Tag Archives: lawsuit

Liberty launches lawsuit against Suella Braverman for overriding Parliament on protest powers

Suella Braverman: it seems she’ll be bringing that glower to a judge in the High Court, sometime in the near future.

The organisation Liberty, that challenges injustice, defends freedom and campaigns to make sure everyone in the UK is treated fairly, is taking Home Secretary Suella Braverman to court.

The action comes after Braverman overrode Parliament to change the Public Order Act in order to give police a free hand to arrest anybody carrying out an act of protest, depending on how disruptive officers think it is.

Here’s what Liberty has to say about it:

Human rights organisation Liberty has started legal action against the Home Secretary Suella Braverman over new anti-protest legislation which it says that she is unlawfully bringing in by the back door despite not having been given the powers to do so by Parliament.

In a pre-action letter sent to the Home Secretary, Liberty said that plans to give the police more powers to impose restrictions on protests that cause ‘more than minor’ disruption are unlawful.

The move – which uses secondary legislation to bring the powers into force – violates the constitutional principle of the separation of powers because the measures have already been rejected by Parliament.

By bringing in these powers, the Government has been accused of breaking the law to give the police ‘almost unlimited’ powers to shut down protests due to the vagueness of the new language.

The Government’s plans to lower the threshold of what constitutes ‘serious disruption’ at a protest were previously voted out of the Public Order Act by Parliament earlier this year (30 January).

Liberty says the Home Secretary has now changed the law entirely in a way that is an overreach of her power – defining ‘serious disruption’ as anything that causes ‘more than minor’ disruption.

A cross party parliamentary group committee has recently said this is the first time the Government has sought to makes changes to the law through secondary legislation that have already been rejected by Parliament when introduced in primary legislation.

Liberty’s letter to the Home Secretary says:  

  • The Secretary of State is seeking to amend the threshold on protest powers set by Parliament by the back door in ways that expand the powers of the police to restrict protest activity.
  • Parliament only gave powers to clarify the law, and not change it entirely. Therefore, Parliament cannot have intended to give the Secretary of State power to amend primary legislation in a way which circumvents the will of Parliament because this would incur on the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.
  • The making of the Serious Disruption Regulations would be unlawful for being an unjustified interference with the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.
  • The new legislation was not consulted on fairly, as is required by law. The Government only invited in parties it knew would agree with the proposals, such as the police, but did not ask groups who might have had reasonable concerns.

Katy Watts, Lawyer at Liberty, said:  

“We all want to live in a society where our Government is open, transparent and respects the rules. But, as we’ve seen today, the Home Secretary has not abided by any of these.

“The Home Secretary has side-lined Parliament to sneak in new legislation via the back door, despite not having the powers to do so.

“This has been done deliberately in a way which enables the Government to circumvent Parliament – who voted these same proposals down just a few months ago – and is a flagrant breach of the separation of powers that exist in our constitution.

“This is yet another power grab from the Government, as well as the latest in a long line of attacks on our right to protest, making it harder for the public to stand up for what they believe in.

“The wording of the Government’s new law is so vague that anything deemed ‘more than a minor’ disturbance could have restrictions imposed upon it.

“In essence, this gives the police almost unlimited powers to stop any protest the Government doesn’t agree with.

“This not only violates our rights, but the way it’s been done is simply unlawful. This same rule was democratically rejected earlier this year, yet the Home Secretary has gone ahead and introduced it through other means regardless.

“We’ve launched this legal action to ensure this overreach is checked and that the Government is not allowed to put itself above the law to do whatever it wants. It’s really important that the Government respects the law and that today’s decision is reversed immediately.”

Source: LIBERTY LAUNCHES LEGAL ACTION AGAINST HOME SECRETARY FOR OVERRIDING PARLIAMENT ON PROTEST POWERS – Liberty

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

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right 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

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

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

Abuse of Roger Waters hits new low with Anne Frank ‘trade mark’ claim

The issue: it seems a group calling itself UK Lawyers for Israel doesn’t like the name of Anne Frank (who was a Jew) being associated with that of Shireen Abu Akley (a Palestinian).

Who would be disrespecting the memory of Anne Frank the most in this situation: Roger Waters for using her name to make an argument against hate, or the Anne Frank Foundation for suing him over an alleged breach of its trade mark?

It’s a hypothetical situation, of course. This Writer hopes nobody at the Anne Frank Foundation would be unreasonable enough to take it that far.

It’s not the Anne Frank Foundation that has even raised the issue, you see. It’s a group here in the UK, called UK Lawyers for Israel.

An article on that organisation’s website states:

Waters used the name Anne Frank to defame Israel by comparing Shireen Abu Akleh with Anne Frank, as shown in photographs posted on Twitter.

Shireen Abu Akleh was an American journalist of Palestinian Arab extraction who was killed in the course of an Israeli military operation in Jenin last year. The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have accepted that there is a high possibility that an Israeli soldier fired the bullet that killed her, but deny any intention to kill a non-combatant journalist. Roger Waters’ display was evidently intended to suggest that Abu Akleh, like Anne Frank, was murdered by evil fascists, and that the IDF are like the Nazis (a typical example of antisemitism according to the IHRA definition).

During the concert, Waters also dressed up as an SS officer.

Anne Frank Stichting registered “Anne Frank” as a trademark inter alia in Class 41 for entertainment services in various jurisdictions. Roger Waters’ abuse of the mark seems liable to harm its functions and without due cause to take unfair advantage of its distinctive character and repute and/or to be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute, thereby infringing the rights of the Anne Frank Stichting.

There might also be infringement of personality rights inherited by Anne Frank Stichting in some jurisdictions.

Let me get this straight: an organisation in the UK, of lawyers who support Israel, wants an organisation in the Netherlands to take action against the star of a concert that happened in Germany, because it mentioned in passing a name that the Dutch group has trademarked?

There are several issues here: first, Anne Frank was a person. Reducing her to a trademarked name and then litigating against someone else for using that name would be dehumanising behaviour that, in my opinion, may count as anti-Semitic in itself. I can’t see the Anne Frank Stichtung acting in that way, personally. UKLFI may need to reconsider its own approach also.

What would a lawsuit be about – infringement of a trade mark or defamation of Israel? If the latter, then it is nothing to do with the Anne Frank Stichtung.

The use of her name for entertainment purposes would also be problematic, I think. Was the concert advertised as having anything to do with Anne Frank? Was her name on display throughout the performance, or only for a period amounting to seconds? Is there any reason to believe that people attended the show in question (in Berlin, in mid-May) because of the use of Anne Frank’s name? If not, then it seems unlikely a trade mark infringement suit would have any traction. Mention of her would likely come under the category “fair use”.

The connection with Shireen Abu Akleh would also need to be scrutinised. Were the two names projected as described by UKLFI, one immediately after the other, or were they separated by other names? If they were separated, then how is Israel defamed? Whether they were or not, what other names were also projected? What were the reasons those names were also used? Is it reasonable to suggest that the names were projected for entertainment purposes, or to make an argument, and in that case, what is the argument supporting – hate, or peace?

If UKLFI is arguing that Roger Waters wrongly equates the death of Anne Frank with that of Shireen Abu Akleh (perhaps claiming that he was saying both were caused by invading oppressors), then the circumstances of Shireen Abu Akleh’s death would have to be explored. Jenin is a city in Palestine; what were Israel Defence Forces doing there if not invading from another country? What were their activities there intended to convey to the inhabitants, if not oppression? What reason did they have for using projectile weapons in a space where non-combatant civilians might be harmed, if not fatal harm? Can it be proved that criticism of the Israeli government and military for carrying out the “operation” and causing the harm that it did is unfounded? If it cannot, than how can Israel be defamed by what Roger Waters has said about this incident?

When in the concert did Roger Waters state that the Israeli Defence Forces are “evil fascists”?

When did he say the IDF are “like Nazis”?

And – in the context in which mention of Anne Frank and Shireen Abu Akleh were mentioned – is it unreasonable to have made such a comparison? Was there a correlation between the behaviour of the Nazis towards Anne Frank and that of the IDF towards Shireen Abu Akleh?

Does UKLFI really want that tested in court, considering the likely consequences if a judge rules that it is reasonable to compare the behaviour of the Nazis and IDF and find it similar?

Worse for UKLFI is the claim that “Waters also dressed up as an SS officer”, which is not true and undermines UKLFI’s credibility.

Finally, Roger Waters’s lawyers will have been all over this. If any court action did ensue, I expect they would squash it in short order.

Add it all together and This Writer thinks it would be very difficult to make an argument in support of a lawsuit – whether for trade mark infringement or defamation (and I know a thing or two about defamation).

Finally, this is a worthwhile point, also:

Fair point? Note also that the Twitter user above does not speak for Roger Waters and their opinions must be treated as their own.

Ultimately, This Writer’s opinion is that the claims made by UKLFI are unlikely to be able to stop Roger Waters behaving as he has, may do nothing to improve the standing of Israel, and may actually harm the name of Anne Frank.

Am I right?

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

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right 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

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

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

Barclay’s lawsuit against striking nurses is just one example of his contempt for the NHS

Steve Barclay: he holds NHS staff in contempt, even though he’s surrounded by kit that he can’t make work – and they can.

It’s as though NHS employees – doctors, nurses or whoever – are the children of an abusive parent.

And Health Secretary Steve Barclay’s mistreatment of (among others) nurses has not gone unnoticed.

So the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing has condemned as “disgraceful” his decision to “bully” nurses into submission with legal action against their next two-day strike.

Her response echoes that of an abused family member who has taken too much and refuses to accept any more…

The leader of the Royal College of Nursing has said a legal attempt by the health secretary to block next weekend’s strike in England is “frightening for democracy and very frightening for trade unionism”.

Pat Cullen, general secretary of the RCN, said it was “disgraceful” that Steve Barclay was attempting to thwart the strike via the courts, and said nurses would “not be bullied into silence”.

“We have instructed our legal counsel and we will stand up for nursing. This is about standing up not just for nursing but for trade unionism and for democracy,” she told the Observer.

“It’s utterly disgraceful that he [Barclay] would prefer to use money to challenge nurses than to pay them, at a time when those nurses are struggling to pay their bills. He is using public funding, patients’ money, to challenge nurses through the court.”

She added that a claim by Barclay that the government’s legal action sought to protect nurses who could “otherwise be asked to take part in unlawful activity that could in turn put their professional registration at risk” was a “blatant threat”. “He is trying to frighten nursing staff. That registration is their livelihood,” she said.

It’s actually insulting. Barclay is playing the ‘kindly uncle’ character, who fakes concern for youngsters in his charge while actually subjecting them to harm.

Sadly, his attitude is rubbing off on members of the general public, who are also starting to treat NHS staff as government property, in the same way some children have to comply with parental wishes (whether they are benign or not – and in this case they’re malign).

And what’s the upshot of all this abuse?

Let’s skip across to see what’s happening to doctors:

Like a child suffering mental health problems as a result of living in an abusive household?

You may be thinking that the comparison is false. Doctors and nurses are, after all, highly-trained professionals who could merrily move out to any other health organisation in this or other countries.

But the UK’s National Health Service has an emotional hold over almost everybody in the UK (Tory MPs and private health executives/shareholders excepted). It inspires almost familial loyalty in that respect.

That is a great strength in retaining staff – but also part of the problem because it gives Tories carte blanche to cut pay and otherwise abuse staff, which leads to the mental health problems that we’re seeing too.

It is vital to point out how this demonstrates the contempt in which the Tories in general – and Barclay in particular – hold NHS staff.

Without that understanding, it would be hard to understand why the Tories are obstructing pay negotiations the way they are.

Source: Nurses’ leader blasts Steve Barclay over ‘disgraceful’ use of legal action to stop strike | Nursing | 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

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right 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

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

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

Windrush: Government sued over recommendation rejections | The Canary

The Empire Windrush brought many people to the UK to help rebuild the country after World War II. If it had still been in service a few years ago, the Tories would have been trying to use it to deport them all again.

The Tory government simply won’t do right by the victims of the Windrush scandal:

On 6 April, Britain’s government faced legal action by campaigners over its refusal to accept key recommendations made by an inquiry into the Windrush scandal, which affected thousands of Black post-war immigrants.

Suella Braverman in January refused to accept three of the changes previously promised by the Conservative government.

The … independent inquiry issued 30 recommendations, which Braverman’s predecessor agreed to adopt in full.

However, Braverman rejected more powers for Britain’s independent chief inspector of borders. She also refused a commissioner to safeguard migrants’ interests, and the holding of reconciliation events.

The group Black Equity Organisation, created last year to campaign for the civil rights of Black Britons, said it was seeking a judicial review of the home secretary’s decision.

There was no immediate comment from [the Home Office] as to the legal action.

Read the full story: Windrush: Government sued over recommendation rejections

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

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right 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

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

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

Firm implicated in ‘Lady Mone’ PPE scandal is being sued by the Tory government

Referrer: Lady Mone.

The Tory government is suing the company that Baroness Michelle Mone recommended to it as a supplier of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during the Covid crisis – for £122 million.

PPE Medpro won contracts through the government’s so-called VIP lane in 2020 after being recommended by Baroness Mone.

But the government is now trying to get its money back on one of the deals – to supply medical gowns – through the High Court.

It has been claimed that Mone’s recommendation was duff because the equipment provided was substandard, but PPE Medpro has denied any failings on its part, saying that it supplied its gowns to the correct specification, on time and at a highly competitive price.

Instead, it was the Department of Health and Social Care that acted incompetently, by failing to correctly specify and procure the PPE it needed during the crisis – according to the company.

But how will this affect the allegations against Baroness Mone?

She is currently on a leave of absence from the Lords – and suspended as a member of the Tories – after it was alleged that she had recommended PPE Medpro as a supplier, and then taken a payment of £29 million from the firm.

Will the allegations against her be affected, depending on what the High Court decides?

This Writer thinks not.

The question hanging over the former underwear magnate concerns whether she took money from the firm after lobbying on its behalf, which is not permitted according to Parliamentary rules.

The quality of the equipment, and the robustness of the contract under which it was supplied, would be irrelevant to that – although…

They would weigh heavily on public opinion of the Lady in question.

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

Celebrities sue Daily Mail publisher for ‘appalling breaches of privacy’

I spotted this on a BBC News tickertape last night (October 6) but couldn’t find the story.

Fortunately I have now discovered this Twitter thread which lays it all out:

The newspaper company’s representatives can say what they like, but members of the public already have an opinion about this:

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

Lawsuit launched against Met Police for failing to properly investigate Boris Johnson and Partygate

How will the Met Police justify this? Boris Johnson is pictured toasting departing Downing Street comms chief Lee Cain at a leaving party on November 13, 2020, that the prime minister told Parliament he never attended.

Take a look at this:

Here are the details:

We are, today, issuing formal proceedings against the Met Police for their apparent continued failure to properly investigate Boris Johnson’s attendance at three lockdown gatherings, in November and December 2020 and January 2021, and their refusal to answer our legitimate questions about how they reached this decision.

The public have a right to know what really went on inside the Partygate investigation. The Met’s actions have raised grave concerns about the deferential way in which they are policing those in power. It stands in stark contrast to how ordinary people were policed during lockdown.

It was only after we threatened to sue the Met in January 2022 that they agreed to investigate at all and the Prime Minister was eventually fined for attending a lockdown gathering in June 2020.

We’ve given the Met multiple opportunities to explain why he was reportedly not sent questionnaires regarding these three other gatherings, nor issued with fixed penalty notices for attending them, when a number of civil servants and officials who did received both.

On 15 June, we wrote to the Met, giving them a week to finally live up to their duty to be honest and upfront with the public.

Rather than work with us in a spirit of transparency, or address to the substantive issues raised in our case, their response focuses on our right to bring this action at all (known as ‘standing’). Yet even here, they haven’t properly explained themselves. We asked them who, if not us, would have standing and they refused to answer.

We strongly believe that Good Law Project and our co-claimant, former senior Met Officer Lord Paddick, have standing to represent the public interest in this matter. If we aren’t allowed to bring this claim, we don’t believe anyone else will be in a position to do so.

So now we’re forced to sue the Met for a second time.

Lord Paddick: “Members of the public will have seen Boris Johnson raising a glass at a party that he was apparently not even questioned about, and thought ‘If that had been me, I would have been fined.’ We are determined that the Prime Minister should be held to the same standard as the rest of us.”

From its failure to hold the Prime Minister and those around him to account for their lockdown breaches, to shocking reports of institutional misogyny, discrimination and sexual harassment, the public’s faith in the Met has been shaken to the core this year. This is their moment to finally begin repairing the damage their inaction has done.

Our challenge is grounded in a single, simple idea: for the law to have any meaning, it must apply equally to us all. The Met must explain their seeming lack of action in this matter. We won’t stop until the full story is uncovered.

The Met have until 22 July to respond. We will keep you updated.

Source: New Met Police legal action will get to the truth about the PM’s Partygate – Good Law Project

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

How long will it be before #racist #KeirStarmer drives #Labour into #bankruptcy? Place your bets [VIDEO]

“Keith”: this is just one comment on the way Starmer treats members of his own party who support the values on which Labour was formed, rather than the twisted parody that he leads.

Can you believe it? After blowing a £13 million war chest within just 18 months, Labour Exploitation Party leader Keir Starmer is hammering the little people for cash again.

He’s embarking on a fourth round of staff redundancies and has been writing around to all constituency party units to find out if they have property he can sell off to pay for the huge expenses of the lawsuits he has incurred.

Here’s Cornish Damo to explain in his unique style:

It’s insanity.

Starmer seems hell-bent on pushing his ideological support for the genocidal Israeli government to its worst extreme, persecuting rank-and-file members who hate the racism and persecution he represents – even though they are responding in the courts, to his party’s cost.

Would he be so keen on litigation if it was his own cash at risk? Doubtful.

But it’s Labour’s funding that he’s flushing away – and this leads me to an inconvenient but inescapable conclusion:

Starmer seems to be determined to purge Labour of all its anti-racists – or to destroy Labour by bankrupting 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

Labour’s facing another lawsuit over anti-Semitism claims. How will Starmer pay for it?

Keir Starmer: he has bankrupted Labour. Could Pamela Fitzpatrick’s lawsuit over false claims of anti-Semitism finally push him out the door?

Bad news for a Labour Party desperate to avoid any more large legal bills: Pamela Fitzpatrick is suing.

You can understand her reasons. I mean, the hypocrisy of Keir Starmer is overwhelming.

What kind of party is he leading, where being interviewed by a left-wing magazine that was not blamed for anything at the time is worse than being the editor of a far-left magazine that would certainly be proscribed by Keir Starmer’s Labour, even though he himself is the editor in question.

And then there’s this, of course:

Of course, it’s entirely possible for a lifelong Tory to have a Damascene conversion, see the light and switch to Labour – but in these days of entryism, it is very dangerous for socialists to accept such changes unquestioningly.

Starmer has gone the other way, of course. From editing a Marxist periodical, he is now, for all intents and purposes, a Tory himself.

His attitude to the manufactured ‘anti-Semitism’ crisis that was created with lies and is being perpetuated with lies is an indication of the kind of man he is. Let’s get back to Pamela Fitzpatrick for her opinion on that:

That is a logical conclusion to draw.

Worse still is the fact that Starmer’s policy is itself anti-Semitic – in practice if not in stated intent.

He is attacking Jews:

Did you read all that, in Michell Laufer’s tweet? “As a Jewish member of the Labour Party whohas had to watch other Jewish members abused, suspended and expelled as antisemitism has been weaponised,” she asks of Starmer, “is he going to be honest about “the gerrymandering of party democracy, the silencing of members of criticise apartheid Israel, his fawning obedience to the Board of Deputies who do not represent the views of the majority of Jews in this country and the imposition of antisemitism training by the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement?”

Of course he isn’t.

He’ll have to be made to admit it all.

One organisation doing its best to raise awareness of the threat to Jewish people posed by Starmer and his racists is Jewish Voice for Labour, which has taken up the issue with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, also sending the facts to the Forde Inquiry (which is still apparently ongoing, as the report has not yet been published):

The latest submission – of August 24, three weeks since the previous one – states:

“We have become aware of seven new investigations of Jewish Party members. Notifications of new investigations and auto-exclusions are arriving on a daily basis.

“This means it would appear that over four times more Jewish than non-Jewish Labour Party members have faced actioned complaints of antisemitism.  The disproportion is even greater in relation to JVL Committee members and officers. The staggering numbers suggest that these Jews are nearly three hundred times more likely to be investigated than non- Jewish Labour Party members. In all these cases the charges of so-called antisemitism are deeply offensive.

“There has been significant further evidence of our being treated harshly as Jews.

“Dozens of Jewish members are now being targeted by Labour as antisemites, for voicing an understanding of antisemitism that is a direct product of our Jewish political and personal heritage.

“The effect of rejecting or ignoring complaints made by JVL members of antisemitism; our experience of bullying and harassment; and the refusal to consult or involve JVL in, for instance, the EHRC required Action Plan; all show disdain for our status and roles as Jews.”

There is currently a campaign to raise awareness of the weaponisation of anti-Semitism against left-wing Labour Party members – and particularly left-wing Jewish party members, called #ItWasAScam. The position it takes is right, and it is this:

And this is the reason Starmer will lose when Ms Fitzpatrick drags Labour to court.

He’ll put the party even further into debt.

And the problem isn’t anti-Semites; it’s him – and the entryists who are supporting him because they know falsely accusing Labour socialists (the people for whom the party was originally created) of a heinous offence will make the party unelectable, leaving the way clear for the Tory corruption that we have seen under Boris Johnson.

I think it’s just a matter of time until this particular house of cards comes crashing down around Starmer and his allies.

I’ve already got the popcorn on order and am now just awaiting the opportunity to use 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

Tories and ‘centrist’ hypocrites call for closure of fund to help Jeremy Corbyn fight legal battle

‘New’ Labour and old news: Ian Austin and John Mann

Fantasists who have spent years pretending Jeremy Corbyn was an anti-Semite are wailing in protest after a fund was set up to help him fight a legal battle.

The broadcaster John Ware, who was responsible for last year’s risible Panorama ‘documentary’, Is Labour Antisemitic, is suing Corbyn over comments made by the former Labour leader and the official party line on the film at the time.

In response – and after current Labour leader Keir Starmer went against legal advice provided to the party in order to reward former Labour apparatchiks who appeared in the film, Corbyn supporter Carole Morgan has set up a GoFundMe crowdfunding web page that has raised around a quarter of a million pounds at the time of writing.

Starmer has spent around £600,000 of Labour members’ subscription money on court costs and the payout to a group of so-called “whistleblowers” who said they were libelled by the party over their part in the Panorama show. We are told legal advice to the party was that their case would not stand up in court.

Ms Morgan’s hugely-popular crowdfunder has attracted attacks from the usual suspects.

Former Labour Party cuckoo Ian Austin has attacked the initiative, saying that Corbyn should give some of the money back because some of the contributors left anti-Semitic comments.

But this is childish nonsense; it would be poetic justice to use an anti-Semite’s money to protect an anti-racist.

And did Austin complain when £250,000 was raised to help right-wing Labour MPs (as he was at the time) to remove Corbyn from his position as Labour leader?

No he did not.

The hypocrisy is strong in this one…

… as it is in the “news” paper that ran the story:

In a related event, Lord John Mann – who used to be a Labour MP but joined the Tories in exchange for a peerage and unlimited opportunities to have a pop at Corbyn – has been attacking the former Labour leader over anti-Semitic tweets by a ‘grime’ performer called Wiley:

Anti-Corbyn camp followers took up the cry, attacking Corbyn’s supporters for being silent about it. Most of us had never heard of the person in question:

I tweeted about this myself:

It seems I sparked a round of agreement, as others chimed in to admit that they hadn’t heard of this Wiley fellow either:

And here’s the icing on the cake:

So it seems even Corbyn’s reply wasn’t real and Mann was getting het up over nothing.

Will he apologise?

Source: Jeremy Corbyn is under pressure to return £210,000 Go Fund Me cash to help him fight legal battle | Daily Mail Online

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

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

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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook