Tag Archives: Laura Murray

Is Rachel Riley deliberately misleading people or does SHE not understand libel?

Take a look at this:

That’s right – after a neutral judgement on the meaning of words Rachel Riley claims are libellous, she misled the public: “Today I had the 1st judgement of a handful of libel cases. The verdict supported my claim to have been defamed by Laura Murray.”

It didn’t. Ms Riley had launched proceedings over a tweet by Ms Murray and in a neutral judgement, Mr Justice Nicklin said the first and second sentences were statements of fact while the third was an expression of opinion – and all may be considered defamatory in common law.

That’s not a ruling that Ms Murray had libelled Ms Riley. The trial hasn’t happened yet.

But look at her response to Mark, who tweeted: “This is excellent news Rachel. I remember saying on here many months back that you’d almost certainly win your libel case against Murray, and I got a great deal of stick off some know nothing Corbynites, some of whom told me you’d get laughed out of court. Delighted you’ve won.”

She replied: “Turns out many of them don’t have that strong an understanding of libel law. Who’d have guessed. Thanks for your support.”

It seems to me that it’s Ms Riley who doesn’t have that strong an understanding of libel law. Otherwise she would know she hasn’t won the Murray case.

And that’s strange, because she has a solicitor who should be advising her of that. In fact, it is his duty to do so, if she has misunderstood.

But it’s more than a week since her reply to Mark and I haven’t seen any retraction or correction.

So, is she deliberately misleading her fans? I sincerely hope not.

Of course, Laura Murray isn’t the only person facing a libel lawsuit from Ms Riley. She’s suing me too – and my case has been misreported in the national press.

Unlike Ms Murray, who I understand is well-funded, I could lose my case due to lack of funds. As I’ve said many times, I believe Ms Riley is hoping I will run out of cash – and if I can’t afford to defend myself, I’ll automatically lose.

Considering the implications of her dialogue with Mark, I don’t think you’d be happy to let that happen.

So please…

Consider making a donation yourself, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking your friends to pledge.

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

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

There’s only one way to stop this nonsense, and that is to win.

And I can’t do that without your 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

Don’t be fooled: Rachel Riley has not won any of her libel cases

I received an email message today from John Gorniak, courtesy of CrowdJustice.

It said: “The Guardian are running a story that Riley won her case. Is this so and how is it that if she has not they are running this line?”

I think many people may be just as confused as Mr Gorniak at the latest developments.

For clarity: Rachel Riley is suing three people, to my knowledge – myself, Jane Heybroek and Laura Murray. The Guardian report refers to the case against Ms Murray.

It says that Ms Riley has won the first round of her High Court libel claim because a judge had stated that words tweeted by Laura Murray were defamatory in common law, in a judgement on the meaning of the statement.

That is not a ruling that Ms Riley has won her case. Ms Murray will now provide defences that one part of her tweet was true and another was her honestly-held opinion and there will be a trial.

While it is true that the judge upheld Ms Riley’s version of the meaning, the difference between it and Ms Murray’s was minor.

It is the interpretation of the facts that matters.

But it is hardly surprising that Mr Gorniak is confused. Consider Ms Riley’s own tweet about the ruling:

 

She made it seem that the judge had delivered a verdict on the case as a whole, and that is not true.

It is also not the first judgement. That came in December when the same judge – Mr Justice Nicklin – said that my article, which Ms Riley claims is libellous – was a “classic expression of opinion”. He went on to say that there were some statements of fact that I would have to support and I do not expect to have any problems there.

But the Daily Mail (for example) then reported the ruling thus: Countdown star Rachel Riley was wrongly accused of being responsible for death threats sent to teenager, libel trial hears.

It wasn’t a trial – just a hearing – and that wasn’t the verdict, but it did hear that claim.

You see how easy it is to subvert the facts?

Ms Riley clearly has the media on her side. And she has lots of cash with which to pursue these hugely expensive libel cases. Laura Murray is lucky enough to have some wealth of her own.

I don’t.

That’s why I have to campaign to raise the money I need to fight her claims about me, which aren’t even as accurate as the tweet pictured above.

If any of the above has made you angry about the way a media darling can twist the facts to suit herself, please do as much as you can of the following:

Consider making a donation yourself, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking your friends to pledge.

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

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

These cases are making a mockery of British justice. Don’t let Ms Riley get away with 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: her team just made a terrible mistake

Rachel Riley is a serial litigant; besides suing me, she is also pursuing Laura Murray, who bit back at one of the Countdown co-presenter’s tweets in March last year.

Referring to the incident in which Jeremy Corbyn had been punched by an egg-wielding man in a London mosque, Ms Riley had dug up an old tweet by Owen Jones which said “If you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi. Seems fair to me.” To this, she added the comment: “Good advice.”

Ms Murray, who was working in Mr Corbyn’s Labour Party office at the time, tweeted her opinion that Ms Riley was saying Corbyn was a Nazi who deserved to be attacked violently. She added that, in her opinion, Ms Riley was a dangerous and stupid person who risked inciting unlawful violence – and nobody should engage with her in any way.

Mr Justice Nicklin, in a judgement based on paper evidence due to the coronavirus pandemic, ruled that Ms Murray had made a statement of fact when she said Riley had stated that Corbyn deserved to be attacked violently.

That’s the extent of the difference.

His statement that the words have a tendency to be defamatory isn’t a ruling that Ms Murray is guilty of libel; the defendant may say that her statement was factually accurate and back it up with evidence, and she may also provide information to support the opinions that she expressed.

Riley hasn’t won the case; this was a ruling on the meaning of Ms Murray’s words and whether they were statements of fact or expressions of opinion. There will be a trial at some point in the future.

But Ms Riley and her friends seem to have started celebrating victory prematurely.

And someone went one step further – by publicising the case prematurely.

The image above shows that the right-wing Guido Fawkes blog ran an initial piece on the ruling on April 23, albeit with no further information than a claim that Riley had won. The Mail went further, publishing at 6.21am the following:

 

But the ruling was not published by the High Court until 10am on April 24 – more than a day later.

So it seems somebody has committed contempt of court.

This was a reserved judgement. That meant that the hearing was some time ago and the judge prepared a written judgement to be handed down on April 24. Prior to handing down, the judge would have sent a draft to the parties. The rules on drafts say:

2.4 A copy of the draft judgment may be supplied, in confidence, to the parties provided that—

 (a) neither the draft judgment nor its substance is disclosed to any other person or used in the public domain; and

 (b) no action is taken (other than internally) in response to the draft judgment, before the judgment is handed down.

 2.8  Any breach of the obligations or restrictions under paragraph 2.4 or failure to take all reasonable steps under paragraph 2.6 may be treated as contempt of court.

I imagine Mr Justice Nicklin would be very keen to find out who’s been playing fast-and-loose with court rules and his judgement. And I can’t blame him.

I can’t comment on who leaked the story to the press too soon – but I will keep an eye on it.

As for people who prematurely claim a legal victory that they haven’t won … if you’re as nauseated by this as I am, then please remember that Ms Riley is attacking me in the same way she is attacking Ms Murray – and I don’t have the cash to fight her.

If I can win my case in court, then it should discourage Ms Riley and her friends – harshly – from this vile behaviour. But I can only do it with your help.

Please consider making a donation yourself, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking your friends to pledge.

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

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

It would be bad enough if Ms Riley had won. The fact that she hasn’t, and is claiming she is, is toxic. In my opinion.

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 sues Labour complaints chief in ‘litmus test’ for possible future libel cases

Accused: Laura Murray with Jeremy Corbyn.

I will be following this case very carefully.

It seems Rachel Riley, the Countdown co-host turned Twitter anti-Semitism crusader, is suing Labour’s complaints chief, Laura Murrey, for defamation.

Ms Riley is seeking £50,000 in damages, plus court costs, over an exchange of tweets earlier this year.

It happened after Jeremy Corbyn was assaulted in the Muslim Welfare House, Finsbury Park, by a man who allegedly hit him in the head with an egg. The incident happened in March.

Ms Riley’s response to the event was to retweet a comment made by leftie columnist Owen Jones in January. He had stated, referring to an incident in which members of the BNP had eggs thrown at them: “I think sound life advice is, if you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi.”

To this, Ms Riley added the words, “Good advice.”

This attracted considerable criticism. I quoted Ash Sarkar’s tweet in my article on the Muslim Welfare House incident:

According to the Jewish Chronicle:

Ms Murray tweeted: “Today Jeremy Corbyn went to his local mosque for visit my mosque day, and was attacked by a Brexiteer.

“Rachel Riley tweets that Corbyn deserves to be violently attacked because he is a Nazi.

“This woman is as dangerous as she is stupid. Nobody should engage with her. Ever.”

But Ms Riley said her own post, which quoted a tweet from left-wing commentator Owen Jones, was not a reference to Mr Corbyn and should not be interpreted to mean the Labour leader himself was a Nazi and deserved to be egged.

She said Ms Murray’s tweet about her was an “appalling distortion of the truth.”

Was it? It will be informative to see what the court decides.

When I was informed of the case by a friend, I tweeted: “I remember the incident. This will be a litmus test for further such cases, I think. My personal opinion? Ms Riley doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”

Ms Riley will need to prove that the claim in Ms Murray’s tweet was false; that it was libellous and that it caused damage to her (meaning that she suffered financial loss as a result).

To do this, she will need to explain what other reason she could possibly have had for dredging up a two-month-old tweet about egging Nazis, on the day Mr Corbyn was egged, if not as a comment on that incident.

Her testimony at the witness stand will be enlightening.

Source: Countdown’s Rachel Riley sues Labour complaints chief Laura Murray over tweets | News | The Sunday Times

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Labour’s complaints procedure is a nightmarish mess – but that’s no reason to condemn the new chief

I’m sorry, why are we condemning Laura Murray’s appointment as Labour’s new head of complaints, again?

Is it because she gave perfectly good advice when she was asked for it – for example, saying a member should be investigated who was later arrested in a police inquiry into anti-Semitism? That would be unreasonable.

Is it because she tweeted comments about ‘Princess Countdown’ Rachel Riley that the now-litigious TV presenter didn’t like? Big deal. And, by the way, Ms Riley is trying to sue me for libel and knows what I think about that.

Or is it because deeply untrustworthy individuals like Margaret Hodge and the current leaders of the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement want complaints about Labour Party members to be handled by a separate organisation – presumably one that they may control at will?

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying an independent complaints procedure is a bad idea. Labour’s own process is an ongoing train crash of titanic proportions, of which every single person involved, from the so-called compliance unit up through the National Executive Committee to the bunglers on the National Kangaroo Court Constitutional Committee should be deeply ashamed. It is a national humiliation for that great political organisation.

I’m just saying it should never be handed over to people with an overt agenda, such as those named in the Guardian article to which you may find a link below.

They include, but are not restricted to: Margaret Hodge, anybody in the JLM, Stella Creasy, Wes Streeting, Ruth Smeeth, or anybody in the Parliamentary Labour Party who supports their version of an independent complaints process.

Labour members deserve better – but they have a long way to go until they get it. Maybe Laura Murray is the first step on the way.

Source: Labour row erupts as ex-Corbyn aide is made head of complaints | 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

Battle over democracy as Momentum prepares for 2017 conference

A murky horizon? Momentum members are among Jeremy Corbyn’s strongest supporters, but he risks losing them, opines The Graun. This Writer disagrees [Image: Filip Singer/EPA].

A murky horizon? Momentum members are among Jeremy Corbyn’s strongest supporters, but he risks losing them, opines The Graun. This Writer disagrees [Image: Filip Singer/EPA].

What a shame: Organisers of the Jeremy Corbyn-supporting organisation Momentum appear to be splitting, with each faction claiming the other is betraying democracy.

Focus of the split is Momentum founder Jon Lansman. One group says his plans for computerised, one-member-one-vote democracy feeding into a delegate-led debate is a “slap in the face” for democracy – the other touts it as the future of democracy.

The Guardian article quoted below focuses heavily on a blog by Laura Murray, a Lansman supporter – but blows its credibility by suggesting that a meeting of Momentum’s national committee on Saturday was “to decide whether to support the one-member-one-vote (OMOV) system favoured by Lansman, or a delegate-based system… Critics have claimed that a delegate-based system will mean that the hard left will be able to control Momentum’s future direction”.

In fact, the meeting was called to discuss arrangements for the organisation’s conference in February next year, when delegates will discuss broad political and campaigning priorities for the organisation and questions of strategy and tactics relating to its involvement in the Labour Party.

It seems members decided to support a procedure in which delegates debate and approve – or reject – motions submitted by Momentum’s constituent organisations, with an online forum for all members where motions can be discussed, amendments mooted and compositing processes arranged, and an online priorities ballot.

This was the controversial part.

Mr Lansman’s proposal was for his online, one-member-one-vote method to be used to propose motions and gather supporters for them – but also to whittle them down to the six most popular motions in each of three categories – purpose, ethics and structure (and a catch-all ‘other’ category for those that don’t fit in any of them).

Delegates would debate all six proposals in each category – and vote on them – but the final say would go to members, after the conference, who would vote on only three proposals in each category, using the digital OMOV method.

Here’s the catch, though: Only the top three proposals – one for each category – would be approved.

Momentum LGBT+ co-representative Josie Runswick had this to say about it, in her own blog:

“It represents a slap in the face to the membership. What it allows, at the end of a lengthy and complex process, is asking the membership to whittle nine potential policies down to three. Just three actions to take from a national conference and months of organising work.
“It is also a slap in the face to all of the local and regional groups which have been organising, building and campaigning for the last year. It affords them absolutely no real say in the agenda of conference, and doesn’t allow their conference delegates to do any more than reduce eighteen motions to nine.

“I could not see any positives in the specifics of the Lansman proposals, so I voted against them.

“It is worth noting that electronic OMOV is still used several times in the run-up to the conference, and it also worth noting that nothing prevents conference from agreeing to put proposals to an electronic OMOV ballot of the membership. I would be minded to do this myself on some major issues.”

Contrast this with Ms Murray’s comments, in her blog:

“People who have only recently flocked into the Labour Party from other left-wing parties seek to agitate against Jon Lansman, in the hope that they can take ownership of Momentum for themselves.

It is in the context of these bitter and hurt groups that we lost any proposal to use OMOV for elections — other than for those areas of the country which don’t have local Momentum groups — and lost the proposal to use MxV to propose and vote on motions.

“These groups are unified only by their opposition to Jon Lansman and their realisation that the existing structures and processes are those which benefit themselves and their style of politics.”

What do you think?

The Guardian‘s piece scaremongers shamelessly, suggesting that under this “Trotskyite” controlled Momentum, Jeremy Corbyn could lose the group’s support. It quotes Ms Murray’s claim that “Jeremy Corbyn will inevitably make one compromise or concession that isn’t ideologically pure enough for them, and they will abandon him and Labour altogether to turn Momentum into a rival leftwing party”.

Really?

No. Momentum was created to support Mr Corbyn and the new vigour he has brought to the politics of the Left.

This seems nothing more than bleating from those who themselves sought to control the organisation undemocratically and then accused those who foiled them of exactly the same thing.

Sharp divisions have emerged within Momentum, the grassroots organisation that supports Jeremy Corbyn, following reports of an attempted takeover by Trotskyist and factional groups, an executive committee member has claimed.

Momentum’s women’s officer has written a blog claiming that members of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty and others are seeking to wrest control from its founder, Jon Lansman. Laura Murray, who is also a Labour shadow cabinet adviser, has claimed that ultimately, some activists will try to force Momentum to abandon Corbyn and turn to another leftwing organisation.

Source: Trotskyist factions seeking to take over Momentum, member claims | Politics | The Guardian

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.


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