the investigation are being fed to the BoD and its allies as a result of Demand 3, any other members who argues publicly that this treatment is misguided or unjust will themselves be suspended – and indeed perhaps expelled. If enacted this would ensure that no members could challenge unjust or slanted decision-making. Because those that did so would very likely cease to be members.

“Demand 6 – to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “international definition of antisemitism” with all its subordinate clauses, without qualification – begs many questions. Apart from the fact that the Labour Party has already done precisely this (misguidedly in our view), the IHRA document has proved ineffective in actual disciplinary situations. This is because its definition of antisemitism is so confused and its examples highly contentious, with no rules as to how to resolve the inevitable resulting disagreements as to what is and what is not antisemitic. The document was never drafted as a legally binding document, as countless critics (including Ken Stern, its drafter) have affirmed.

“Demands 7 and 8 both seek to define the “Jewish Community” by excluding many Jews – evidently the wrong sort. The right sort include those who run the Board, and the cadres of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). The JLM it should be pointed out refused to campaign for the great majority of Labour MPs at the recent general election. It does not require its members to be either Jewish or in the Labour Party.

“Demand 7 is that all Labour Party internal training in antisemitism should be carried out by JLM. For two years from 2016 the aggressively pro-Israel JLM did indeed deliver the Labour Party’s antisemitism training. Its course content was both didactic and dogmatic, based on the supposedly revealed truth of the controversial IHRA document. When in 2018 the Labour Party asked them to revise their approach JLM walked away in a huff. Now they want it back, but on their own terms. Demand 7 is that they be given it.

“Demand 8 extends the same monocular approach to the UK’s Jews as a whole. The Labour Party is required to agree to communicate only with ‘mainstream’ Jewish Groups. That is to demand the exclusion of two-thirds of the country’s Jews. Why would they be so afraid that Labour might communicate with the wrong sort of Jews? The  Jewish Chronicle had a ready answer when it reported Demand 8 as being ‘to engage with the Jewish community via its “main representative groups and not through fringe organisations” such as Jewish Voice for Labour (emphasis added)’. Are our demands for a pluralistic vision of the Jewish communities in Britain really so much of a threat that contact with them is contamination? For the Board is demanding, in essence, that expression of our views be banned in the Labour Party.

“Oy Vey.”

Let’s just go back to the Board of Deputies’ tweet for the last part of its statement: “In the Deputy Leadership election, members now have a clear choice about whether they want to become a credible party of opposition or waste yet more years fighting the Jewish community about who gets to define our oppression.”

It seems clear that it is the Board of Deputies that is “fighting the Jewish community” – by falsely claiming to be representing it and demanding the exclusion of all others.

But Labour Party members do have a clear choice now.

It is impossible to ensure that nobody votes for the candidates who have misguidedly supported the Board of Deputies’ childish demand.

But what a message it would be, if Dawn Butler and Richard Burgon received more support than any of the other candidates – by a significant margin.

If you are a Labour member, and you want sanity to be brought back to the party, then This Writer would like to appeal to you to abstain from voting for any of the candidates who have supported the Board of Deputies’ pledges.

Use your votes to make a statement that they cannot ignore.

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

‘Jewish families will leave’ – this nonsense claim is the upshot of the Labour ‘anti-Semitism’ witch-hunt

James Cleverly: He was once described as “the Tories’ go-to eejit when they need someone to tweet absolute nonsense or defend the indefensible”.

What an absolute travesty.

I wonder how many people reading this can remember back in the 1987 general election, when reporters claimed rich people – including pop stars like Phil Collins – would leave the UK if Neil Kinnock became a Labour prime minister?

It was mentioned on a TV panel show of the time, and I recall Tony Slattery remarking, “What a rock-and-roller you are, Phil!”

Well, Labour didn’t win and Phil Collins didn’t leave.

The reality was that people like him were never really going to. We know that because they didn’t clear off when New Labour won in 1997.

Now the Torygraph – and the Jewish Chronicle, if my search engine is correct – is saying Jewish families will leave the UK in fear of what Jeremy Corbyn will do, should he win the key to Number 10. This is based, we can only conclude, on the claims of anti-Semitism against Mr Corbyn.

I don’t believe it.

Firstly, the information comes from James Cleverly, the man running the Conservative election campaign. He would say anything to gain an advantage and he is not known for accuracy or intelligence.

Secondly, it would imply a huge amount of gullibility on the party of members of the Jewish community, and I’m not buying that.

In my opinion, most Jews know that the claims against Mr Corbyn aren’t true, and have been devised to discredit a man who wants a peaceful solution to the Israel/Palestine question.

Anybody who did leave, I would suggest, would have a political reason for doing so.

I reckon the UK’s Jewish community is in more danger from such liars than anybody else. Don’t you agree?

Source: Jewish families will leave the UK if Jeremy Corbyn wins general election, Tory chair James Cleverly says 

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 the witch-hunters are wrong about Chris Williamson

Outdoor oratory: Chris Williamson speaking to the crowd in Brighton on August 8.

You’ll be aware that MP Chris Williamson, suspended from Labour on a trumped-up anti-Semitism charge, had to make a speech in the open air after Brighton venues were bullied out of hosting him, apparently by organisations claiming to represent Jewish people.

It seems representatives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council rushed to Brighton to protest against his appearance on Thursday evening. We know that protesters were there, taking photographs of Mr Williamson’s supporters without permission (and we should certainly ask who these photographers were and what they intended to do with these images).

Today, I have seen two pieces on Facebook that suggest the hysteria whipped up around this meeting was not only utterly unwarranted but completely unfair.

Consider this post by Robert Cohen:

“With the President of the Board of Deputies and the CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council rushing down to Brighton last night to stop a speech by Chris Williamson MP, you’d think Williamson was about to call for destroying Jewish homes, or stealing Jewish land or denying Jewish human rights, or maiming Jewish protestors. Or perhaps he was about to proudly reveal he’d been a former guard at a concentration camp in Poland several years before he was actually born. But no, he made a speech about fighting racism and capitalism.‬

‪”The antisemitism case against Williamson is thin and flimsy at best. Personally, I don’t buy it. Unless “Jew baiting” now means not agreeing with the BoD, which in turn is the ‘new antisemitism’.‬

‪”The British Quakers must have been under huge pressure to cancel the Chris Williamson meeting on their premises. Fear of violence must have been a big factor too with calls for protestors to descend on the seaside town. I’m not going to criticise the Quakers as they’ve stood firm against the Board many times before (including on my behalf).‬

‪”As usual, the Board and JLC gets worked up about the wrong threats to Jewish interests. When will our Jewish leaders understand what’s really eating away at our Jewish safety and Jewish integrity? It’s taking place on the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem everyday. ‬

‪”Stand with the oppressed, never the oppressor (no matter who they are). Shabbat Shalom.‬”

What did he say? That the BoD and the JLC rushed to Brighton to stop an MP from giving a speech that denounced racism?

That seems completely arse-backward to This Writer.

If only we could see the speech and judge for ourselves, eh?

Here it is.

Who are the racists here – Chris Williamson and the crowd who came to hear him talk about challenging racism? Or the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council and their intimidating adherents?

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

Latest ‘anti-Semitism’ attack on Labour reveals the cruel intention behind it

Injustice: How many innocent Labour Party members have suffered as a result of false accusations?

Labour has been “letting off” party members accused of anti-Semitism, according to the Board of Deputies of British Jews – but they are deliberately misinterpreting party policy.

Still, what can we expect from an unelected self-interest group?

The claim is that Labour’s own disciplinary process shows that members can avoid punishment – by apologising and agreeing to take part in education to show why their actions were wrong.

And why shouldn’t they be excused from suspension or expulsion, if they know they have done wrong, have accepted it, and are willing to learn, so they don’t do it again, even inadvertently.

The Board of Deputies, it seems, wants all offenders to be driven out of the Labour Party, no matter whether they have accepted and apologised for wrong-doing or not. That is unreasonable.

Still, what can we expect from a predominantly right-wing – Tory-dominated – group? It seems to me that this demand springs from a desire to weaken the Labour Party, rather than any wish for justice.

And in any case, there is plenty of opportunity for injustice in Labour’s system as it is.

I was accused of anti-Semitic behaviour on several occasions, based on false allegations by that fake charity, the Campaign Against Antisemitism.

One or several of its members had concocted a press release in which they mangled my words in a bid to claim hatred of Jewish people where there was none.

Accused – and summarily suspended – by Labour, I expected a proper investigation into the truth or falsehood of the allegations against me. I received none.

The party’s attitude was that the accusation against me was proof of my guilt. After I proved that my actions were not anti-Semitic by any accepted definition of the term, the party changed its tune to claim that it did not matter, because my words had caused upset, and that was enough.

(It isn’t enough. And, as the party could not produce anybody who claimed to have suffered such upset, no such person legally exists.)

I was initially offered reinstatement, if I apologised and accepted education on anti-Semitism – in line with the policy against which the Board of Deputies is now protesting.

I refused it because I had done nothing wrong and Labour’s investigation had been a farce.

But because the party’s disputes team had already made up their collective mind that I was guilty, I was subjected to another farce when my case was heard by the National Constitutional Committee.

That was the day it earned its derogatory nickname of “National Kangaroo Court”. It is clear that nobody who enters such a hearing may expect anything even approximating justice.

In fact, the entire procedure shames the Labour Party to the deepest level, and all those who defend it – from the lowest party official posting out suspension notices to the NEC, NCC and the general secretary.

All these people have been complicit in huge harm to the livelihoods and reputations of those whose names their decisions have besmirched.

In the light of these facts, Board of Deputies’ president Marie van der Zyl’s claim that “Labour’s disciplinary processes still seem to be more geared towards protecting antisemites than protecting Jews” is silly childishness.

The process is not a “‘get out of jail free’ card for racists,” as she claims. It is a mechanism to persecute the innocent.

So, by rights, I should be in favour of the now-much-touted demand that Labour turn over its disciplinary system to an independent organisation.

But here’s another stumbling-block: When Labour offered me the chance to apologise and take a course on anti-Semitism, the people running that course would have been the Jewish Labour Movement.

That would be the same Jewish Labour Movement whose members secretly recorded Jackie Walker when she attended a “safe space” meeting (meaning attendees had been promised freedom to discuss anything, without their words being used against them), and then used her words against her by passing a version of that recording on to the press.

I would describe that behaviour, at the very least, as untrustworthy. Wouldn’t you?

The Jewish Labour Movement has been highly-critical of the Labour Party in the past, as have the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council, all of whom have endorsed the call for an independent investigation/disciplinary process.

Perhaps they intend to demand that they should carry out such a process?

Whether they do or not, they must certainly never be allowed to do so.

Source: Jewish leaders accuse Labour of ‘letting off’ antisemites | Politics | The Guardian

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook