Tag Archives: Rachel

#Labour is dead; who’s joining #PAL instead?

Rachel Reeves: it has been suggested that she would be more at home in the actual Conservative Party than Labour – but now Keir Starmer has turned the Red party into Tepid Tories it seems she has become comfortable again.

Rachel Reeves really put her foot in it on the morning media round today (Thursday, January 20, 2022).

Challenged over the fact that her political party – Keir Starmer’s Tepid Tories (formerly Labour) – has room for a right-wing Conservative, but not for a socialist like Jeremy Corbyn, she not only admitted that she was glad that Starmer had changed Labour into a pale reflection of the Conservatives, but also spluttered that Mr Corbyn should apologise for the fabricated anti-Semitism “crisis” that was foisted on him for political reasons by right-wing organisations outside the party and was then seized by right-wingers within Labour itself.

She lied, saying Mr Corbyn needed to apologise for his response to the “EHCR” [sic – she meant EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission)] report because it had said Labour was “institutionally anti-Semitic”; the EHRC report said no such thing. Here are the facts:

And she lied again, saying that Mr Corbyn damaged relations between the Labour Party and “the Jewish community”. Firstly, there is no single group that identifies as “the Jewish community” or represents all Jews in the UK (although there are some who falsely claim they do); and secondly, Mr Corbyn did nothing to upset any Jews at all – some people on the political right saw an opportunity to bring down a socialist by lying about him and opportunists like Ms Reeves joined them.

Hear it for yourself because here’s the clip:

If that wasn’t bad enough, Reeves seems to have gone on a destructive rampage against Labour’s left-wingers and through her own party’s current policies to ensure that a Labour Party with either her or Starmer as its MPs would never be acceptable to left-wing voters:

She said that the loss of 200,000 members was a “good thing” because it removed anti-Semites from the party, and “people who never shared our values”. She did not say what those values were but let’s take a moment to remind ourselves that this is a person who gave a glowing endorsement to Nancy Astor, who was an infamous anti-Semite, Nazi idealogue and supporter of Adolf Hitler.

She admitted that Keir Starmer’s Tepid Tories were in financial difficulty but lied yet again, saying this was Jeremy Corbyn’s fault. In fact, when Mr Corbyn handed over the party leadership to Starmer, Labour had £13.5 million in the bank. Starmer, and his general secretary David Evans, squandered the lot.

Some of these claims were made on the Today show; some in the Financial Times. None of them were corrected by either Today presenter Mishal Husain or any of the newspaper’s editorial staff. On the BBC’s side, this is surprising, because only last week the corporation apologised for not challenging claims of anti-Semitism against Jeremy Corbyn in another interview:

We may await an apology and correction – although I expect we shall be waiting a long time.

Fortunately, those of us who want a better life for more people than just the fabled “one per cent” don’t have to put up with Reeves’s nonsense any longer: there is an alternative:

It seems likely that at least six other groups are likely to announce their own involvement in PAL.

Of course, there will be no publicity from the BBC, Financial Times, or any of the other mainstream media. They’ve spent decades neutering Labour; they won’t want to let some other working-class Lefty upstarts rock the boat, now they think they’ve put us all back in our place.

If it’s a genuine alternative, it will grow in spite of them – and This Writer is looking forward to helping that happen.

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

#BBC admits there’s no evidence of #antisemitism by #JeremyCorbyn

This is a landmark moment.

The BBC has stated categorically that there is no evidence to support any claim that former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite or has behaved in any way that suggests anti-Semitism on his part:

As you can tell from listening to the statement by BBC 5 Live presenter Rachel Burden, claims that Mr Corbyn was an anti-Semite had been made by a Conservative doner, the Phones4U billionaire John Caudwell during an interview on her show.

Some of us are delighted by this BBC policy statement:

Personally, I’m looking forward to the splutters of indignation from the anti-Semitism scammers (you know who you are).

And yet, they’ll provide absolutely no hard evidence to support their claims.

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

#RachelRiley #libel case: New Year heralds new attack on #Vox Political’s Mike – through #crowdfunding site

High Court: Mike’s defence against Rachel Riley’s libel claim will be heard here – hopefully at some time during 2022.

Just before the weekend, I received an email from CrowdJustice, the website responsible for running the crowdfund that allows me to defend myself against Rachel Riley’s libel claim.

It was seeking my assurance that the Case Page – the ‘front page’, if you like, of my CrowdJustice site – meets the required terms and conditions, particularly with regard to third parties (people who are not directly involved). Apparently there had been “complaints”.

Further discussion led me to believe that the complaint referred to mention of Tracy-Ann Oberman’s involvement in the case.

For clarity: When I set up the crowdfund, Ms Oberman was threatening me with a libel claim and I had received a letter of claim from the same firm of solicitors that is running Riley’s case.

Although the limitation period has now passed in respect of the claims she threatened in 2019 – meaning she may not now take court action against me over them – Ms Oberman has never formally confirmed that she has withdrawn her claim.

This means that my headline – that I was defending against claims by both Riley and Oberman – was technically correct.

However, as nearly three years have passed since the crowdfund was set up, I took the opportunity to suggest a few edits to both the headline and text that should prevent any complaints in the future.

But there is another element to this which I believe any right-thinking person would find to be no less than utterly despicable: coercion.

This was an attempt to persuade CrowdJustice to close down my fund, thereby preventing me from continuing with my defence.

Whether it was instigated by Riley, her legal team, her friends, associates or a third party who simply wanted to cause me trouble, closing down my CrowdJustice would have ensured that I would not have been able to bring my case to court and my reasons for writing what I did about this very rich and financially powerful TV personality would not have received the public airing they deserve.

This suggests to me, very strongly, that Riley does not have a good case against me and fears she will lose if evidence is heard in court.

For that reason, I believe my CrowdJustice site may experience more such attacks – or there may be attempts to undermine my funding by other means.

I have been able to fend off these attacks so far – but that is no guarantee that there isn’t a crack in my armour and/or that my opponents won’t find and exploit it.

So I feel bound to appeal to you: If you want this important case to get to court, please donate as much as you can, while you can.

Here are the details again:

Consider making a donation yourself, 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 have made it clear from the very beginning that this is a battle between wealth and information. Riley has wealth and wants to use it to stop me from providing information that the public should hear.

The case is likely to go before a judge this year – we may be on the last stretch before a trial happens.

Let’s make sure we get across that line.

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

#GhislaineMaxwell: Will 2022 start with the downfall of the UK #Monarchy?

Accused and accuser: Prince Andrew (left) is said to have sexually abused the woman now known as Virginia Giuffre (right) while she was still a child – and is doing everything he can to avoid facing trial for it. This in itself casts suspicion on his claims of innocence. And it may be bringing the UK Monarchy into disrepute for protecting him.

Let’s start this article with the important question: is anybody tracking down the perverts who had sex with underage girls provided by Ghislaine Maxwell?

It’s all very well saying that the procurer has been convicted so the route via which these vile creatures gratify their disgusting desires has been cut off – but it only means they will find other ways.

Police – in America – are going through the now-infamous black book kept by Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, but they are treating the associates listed within merely as possible witnesses, rather than as possible suspects (until and unless evidence is found to justify criminal proceedings).

That may come as a relief to people like Keir Starmer’s recently-appointed henchman Peter Mandelson, who has 10 entries in the book (suggesting that he wanted the paedophile pair to be able to get hold of him wherever he may have been), and newly-to-be-knighted Tony Blair, who has an entry in the book himself.

It may not be so much of a comfort to Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, who appears in the book 16 times and is accused of child sex offences.

And the repercussions may undermine the foundations of the UK Monarchy – an institution that has survived for almost a thousand years. That’s plenty of time to fall into filth and corruption – and to hide it by abusing the privileges that come with the highest position in the land.

It’s being reported that Andrew has just begun to show concern that his alleged crimes may bring down the Monarchy. It seems he had not previously spared a thought for the fact that being involved with people in a paedophile ring (whether he was a part of it or not) might bring that ancient institution into disrepute.

In This Writer’s opinion, the acts that have really put the future of the Monarchy in question are his attempts at evasion – his refusal to travel to America to face charges is not the behaviour we would expect of an innocent man; I understand he has claimed that his accuser should not be permitted to continue with her case because she now lives in Australia, not the USA (but that should have nothing to do with it; this is an international sex crime case and it seems logical to base the prosecution in the country where the offence was allegedly committed); and it seems he has also put forward a claim to have been in a UK branch of Pizza Express with one of his daughters at the time of the alleged offence – although nobody has come forward to corroborate the claim (and members of the public would certainly remember, even from 21 years ago, if a Royal walked into their local fast food joint).

His continued attempts to avoid justice are hugely harmful to the UK Monarchy because it makes the Queen complicit in the alleged crimes; Andrew is seen as having committed them (whether he really did or not is immaterial to this part of it) and then gone running behind his mother’s skirt tails for protection from the consequences.

Bear in mind that both Epstein and Maxwell, along with another sex offender – the US film producer Harvey Weinstein, were photographed at the 18th birthday celebrations of Andrew’s daughter, Princess Beatrice. It seems that Royalty and sex crime are well-entwined.

In his evasion attempts, Andrew is hugely aided by the UK’s mass media organisations – particularly the BBC. Maxwell was the daughter of a newspaper magnate (who was himself disgraced after he fell off his yacht and died, when it was found that he had been stealing from the Mirror Group’s pension fund). This means she is well-known to many of the journalists who have been writing about her – and their work has reflected their own sympathy for this child abuser.

The hypocrisy enough to send you reeling: the same people who took glee in claiming that former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn should take responsibility for his brother Piers advocating criminal damage of Covid-19 vaccine-supporting MPs’ offices have conspicuously failed to suggest that Boris Johnson should take similar responsibility for his sister Rachel’s article, It’s hard not to pity Ghislaine Maxwell.

This Writer has absolutely no pity for anybody who uses children to gratify their (or other people’s) perverse sexual desires.

The BBC’s editorial position has also been characterised as calling for us to bless this poor lost soul – with manipulative choices of verbiage. So when referring to the girls or children who were abused in Maxwell’s paedo ring, the BBC describes them as “underage women”.

That’s sickening.

And there is worse. Coverage refers to Maxwell by her first name, as though she’s our friend; her victims are described as “accusers”; after previous reports of similar crimes referred to “grooming gangs”, there is no such attempt to whip up outrage here (quite the opposite); and there are no calls to interrogate participants in the abuse (going back to the black book).

The BBC went too far when it booked people who are known to be sympathetic to Maxwell, to comment on the case in its news programmes.

The backlash, after Epstein’s former lawyer Alan Dershowitz – himself now accused of child sex crimes – appeared on BBC bulletins, giving a sympathetic view of Maxwell and insisting on both his own and Andrew’s innocence, was huge.

The corporation’s bosses had to issue a statement admitting that Dershowitz’s appearance had not met BBC editorial standards, and that the matter would be investigated to find out “how it happened”.

The statement led to what some have described as “the Twitter burn of the year” – from the Sunday Sport‘s Twitter feed: “That’s putting it mildly. It didn’t even meet OUR editorial standards.”

Of course we all know how it happened. Dershowitz was booked by a BBC booking agent who – knowing that he is himself a suspect – contacted him or his agent/manager and asked to interview him. They then falsely presented him as an independent legal expert. It was deliberate – and deliberately misleading.

And now the BBC has lost any right to claim that its news coverage is impartial in any way, as people across the UK are accurately accusing it of deliberately protecting the rich and privileged at the expense of the poor and vulnerable.

I say accurately because, having admitted its fault over Dershowitz, the BBC compounded the mistake by booking Maxwell’s brother Ian, who was interviewed about his sister the very next day.

Of course he made a big fuss about claiming she was innocent – on a news platform that is watched and believed by 70 per cent of the UK’s population. Think about that.

A former BBC political news editor, Rob Burley, has claimed that failures like the Dershowitz booking are results of budget cuts at the corporation – to which critics responded by pointing out that such errors exclusively benefit the UK’s rich and powerful elite. They quoted a current saying: “It’s not a bug; it’s a feature” of the BBC.

Even former BBC reporters like Adil Ray have railed against the corporation’s biased coverage. In a tweet, he stated: “When I filmed a doc on the sexual exploitation of young girls by some Pakistani men it would not have been acceptable to hear a defence from their brothers. Why is it ok now?”

The answer is obvious: families of abusers who travel on buses, instead of luxury cars or yachts, simply don’t get that platform. And the question isn’t why the former don’t – it’s why the latter do.

And let’s face it – the BBC doesn’t have a good record of identifying, accusing and denouncing child sex offenders. Look at the way Jimmy Savile was protected for decades. He was a close friend of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher, of course.

Sadly, this deference to the rich and powerful isn’t limited to the BBC and Rachel Johnson – whose bias towards Maxwell is likely to be due to the fact that the child sex procurer was at Balliol College, Oxford, with her own brother: UK prime minister Boris Johnson.

See how the people in this group link up and protect each other?

Returning to Andrew, it’s one reason we should be grateful that proceedings against him are taking place in the United States; it is unlikely that the UK’s compromised legal system would ever have even accused him. It didn’t accuse Savile during his lifetime, after all.

And let’s remember that Metropolitan police commissioner Cressida Dick is another alumnus of Balliol College, Oxford, who may well have known Maxwell there at some point – either as a student or as a former student.

I’m sure I don’t have to tell you how accusations against this fellow Balliol alumnus may have been taken by a Dick police administration, because we have the evidence of the Christmas 2020 parties that allegedly involved fellow Balliol alumnus Boris Johnson to help us.

That’s right: if Ghislaine Maxwell had been accused in the UK, the police would probably have responded by saying they don’t investigate incidents from more than a year ago.

Below please find material from Twitter that may provide valuable further information:

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

#LauraMurray loses #RachelRiley #libel case – but was the judgment safe?

On the face of it, this may be seen as a blow to my own chances of winning a libel case against Rachel Riley: after more than seven months’ deliberation, a High Court judge has ruled that she has won her case against former Jeremy Corbyn aide Laura Murray.

But the reasons given by Mr Justice Nicklin do not ring true to me. I reckon there may be grounds for appeal against what may be an unsafe judgment.

The judge has partly acknowledged that the case is not cut-and-dry, because he has awarded Riley only £10,000 in damages. The reasons are explained below.

The case revolved around three tweets: one by the journalist Owen Jones, one by Riley and one by Murray.

The first, published by Mr Jones, referred to an incident in which former British National Party leader Nick Griffin was attacked with an egg. Published in January 2019, it stated: “Oh: I think an egg was thrown at him actually. I think sound life advice is, if you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi. Seems fair to me.”

On March 3 that year, then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was visiting a London mosque when he was attacked by a man wielding an egg. Later that day, Riley quote-tweeted the Owen Jones tweet, adding her comment: “Good advice” plus images of a rose (taken to indicate the Labour Party’s ‘Rose’ emblem) and an egg.

Ms Murray responded twice to Riley’s tweet. First, in a direct reply, she stated: “You are publicly encouraging violent attacks against a man who is already a target for death threats. Please think for a second about what a dangerous and unhealthy role you are now choosing to play in public life.” Riley did not respond to this, nor did she take court action over it.

Instead, she took Murray to court for libel over a second tweet which was not a reply to her own (meaning Riley’s tweet would not have been seen by people reading Murray’s). It stated: “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.”

Murray offered up three defences: Truth (that her comment was factually accurate), Honest Opinion (that the opinions she expressed were honest, based on facts) and published in the public interest (and that her belief that is was in the public interest was reasonable).

Mr Justice Nicklin rejected all three defences because Murray had not published Riley’s tweet (again) in connection with her second tweet, and had not said that her comment was only one possible interpretation of Riley’s words.

The judgment states that another possible interpretation, put forward by Riley’s followers and supporters at the time, was that Owen Jones was a hypocrite for suggesting that people with views he doesn’t like should be attacked with eggs while those with views he does like shouldn’t.

But that’s not borne out by his actual tweet, as I’ve shown above – nor by Riley’s words. She said his tweet was “Good advice”, indicating that she agrees with his premise. And the context – the fact that the tweet coincides with such an attack on Jeremy Corbyn – implies that it should be applied to him, otherwise why would she have tweeted at all?

So she was apparently saying that Corbyn has objectionable views and may therefore be a target for egg attacks.

In her evidence at trial, Riley said that she had tweeted the “Good advice” tweet “sarcastically” – but there is no indication of sarcasm in the tweet itself.

She seems to have bolted on an interpretation of her tweet, based on what her followers/supporters put forward – with no evidence to justify them having done so – in her defence.

If readers have no reason to believe that a message is not to be read as a straight statement, then it seems to me that it should not be suggested that it wasn’t one. If Riley had included </sarcasm> or a similar indication, matters would be different.

She could have used an emoji to show her intent but she didn’t.

Her tweet provides absolutely no information suggesting that she did not mean anything other than what her tweet said – that Mr Jones’s tweet was good advice that may be applied to Jeremy Corbyn.

And why would she have waited more than two months before saying that Mr Jones’s tweet was hypocritical, and in such an opaque way? I feel sure that most of us would have forgotten his comment after such a long time.

So – to me, at least – it seems unreasonable that anybody may have come to a conclusion that Riley had tweeted sarcastically or was commenting on any perceived hypocrisy by Mr Jones.

And the judgment relies on that interpretation being one to which readers may have reasonably come.

The judge states that Murray misled her readers by misinterpreting the material. But with nothing in Riley’s tweet to support her claim that she was being sarcastic, or to support any claim that it referred to hypocrisy, it is hard to justify that claim.

And with only one alternative interpretation of Riley’s tweet – whose reasonableness seems clearly questionable – it seems that Murray may have been well within her rights to put forward her own interpretation as the only one possible.

In fairness to the judge, he does point out that Riley’s tweet could have been clearer and that the fact that it isn’t suggests “provocation”.

He wrote: “There is a clear element of provocation in the Good Advice Tweet, in the sense that the Claimant must have readily appreciated that the meaning of the Good Advice Tweet … could be read as suggesting, at least, that Jeremy Corbyn deserved to be egged because of his political views.

“In the context of her own high-profile campaign against anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, the risk of the Good Advice Tweet being read in that way was obvious.

“In that respect, the Claimant can hardly be surprised – and she can hardly complain – that the Good Advice Tweet provoked the reaction it did, including the Defendant’s Tweet.”

I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that there are clear grounds for appeal against this judgment, because the judge did not adequately demonstrate that there was another reasonable interpretation of Riley’s tweet.

The judgment as a whole gives me a certain amount of hope for myself (as there are points that support similar elements in my case), but also serious grounds for concern. Looking at the information above, I’m sure you can appreciate my reasons.

My CrowdJustice fund is still open – and will certainly be necessary if I end up facing a similar judgment and the possibility of having to appeal (again).

Please help by doing one or several of the following:

Consider making a donation yourself, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

Since Riley’s court action against me started, it seems I’m not going to be allowed to have a worry-free Christmas. I had hearings in December 2019 and December last year, and while this judgment does not affect me directly, it has potential ramifications for my case.

A show of (financial) support would make a very strong statement right now.

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Riley libel case: will the press hide it from the public if she LOSES?

We should all be concerned about this.

My attention has been drawn to a thread on Twitter by one @JJVinall, about the way the press reports matters concerning Rachel Riley.

Referring to an article on the BBC website headlined What is Rachel Riley’s most embarrassing habit? Mr Vinall states, “The thing about RR which really gets me is that she is trying so hard to maintain this wholesome, clear cut image and yet the facts; the evidence is there [that] this is not the case.”

He continues: “If @MidWalesMike succeeds in his case against RR I imagine two outcomes:  1. The press will ignore it and put their head in the sand. 2. The press will act as though it is a revelation that they didn’t know the case was happening and some on the optics left will no doubt act as though they were always on the side of the blogger since day one.

“This is where we are at regarding celebrity,  journalism and ethics and it explains why persons like RR etc continue to prosper though they are not role models or good individuals.”

Of the two options, my belief is that the press would ignore a verdict against Riley because she’s their darling and she’s prettier than I am. Journalistic standards these days really are that low.

I don’t think the media could call it a revelation as they have been covering the case. The angle has been “Lovely Rachel defends her reputation against black-hearted blogger” all the way through. It would be a shocking turnaround if reporters suddenly changed their tune on the basis of evidence brought out in the courts.

But that is what they would have to do, if they were to report the case impartially.

I have not been wasting the last few weeks. In my spare moments I have been reviewing my own evidence for the court and it is damning. I only wish I could tell you about some of the information that will come out when the case comes to trial.

If it comes to trial.

I still need funding to ensure that it does – now more than ever. The case should have far-reaching repercussions – and not just because of any effect it has on press reporting – so there is still a huge amount of pressure to prevent it from going before a judge.

I am raising the fundraising target – hopefully for the last time, having reached nearly 90 per cent of the current goal. Hopefully, £250,000 will be enough to cover all the costs, including any further surprises of the kind that Riley’s legal team like to spring on me.

Please help by doing one or several of the following:

Consider making a donation yourself, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

The more people know about this, the better – partially because it will put pressure on the press to report the case fairly and accurately, and that would be a welcome change!​​​​

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 pains: someone tell Rachel Reeves that her party was ALWAYS pro-business

Rachel Reeves: she looks like Morticia Addams and represents the death of hope for working-class people across the UK.

How pathetic can Labour’s shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer be?

She’s being feted by The Times, of all rags, for saying Labour is now a “pro-business party”.

I’ve got news for this dimwit: Labour always was.

The clue is in the name “Labour” – the party of working, and working-class people.

It was intended to represent these people, to make sure that honest workers receive an honest wage for their contribution to – guess what? – business.

And such a political organisation is needed now more than ever. Sadly, that party won’t be the one Rachel Reeves represents.

Labour also recognises the fact that some industries are best run by the state in the national interest – like the rail and water industries. These run on a national infrastructure of rail and sewer systems that remain the same, no matter which (these days) private firm is being paid for the service. When they were sold off, we were promised that part of the profits these firms would make would be invested in improvements to those systems – but that hasn’t happened. The money has gone to those utilities’ new owners – in Europe, mainly – instead.

So yesterday This Writer saw an accurate description of the UK’s rail system on Twitter, that said it consisted of 19th-century tracks, on which run 20th-century trains for which we are charged 21st-century fares.

Any fool can see that is not equitable. The utilities should be brought back into state ownership because the private profit-grubbers have reneged on the deal. We need to improve our aging infrastructure before it falls apart completely – and then we need to keep it public.

But the utilities aren’t anything like a majority of UK businesses. A properly-functioning Labour representation party would legislate to ensure that workers are represented on the boards of all private businesses – indeed, they should all have equal shares in those firms, to ensure that every honest worker receives an honest wage, rather than being ripped off by fat-cat investors, as is, far too often (but not always) the situation today. Also, worker representation would minimise the health risks that put far too many people onto sickness and disability benefits.

Anybody standing for a party that claims to be for labour representation should hold these to be self-evident necessities.

But Rachel Reeves doesn’t even want to talk about nationalisation, and when she says Labour is now “pro-business”, she means it is now wholeheartedly in bed with the fat-cat rip-off merchants.

Her attitude stinks. “Pro-business”? The only business she wants to do is her own – on you (and yes, for the hard-of-thinking, that is a reference to lavatorial functions).

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Riley libel case: the latest scam is demanding data that doesn’t exist

Rachel Riley’s lawyers have been trying to tie me up with an impossible problem.

A while ago, they demanded that I provide information on the number of hits my article, Serial abuser Rachel Riley tp receive ‘extra protection’ – on grounds that she is receiving abusehas received.

They threatened an application to the court if I did not provide it.

No problem, I thought, zipped over to the stats page for my website and sent the information to my own solicitor, for him to pass on.

Apparently this wasn’t good enough.

I’ve received a series of demands since then, narrowing the demand down to the point where, it seems, they want to know how many people read the article on the day it was published.

I don’t have that information – because the organisation that collects statistics for my website doesn’t keep it beyond a certain period, and that period has expired.

I have made this plain and am waiting for a response.

But it seems clear that Riley’s lawyers are fishing for something and think I am keeping it from them. I have no idea what it is.

But I fear they may drag me back to court for another fund-wasting sideshow anyway.

They know my defence is crowdfunded and I reckon they are calculating that you are all getting tired of funnelling cash to me while the case drags on and on. I think they are hoping that you will run out of patience and then they’ll achieve their principle aim of draining my funds before the case comes to trial.

Please prove them wrong – by doing one or several of the following:

Consider making a donation yourself, 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 honestly don’t know what this tactic aims to achieve so I can’t say what I expect to happen next.

But I bet they try to time it to ruin my Christmas!

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

Do these politicians know their comments on Riley-related Big Issue boycott ARE NOT TRUE?

Ian Austin: Did the Mail mislead him into believing that people who oppose Rachel Riley’s claims about anti-Semitism want to penalise the homeless?

Unlikely though it seems, This Writer is going to be charitable to two hard-right political headbangers.

Former Labour MP, now Lord Ian Austin has said people who said they would boycott The Big Issue after it published a one-sided article about Rachel Riley and anti-Semitism in the Labour Party were “a complete disgrace.

“They would rather homeless people lose out and go hungry because The Big Issue contains an interview with Rachel Riley, who they hate because she campaigned against racism.”

Neil Coyle: Does he care that he made a false claim when he said people are boycotting The Big Issue because it is exposing racism?

And current Labour MP Neil Coyle said: “Anyone suggesting we don’t buy The Big Issue and ignore homeless people because it is also exposing racism reveals quite how these people sank Labour and why they must never again be trusted to be anything other than a factional cult.”

As anybody who read This Site’s article about the row last Wednesday will know, their comments are shocking misrepresentations of the facts.

Nobody who commented on the Riley article suggested that homeless people should be harmed because of The Big Issue‘s descent into fake news.

You can read a few of the reasons Riley’s opinions were not supported by the facts in the Vox Political piece, so we won’t rehash old ground by re-examining what she calls campaigning against racism and why it is more likely to be political factionalism.

Concerns that a boycott would cause problems for homeless Big Issue sellers were raised by Shaun Lawson – one of the very people Riley has accused as part of her so-called campaign against racism.

That isn’t mentioned in the Mail article.

Nor are any of the comments in response. Let’s redress the balance here:

Giving money direct to the seller isn’t a perfect solution because The Big Issue relies on the seller buying the copies they pass on to the public – at half cover price.

But refusing to take the magazine while handing over the cash makes a strong statement – especially if the sellers hand all their unsold copies back to the publisher.

As you can see, nobody who called for the Riley issue of The Big Issue to be boycotted did it to harm the homeless sellers, or to attack a campaign against racism – because they do not accept that Riley does anything of the sort.

My question is: did the Mail‘s reporter make this clear to these politicians before they made their highly contentious and prejudiced statements?

If so, then This Writer is happy to forgive them after they publish a full retraction.

If not, then anybody who is not already shunning these people is encouraged to do so.

Source: Now hard-Left activists boycott The Big Issue because it ran interview with Rachel Riley | 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

Riley writes for The Big Issue – so readers vow to stop buying it

The Big Issue: This Site is temporarily without image editing capability, otherwise there would be a big ‘No Entry’ sign across this logo.

The standout line in Rachel Riley’s Big Issue interview wasn’t about anti-Semitism, you may be surprised to learn.

It’s where she states: “If someone was ringing up your house phone and saying these things you would block that number. If someone came up to you in the street, you wouldn’t accept it. So there’s no reason why you should have to on social media either.”

What a coincidence that she should say such a thing at a time when I have been receiving abusive messages on my house phone! I sincerely hope it’s a coincidence, anyway, what with Riley being set to go into a civil trial against me over alleged abuses on the social media by herself and her Twitter friends and followers.

Needless to say, I haven’t blocked the number. I have saved the messages and reported the abuse to the police. We’ll see what comes of it.

The rest of the article is shockingly one-sided.

Riley is said to have become active against the Labour Pary’s handling of anti-Semitism accusations during Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader, but no mention is made of the fact – revealed in the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report, published almost exactly a year ago – that Corbyn and his general secretary Jennie Formby hugely improved Labour’s response to such allegations after it had been allowed to grow lax by the party’s Governance and Legal Unit under previous GenSec Iain McNicol.

She states that new leader Keir Starmer has a “tough job” because Mr Corbyn “gave the worst result in 80 years for Labour”. This is debatable as the number of seats won did not reflect the number of votes cast. In fact, Corbyn won more than 10 million votes – more than previous leader Ed Miliband in 2015 (9.34 million) Gordon Brown in 2010 (8.6 million) and Tony Blair in 2005 (9.5 million).

Mr Corbyn is the Labour leader who scored the highest number of votes for Labour in the 21st century (so far) in 2017 (12.87 million).

It would be right to say that Labour won its lowest number of seats since 1935 – but that is more correctly attributed, not to Mr Corbyn, but to Starmer – whose insistence on a bad Brexit policy led to the loss of the so-called “Red Wall” seats in northern England to the Conservatives. It was Starmer who lost the 2019 election for Labour.

“In terms of antisemitism he’s definitely tackling it,” Riley said. Er, no.

He is suspending left-wing, socialist Labour Party members on hearsay accusations – for political reasons that have nothing to do with their attitude towards Jewish people. For proof of that, consider the fact that, according to campaigning Jewish organisations that Riley supports like the CST and the Campaign Against Antisemitism, the worst threats to Jewish people are on the right of the political spectrum – yet not a single complaint about anti-Semitism by right-wing members of the Labour Party (who all happen to be supporters of Keir Starmer) has been investigated. Not one.

Meanwhile, under Starmer, Jewish Labour Party members are now five times more likely to be accused of anti-Semitism than non-Jewish members. How does Riley reconcile that with her pro-Starmer attitude?

The interview goes on to discuss abuse that Riley says she has received after she “became more outspoken on social media”. It does not mention any of the evidence that her behaviour there has caused her followers and supporters to abuse others, that is the basis of the court action between her and This Writer.

And Riley is said to now be an ambassador for the grandly-titled Centre for Countering Digital Hate. Let’s have a look at that connection, shall we?

What a tangled web. Perhaps The Big Issue would have been wise to investigate these connections between the organisation for which Riley is now an ambassador and these people and organisations that are all connected very closely to Sir Keir Starmer.

Could it be possible that her statements about him may come from a position of… I don’t know… bias?

This Big Issue piece is a mockery of journalism. One would have expected at least some effort to provide factual accuracy – and where is the right of reply for people she has misrepresented?

The result is clear: People are boycotting The Big Issue.

It is a potentially problematic decision. The Big Issue is sold by people who are homeless and they receive a proportion of the money that is given to them.

Boycotting the magazine could harm homeless people – a point made very well by Shaun Lawson, whose articles about Riley’s unacceptable behaviour towards a teenage girl with mental health issues led to This Writer’s current court case:

He’s right to ask that we don’t make the homeless suffer. But here’s a solution, suggested by Jackie Walker – a person who knows very well how it feels to suffer a “false flag” attack on claims of anti-Semitism:

That’s the answer, for the time being.

Instead of buying The Big Issue, just give the money direct to the vendor and make it clear that it is for them, and not for the magazine. None of that money should go to The Big Issue.

And remember to do it when the next edition comes out because it will again feature Riley.

“Heavygusto”, below, makes a good point about it:

I would also urge everybody to contact Big Issue publisher John Bird and demand a balancing article. I would happily contribute and I’m sure others who have been victims of anti-Semitism-related falsehoods would also be keen to have their voices heard – for a change.

Riley’s lawsuit against me is still going on (and on, after nearly three years!) so if, after reading the above, you are interested in supporting my defence against her, please do one or more of the following:

Consider making a donation yourself, 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.

Oh – one last point: Starmer’s approval rating is -40.

He won’t be winning any elections – especially with the likes of Rachel Riley cheerleading for him.

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