Tag Archives: Rachel

Riley libel case: Mike’s appeal may be heard before end of May

 

The Court of Appeal may schedule a hearing on the Rachel Riley libel case before May 28, after a judge said it should be treated with some urgency.

The case is in a “listings window” that lasts all the way up to November 10 – which is a long wait – so the direction is probably to be welcomed, if I can make sure I have all my arguments ready by then.

As stated in a previous update, the court has approved my application to appeal against the High Court’s decision to strike out my defence against Riley’s accusation of libel – but only with regard to my defence that I published my article in the public interest.

The next step is for Riley to file a respondent’s notice and skeleton argument – an optional procedure that allows her to claim that Mrs Justice Collins Rice, in the High Court, could have decided to strike out this defence on the basis of other reasons than those she gave.

It seems the alternative is to argue that the decision she provided on January 20 was correct.

She will make her arguments known in due course. In the meantime, my job is still to make sure that the defence is properly funded. Please:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

On Twitter, tweet in support, quoting the address of the CrowdJustice site.

Having won a temporary reprieve, I cannot afford to be complacent.

The focus may be on legal arguments, but Riley can still price me out of justice if I fail to produce the required legal fees.

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

Game on! Court grants Mike permission to appeal in Riley libel case

I know that UK courts don’t use the gavel. This is for illustrative purposes.

The Court of Appeal has granted me permission to appeal against an order striking out my defence against Rachel Riley’s libel claim against me.

Firstly I must thank all of the readers and contributors who supported my crowdfunding campaign. You made this happen and without your generosity I would have had no way to defend myself against an aggressive attack.

Secondly: the court is allowing me to appeal on only one element of my defence – that publication of my article was on a matter of public interest. This is the end of the line for my defences of truth and honest opinion.

I can now reveal that I never held out much hope for my ‘truth’ defence. The High Court has made it clear that it would not entertain such a defence unless I was able to produce a tweet from Rachel Riley in which she declared herself to be a bully and demanded that all her followers should pile abuse and harassment on a teenage girl.

That simply isn’t a realistic expectation. It doesn’t mean the girl did not receive abuse, and discussion of the manner in which it came to her is certainly a matter of public interest.

I am sorry to see that the court doesn’t think I can defend the publication of my honest opinions. The Defamation Act allows me to rely on any fact that existed at the time my statement was published, and I had plenty of material available to me that would have allowed me to support my beliefs. Sadly, the court won’t hear it – at least in this context.

It is wholly possible to win the case on a ‘public interest’ defence. I have established a host of reasons why it was in the public interest for me to publish my article – and I am sure you can think of a few yourself, just off the top of your head.

I will not be making those arguments in the Court of Appeal. I will simply be putting forward reasons why I should be allowed to do so.

And I don’t need to do anything at all until Riley lodges what’s called a “respondent’s notice” and her skeleton argument against me.

All underlying proceedings are suspended while the appeal process takes place and while the court order does not mention it, the High Court costs order must also be suspended as it will be subject to alteration if I win the appeal.

And I can win the appeal.

And I can then go on to win the case.

Sadly, it will cost more money to get that far but – joyfully, if I win – Riley will have to pay it all back.

Therefore I repeat my request for funds. Please:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

On Twitter, tweet in support, quoting the address of the CrowdJustice site.

I don’t know how long we have to wait for the court to hear my appeal. This means I don’t know how soon I will need to provide payment for it.

But I will keep you informed, as ever, of all new developments.

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

Why did ‘celebrity’ Twitter users force suspension of ordinary woman? Because they could

Some of you have been kind enough to notice that This Writer’s @MidWalesMike account has been in the Twitter sin bin since the beginning of the month because somebody didn’t like one of my articles about the court case against Rachel Riley.

That is dangerous enough – it’s clearly an attempt to create a “chilling” effect on my crowdfunding (that, fortunately, has failed – the fund has nearly raised £125,000 since it started nearly two years ago).

But now I read that another Twitter user, who apparently has no public profile at all (she’s not a celebrity or a journalist/blogger or a member of the commentatorati), has found her account suspended, simply for expressing her dislike of an actress.

The actress in question was Tracy-Ann Oberman, who apparently searches the social media platform for any adverse comment about her. Spotting this one, it seems she claimed that the lady in question had to be an anti-Semite, even though no part of the view she expressed in her tweet conveyed any such sentiment. See for yourself:

“It’s a sin was doing so well then I saw Tracy Ann Oberman left a bad taste in my mouth … trying to quickly forget I’ve seen her.”

“Caroline do you think that YOU may be one of those intolerant bigots that Russell is talking about in #itsasin

“Seems you’ve missed the entire point of the series. You and the rest of this thread. Oh dear. @cst @UKLabour @LabourAgainstAS”

The @ tags at the end of Oberman’s tweet are significant. She was tagging in the Community Security Trust and Labour Against Anti-Semitism – both highly vocal self-proclaimed crusaders against anti-Semitism (although both could equally well be described as witch-hunters against people targeted with false claims) along with the Labour Party, because ‘Caroline’ could be seen holding a Labour membership card in her profile picture.

The implication is clear: Oberman wanted to brand ‘Caroline’ an anti-Semite and she wanted to bring Labour’s attention to it. In order to provoke disciplinary action, perhaps? Because this person had expressed an opinion about her appearance in a TV show. Overkill?

No. Overkill is what followed. Oberman’s tweet led to a dogpile so vile that even some of its participants later withdrew their comments and apologised.

I won’t go into the details but you can read about it on Zelo Street if you like.

Then – apparently after pressure from the usual cohort of “blue tick” celebrities – ‘Caroline’ had her Twitter account suspended.

I repeat that she had not expressed a single opinion that was not well within her right. If she doesn’t like Tracy-Ann Oberman, it is not for Tracy-Ann Oberman to take offence and have her hounded off of Twitter. For all Tracy-Ann Oberman knew, ‘Caroline’ had perfectly good reasons for disliking her.

Those reasons don’t have to be restricted to her acting, either. I refer to her “clitoris” comment in response to David Quantick, and her (clearly racist, in my opinion) “Is Ping Pong the Thai help?” query in response to a tweet from Liz Hurley that her parrot had spoken in human language for the first time.

Nevertheless, Tracy-Ann Oberman reacted the way she did, and now an innocent member of the public has been hounded off of Twitter.

You may be wondering why Tracy-Ann Oberman feels justified in having acted as she did. I’ll tell you the answer:

Because there is a court ruling that says she cannot be held to account for it.

It’s the ruling of Mrs Justice Collins Rice in the case brought by Oberman’s friend Rachel Riley against This Writer.

Riley’s legal team had put forward an argument that she could not possibly be held responsible for the behaviour of her followers, who abused and harassed a teenage girl with mental health problems who had had the temerity to criticise her for accusing Owen Jones (and Jeremy Corbyn) of anti-Semitism.

Riley had tagged celebrities, politicians and so-called activists against anti-Semitism into her tweets responding to the girl, who had received many hundreds of responses critical of her as a result – forcing her to quit Twitter several times for the sake of her mental health.

But the judge agreed that Riley was not responsible. Her ruling means nobody else can be, either.

And this is the result.

It is hugely damaging – not only for the safety of people like ‘Caroline’, but for everybody’s Article 10 right to Freedom of Expression according to the Human Rights Act (she was hounded off the platform for expressing an opinion about an actress, remember).

It also contradicts the intentions of Online Harms legislation that is due to pass through Parliament soon. Part of the proposed law would make participation in online dogpiles a criminal offence with serious penalties attached.

As everybody should be aware by now, I have appealed against Mrs Justice Collins Rice’s ruling.

I hope that judges at the Court of Appeal agree that it has created the opportunity for significant harm – and has already caused such harm in the case of ‘Caroline’.

If so, then we may also hope that the ruling is rescinded and the Obermans of this world lose their legal protection.

My case is still going on, I am still crowdfunding to pay its costs, and you are invited to contribute in the time-honoured ways:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

If you haven’t donated before, perhaps this story will encourage you.

After all, they might come for you next.

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: her lawyers have attacked Mike with ‘hidden assets’ claim

Mrs Mike thinks this is turning into harassment.

Today (February 16) may be the first working day since my application to appeal was lodged last Wednesday, when I don’t receive an aggravating piece of correspondence from Rachel Riley’s solicitors.

I submitted a witness statement with the appeal application, pointing out that I am far from rich, because Mark Lewis was seeking to enforce an expected decision by the High Court judge to award £27,000 in costs to his client. I am disputing this amount in my appeal as it is far too much, according to the rules by which Lewis is supposed to work.

On February 11, Lewis informed my own legal team that he believes my statement of means (as it’s known) was misleading because I had not mentioned the current position of my crowdfunding efforts; he wanted to get his hands on the cash raised by my CrowdJustice site.

In a further communication the following day, it seems Lewis expanded his interest to include cash raised by donations direct to me.

The CrowdJustice money is nothing to do with me. People donate it direct to CrowdJustice, who pass it on to my legal team, and they take cash from that fund to pay my costs as they come up. I simply don’t know how much is in that account at any time.

Donations direct to my site are passed into the CrowdJustice fund – by me – whenever there is an amount available that makes it worthwhile. The account I keep open to receive those donations contains very little cash as it is simply a conduit for money that goes elsewhere.

So I haven’t misled anybody.

I have instructed my solicitor to ask Lewis to produce any material he has that may show that my statement is inaccurate. If not, he is invited to desist from making wholly inaccurate – and serious – allegations about me.

Meanwhile, dear reader, you are invited to continue contributing to the CrowdJustice fund, in the knowledge that the cash will only be used to support my court case against Riley and will not be used to enrich her in any way. Here are the instructions:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

After three weeks of extreme strain, both raising funds for the appeal and dealing with its grounds – while Riley’s legal team threatened to send the bailiffs round to enforce a costs order that still hasn’t been made, I think we can all sympathise with my partner’s belief that Lewis is piling on the pressure purely to cause grief.

Mrs Mike (as she has become known on Vox Political ) is the unseen other victim of Riley’s libel case against me. She has had to endure every stage of this trumped-up and unreasonable court process with me. For a woman with long-term illnesses and disabilities, who has suffered mental illness in the past, it has not been easy.

She has been hugely supportive – and it is a bitter blow to see her becoming upset by something that amounts to nothing more than playground bullying.

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

Appeal proceedings begin in Mike’s libel case

The Court of Appeal has received my application for it to overturn the High Court decision to strike out my defences against Rachel Riley’s libel accusation.

I say that Mrs Justice Collins Rice failed to apply the law in respect of my defence that I wrote my article in the public interest. There are several arguments in support of this, of which my favourite is simply that the judge could not make a decision without hearing all the evidence of the case – and her support for a series of false narratives put forward by Riley’s legal team proves that she did not.

The judgment has grave implications for journalistic freedom and free speech. Not only did it wrongly deprive me of this defence but it also denied my Article 10 convention right to free speech – and is unlawful.

I say that Mrs Justice Collins Rice failed to apply the law in respect of my defence that my article was a statement of honest opinion. She said that I could not hold such an opinion on the basis of the facts that had been presented to her – but this defence may rely on any fact which existed at the time my article was published. The judge had not considered all of those facts.

I also say that Mrs Justice Collins Rice made serious errors of law in her determination of my defence that parts of my article were statements of truth. Sadly, in a court that relies on the parties telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, she was misled by Riley’s legal team who provided selective evidence, rather than allowing the judge access to all of the facts.

She was treating the evidence before her as all the evidence of the case, when it was simply evidence in support of a skeleton argument; I intend to provide full evidence at the trial. In basing her judgment on partial evidence, she was conducting the “mini-trial” that she had declared she would not do.

Finally, I say that Mrs Justice Collins Rice appears to have failed to assess Riley’s costs properly. I can only say she appears to have done so, as all we have at the moment is a statement that she is “inclined” to grant costs in the full amount requested – even though that amount is not permitted according to the rules.

Riley’s lawyers oppose all the arguments listed above – and the others that I have not mentioned here for the sake of brevity. But my reading of their response has not found any new information that defeats my arguments.

I requested an urgent determination of the application to appeal because Riley’s legal team was threatening to enforce such a costs order immediately – which, even with the kind donations of my supporters, would have put me deeply in debt.

I am pleased to say that the lawyers have agreed not to proceed with such enforcement until the appeal application is determined.

In turn, this means that the application is no longer considered urgent.

But I still need your help!

The case may not be considered urgent at the moment, but that does not mean my application won’t be considered soon, and I will need funds to take the next step, whatever it may be.

So, if you think my grounds for appeal, as laid out above, are reasonable, please consider taking one or all of the following steps:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

I can’t guarantee which way the Court of Appeal will take this case.

If it refuses to allow me a chance to be heard, then the case is as good as over and I will face a huge – and entirely unjust – penalty.

But there is still hope. The arguments are good. And judges can be wrong. If not, there wouldn’t be an appeal court.

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

Better late than never? Labour demand end to Tory ‘crony contracts’ SEVEN MONTHS after they were reported

Should we be applauding Labour’s demand for the Conservative government to stop handing contracts to firms with links to the Conservative Party?

If so, it should be the slow, mocking handclap that denotes disapproval. This move comes no less than seven months after the so-called Tory ‘chumocracy’ was revealed to the nation.

Did Rachel Reeves have to wait for a focus group to say it was okay to talk about this?

I think so.

And her words ring hollow.

She has said that a Labour government would overturn government outsourcing, bringing contracts back into the public sector, reform Freedom of Information rules to include companies who are awarded government contracts, create an ‘Anti-Corruption and anti-cronyism commissioner’ as a check on government contracts.

But we don’t have a Labour government. And the earliest we can now expect to get one is December 2024.

By then, knowing that Labour is now ruled by focus groups and by politicians who might as well be Tories themselves, we must expect all the policies to be different; Starmer Labour changes to reflect whatever it thinks will get it into power.

If Labour really cared about £2 billion of public money going into the hands of amateurs who did nothing with it, Reeves (or whoever) would have spoken out about it last July, when I did.

Doing it now only lays bare the cynicism at the hollow heart of Starmer Labour.

Source: Labour call for clean up of ‘crony contracts’ as £2bn in deals handed to Tory pals – Mirror 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

Will website boss sue Riley over anti-Semitism ‘ringleader’ tweet?

This is relevant to Rachel Riley’s court case against me because of her ever-changing attitude to whether Twitter users can influence their followers into attacking others.

Riley claimed, in her pleadings to the High Court when she applied to strike out my defence against her libel accusations, that Twitter users cannot be held responsible for the behaviour of their followers.

She meant that if one (or indeed one thousand) of her followers had taken it upon themselves to hurl abuse at a teenage girl after Riley had made misleading claims about her, then she could not possibly be held responsible for that.

The judge agreed, making this the official position according to UK law – at least until the forthcoming Online Harms legislation criminalises the use of Twitter to influence others in exactly that way, as it is expected to do.

Now consider Riley’s tweet about Novara Media founder Aaron Bastani (above). He had become a focus of media attention after it was alleged that he quit the Labour Party in advance of a possible suspension and investigation for reasons undisclosed. It later transpired that he had quit sometime last year to ensure that his work as a journalist could not be compromised by political interference from Labour.

Riley’s comment suggests that Bastani uses his social media platforms – including Twitter – to “inflate or lead an illicit or illegal activity” (that’s the dictionary definition of a ringleader).

In other words, it seems she was saying that Bastani was responsible for using Twitter to whip up his followers into supporting anti-Semitism. She provided no evidence to support this.

Bastani has said he is consulting his lawyers on a possible response through the courts. At first this was reported as action against the websites that reported on his departure from Labour but he has clarified that he is considering action against Riley herself.

If he examines Twitter, he should find evidence to help him in a thread by Riley on December 15, 2018 – just as she was getting involved in the events that were the basis for my article about her, and therefore her lawsuit against me.

In it, she accused Owen Jones of the same – or at least similar – behaviour, putting forward the view that celebrities – so-called “blue tick” Twitter users – could use their popularity on the social media to “inspire” their Twitter followers into a “frenzy” and then set them to “attack” others, using Twitter as the platform for their attack.

So in December 2020, Riley said (through her lawyers) that this was not possible, but in February 2021 and December 2018 she accused other people of it.

This is clearly a contradiction.

If Mr Bastani does take Riley to court – and I would strongly urge him to do so – he would be well advised to ask: When was Rachel Riley lying? In December 2018 and February 2021 when she accused others? Or in December 2020 when she tried to whitewash herself?

If you are as outraged by this apparent show of hypocrisy as I am, then please remember that I am still fundraising to defend myself against the injustice she is trying to perpetrate against me, arising from such false claims. Please:

  • Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.
  • Email your friends, asking them to pledge to the CrowdJustice site.
  • Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.
  • On Twitter, tweet in support, quoting the address of the appeal. This is particularly important at the moment as my @MidWalesMike account is currently suspended – apparently at the request of followers of Riley who should would say were acting entirely of their own volition.

I am sick of the way people like this can apparently contradict themselves time and again while claiming the moral high ground – and getting the courts to agree with them.

Let’s put a stop to it.

Journalist exposed to ‘torrent of abuse’ – claim – after MP put email exchange on Twitter

Kemi Badenoch: retaliatory harm.

Is it just a coincidence that this happened a week after a High Court judge decided that ‘blue tick’ Twitter users should not be considered responsible for the behaviour of their followers?

Clearly the ruling by Mrs Justice Collins Rice, in Rachel Riley’s case against me, is factually wrong. The experience of Huffington Post reporter Nadine White simply underlines the fact.

Ms White had emailed Tory equalities minister (surely a contradiction in terms?) Kemi Badenoch to inquire why she had not supported a pro-vaccine video by participating in it.

Badenoch had responded by putting the emails on Twitter alongside a comment that they were “creepy and bizarre” and the HuffPost was “looking to sow distrust”.

Labour has demanded an investigation into whether this breached the ministerial code.

In a letter to civil service head Simon Case, the party said Ms White had been exposed to “a torrent of abuse online” – a dogpile.

Riley’s case against This Writer also concerns questions about whether the TV parlour game-player deliberately intended to expose a teenage girl with mental health issues to a torrent of abuse also.

The world “torrent” has been applicable to Twitter dogpiles since the case of Jack Monroe and Katie Hopkins, in which the word was used to describe the number of messages Ms Monroe received after Hopkins tweeted a false claim about her.

It was also disputed. But Mr Justice Warby stated that “‘Torrent’ is a noun, used metaphorically here. It may be colourful, and may tend to overstate what happened. But it is not an invention and nor is it in my judgment a serious distortion.”

This means even if the size of the dogpile against Ms White was not very large, the description may still be applied justifiably.

Labour’s involvement is hypocritical though. It comes from a political party whose members (including MPs) have also triggered dogpiles – for example against This Writer after The Sunday Times falsely accused me of holocaust denial (on the basis of false information leaked by – guess who? – a Labour Party officer).

I am appealing against the judgment that suggests ‘blue tick’ Twitter users can publish anything they like about other people without having regard for the possible consequences to those people.

If I win – and evidence including the Warby judgment suggests that I may – then this could have severe consequences for a minister who tried to discredit a journalist who seems merely to have been doing her job.

I am crowdfunding for the means to win my case, which is proving extremely costly because of the behaviour of Riley’s legal team. Information about that is available here (a search for “libel Mike Sivier” should reveal the necessary links).

Anyone interested in helping is urged to do one or more of the following:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

Justice isn’t for everybody – not in Tory Britain. It’s too expensive for most of us.

That doesn’t mean we should let a government minister – who should know better – inflict retaliatory harm against somebody who was only doing her job.

Source: Labour call for investigation into Kemi Badenoch’s tweets about a journalist – BBC News

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Is Mike facing cruel & unusual treatment for daring to seek justice while poor?

Money: it seems this is what matters to Rachel Riley and her lawyers – filthy lucre. Their latest move is yet another attempt to make justice too expensive for me; to claim that I do not deserve the protection of the law, because I am poor.

It seems my earlier claim that time is running out was more accurate than even I thought.

The judge who presided over Rachel Riley’s application to strike out my defence against her libel claim – Mrs Justice Collins Rice – is minded to allow Riley’s costs order in full. This is for an amazing sum of more than £27,000.

Allow me to explain why this is amazing:

Her solicitor Mark Lewis’s costs have been allowed at City rates – which is “unreasonable and disproportionate” according to a long-standing principle in defamation cases.

This states that “City rates for City solicitors are recoverable where the City solicitor is undertaking City work, which is normally heavy commercial or corporate work. Defamation is not in that category, and, particularly given the reduction in damages awards for libel, is never likely to be.  A City firm which undertakes work, which could be competently handled by a number of Central London solicitors, is acting unreasonably and disproportionately if it seeks to charge City rates”.

The Civil Justice Council expressly restated that rule in a report on solicitors’ hourly rates it published only last month.

Allowing Lewis to charge £500 per hour – which is what the judge seems minded to do – is a significant departure from the recommendation and it seems there is no extraordinary circumstance that justifies it.

Furthermore, despite the costs order not having been handed down yet, and the fact that such orders are usually payable within 14 days, Riley’s solicitor intends to enforce it within eight days – by February 9, which happens to be the day before the deadline for me to appeal against the strike-out ruling. Coincidence?

I’m told I have reasonably good prospects of resisting the costs enforcement. And I am considering the unusual step of appealing against the costs order.

But doesn’t this strike you as extremely cruel and unusual treatment, prompted by Riley’s people?

It seems to me that Riley’s legal team have tried to arrange matters so that I have to pay far more than a “reasonable” amount in costs – before I can lodge my appeal against the judgment that means I have to pay any costs at all – in order (yet again) to price me out of justice.

What a nasty, underhanded ploy. One might even consider it to be psychological warfare.

I will do what I can to fight this. If you are as disgusted by this as I am – as any right-thinking person should be – then please help in the way we have established:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

If this is the way Riley’s employees behave, what does it say about the character of the person who has hired them?

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

Time is running out! Help Mike fund his appeal against wrong-headed Riley ruling

Happier days: Vox Political’s Mike Sivier with the correction he secured from the last organisation to publish falsehoods about him. Hopefully, one day soon, you’ll see an image of Mike with an apology by Rachel Riley.

The week after a judge struck out my defence against Rachel Riley’s libel case against me was… eventful, wasn’t it?

In many ways it was one of a kind I hope I’ll never see again: extremely stressful, with a large amount of hard work.

The element that kept me going through this struggle was certainly the response to my appeal for funds to fight back. You provided around £11,000 in a single week and this has enabled me to get started on an appeal, and on submitting another defence.

Even though I am taking the strike-out to the Court of Appeal, the trial is still going on, and I don’t currently have any defence against Riley’s false allegations.

(They are still false, you see. They will always be false. She deliberately targeted a teenage girl with anxiety problems for psychological manipulation, coercion and bullying and made her a target for dogpiling and for threats to her safety, traumatising the young person concerned. That is the fact of the matter, whether a High Court judge accepts it or not.)

If the Court of Appeal accepts my application, then it may be possible to delay the trial – it should be, in the interests of justice. But it seems nothing is certain. And I must present something to defend against Riley’s allegations in the meantime.

Fortunately, there is a large amount of material available for me to use. She is extremely loose-lipped, especially (albeit metaphorically) on Twitter, and seems to delight in making daft statements.

For example, she recently made a comment about “the need for anti-black racism”. It may well have been a Freudian slip – she seemed to be discussing the need to oppose such racism – but the fact that it happened shows that she is a person whose pronouncements must be questioned, whose words cannot be trusted.

And this means that she cannot claim to have suffered significant harm to her reputation; any harm she has suffered, she has done to herself.

Nor can she claim that anything I have said can possibly have harmed her – for reasons I’ll keep to myself for the moment. Her legal team watch this site like hawks; while I may not have much cash, I think I can afford to let them stew for a while.

The fact remains that, even with the £11K that you raised for me in a single week – and I’m still reeling with amazement at the size of that response – the appeal alone is expected to cost around £30,000. If I win, I believe I will get it back, along with the cost of defending the strike-out application, and this may make the trial much easier – but we are a long way from that point now.

And time is running out. I have nine days in which to lodge my appeal and file a new defence.

So, once more, I have to say, please:

Consider making a donation yourself, if you can afford it, via the CrowdJustice page.

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

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

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

From the way she behaves, one would think Rachel Riley has already won this case.

Let’s remind her that she is gravely mistaken.

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