Tag Archives: Riley

#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– meaning she may not now take court action against me over them – Ms Oberman has never formally confirmed that she has withdrawn her claim.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

#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

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

Riley libel: her lawyers react about her failure to show losses

What a strange way to behave!

After my previous update on Rachel Riley’s libel case against me, in which I pointed out that she had failed to demonstrate any evidence that she had suffered financial losses as a result of my article, her solicitors seem to have taken offence.

You see, Riley may claim for general and special damages: general damages refers to the level of compensation that would make up for any harm caused to her reputation. Special damages is a loss of specific opportunities.

Her solicitors say no claim for special damages has been made, nor is such a claim pleaded on her behalf – which is also, as it happens, exactly what I’m saying.

My point was that they had threatened to make such a claim, as stated in Riley’s Particulars of Claim, paragraph 12: “The Claimant relies upon the inference that the publication of such serious allegations has caused and is likely to cause serious harm to her reputation. Should it be necessary, she relies on the following particulars in support of her case on serious harm to reputation…”

In paragraph 12.2: “The Claimant makes her living in the public eye: her reputation is crucial to the goodwill among public audiences and among broadcasters, production companies and others she relies on for her career.”

And in paragraph 12.3: “The Claimant in her professional and personal life is closely involved in projects and activities concerning children and young persons, such that allegations of misconduct towards a child or young person would be especially harmful.”

Her disclosures show no evidence that Riley has suffered any loss to her reputation among “broadcasters, production companies and others she relies upon for her career”, nor in the loss of involvement in “projects and activities concerning children and young persons”. It simply hasn’t happened.

When describing the damage she has suffered at paragraph 13, Riley expressly links back to paragraph 12.2 and 12.3 then makes a claim for “damages for libel” without distinguishing between general and special damages: “She relies upon the particulars of serious harm set out at paragraph 12 and its sub-paragraphs.”

So I had reason to expect evidence that she had lost work as a result of my article – and she has not provided it.

She can still claim general damages – but her failure regarding special damages suggests that nobody who makes much difference to her has actually changed their opinion of her because of my article.

I look forward to hearing her explain how my words have harmed her reputation among the general public any more than it has been harmed already by her own highly-self-publicised antics.

I would provide examples but I am also very much looking forward to the spectacle of her legal team shooting themselves in the feet (metaphorically) at the trial.

Of course, it means we still need to get this case to trial, so please…

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.

Matters are starting to accelerate again – this isn’t even the only issue between the parties at the moment, and I’m sure there will be more.

I will provide more information when I’m able to.

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: she can’t show any losses due to Mike’s article

Rachel Riley has not shown that she has suffered any financial losses at all, that she can relate to her libel claim against me. Isn’t that revealing?

We are currently going through a “disclosure” exercise. In my case, this means providing material that would have been available to me before I wrote the article that she considers libellous.

In hers – well, she would have provided proof of financial harm if she could, I feel sure. The court will still have to assess general harm to her reputation, although this may be difficult when taking into account the hugely deleterious effect of her own public behaviour since early 2018, when she began her career as an activist.

She lists 107 of my articles – all written after the article about which she’s complaining, meaning they’re not directly relevant to the case – without explaining why. My best guess is she’ll be calling them aggravating factors if she wins.

Then come 235 Vox Political articles under the tag “anti-Semitism”. The subject of hatred against Jews is much-discussed on This Site and it was a major issue in the dialogue between Riley and a teenage girl, that forms the basis of the case. But I wonder what Riley hopes to gain  – does she think these are examples of me being anti-Semitic? If so, she’s likely to have a nasty shock.

She also includes the other three articles I published on January 26, 2019. Again, I have no idea why. Perhaps she’s suggesting that if I wrote these as well, I didn’t have time to research the material in the article about her? If so, then – again – she’s going to be in for a shock.

Then she starts listing material in general terms – Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and CrowdJustice updates. I have instructed my solicitor to seek clarification of exactly what material this may be. I’m particularly interested in the Reddit material because I do not have an account with that platform!

On Twitter, she seems to have focused on my announcement that I had won my appeal against her strike-out application, on May 14 this year – and the subsequent messages of congratulation from former MP Chris Williamson, Jackie Walker, and former Canary Editor-in-Chief Kerry-Anne Mendoza. These are all people who have been tarred with the “anti-Semite” brush by Riley and others, so I suspect she will be trying to suggest guilt through association.

It’s a long list – even when abbreviated so that I have to seek clarification of it.

And it is weak.

Without being able to show that my article has harmed her, Riley’s position is severely weakened. My evidence will show that I had good reason to write my article, and that it addresses several issues of public interest. Her case is in trouble.

Of course, none of that will count at all if I can’t get the matter to court.

So please, if you want to see me win…

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’ve said all along that this case is about buying justice; if Riley can afford a trial and I can’t, then I will lose automatically.

But if I can afford the trial, the situation may well be reversed. And we’d all like to see that – wouldn’t we?

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 trial: there’s only one way to beat these online bullies

A nasty incident occurred while I was discussing the Labour Party conference on Twitter earlier this week.

An online supporter of Rachel Riley butted into the thread to threaten me, although it might not seem obvious from his words:

He was implying that, when I am defeated in court by Rachel Riley, the cost will be so much that I will have to sell my house to pay it off – or give it to Riley.

People like him have been saying it since early 2019 when I was first threatened with litigation.

One one level it is a completely false threat because I rent, but that doesn’t stop them.

My response, as you can see, was to throw it back in his face; I’m more likely to win than she is, and her costs would be equally high.

On another level, of course, it is psychological intimidation. I could lose the case, and if I do, I will not have the wherewithal to pay a huge combined costs and damages bill.

And I still have to get the case into court. At the moment, even that is looking decidedly dicey as donations have plummetted.

It is the easiest way for Riley to win, of course – for me to be unable to defend myself because I cannot afford to pay my legal team.

I need around £60,000 more than I have, if I’m to be in a comfortable position – and although I’m not expecting the trial to happen until next spring, that time will creep up on us surprisingly fast.

And in September the crowdfund increased by £2,000. A good figure! But not enough if that trend continues.

If I can’t fund my defence at trial, everything we have achieved so far will be for nothing.

I know you don’t want that.

And I certainly don’t think you want that odious Twitter troll to have the last laugh!

So, please, if you can afford it:

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 know it’s a lot to ask, especially as this case is now well into its third year. But this is a fight for justice, against those who think they can buy it because they have more money.

I can’t change the system so I’m hoping that we can change their minds.

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

Vox Political writer to speak on resisting ‘lawfare’ at Festival of Resistance

Happy 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.

I have been asked to talk about my experience of this case at a workshop on so-called ‘lawfare’ – using the courts to damage or de-legitimise other people, wasting their time and/or money, to gain a public relations victory.

The event will be at a Festival of Resistance taking place in Nottingham on October 16 and 17. Details are here: https://resistfest.co.uk/

It seems that – as one of the few people who have chosen to defend themselves against so-called ‘SLAPP’ lawsuits (it stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) – cases intended to censor, intimidate and silence people who make perfectly reasonable and relevant contributions to political debate by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they have to abandon their statement…

… and I think Rachel Riley’s case against me may be defined as an example of a SLAPP case, or lawfare, or both…

… I am in an excellent position to talk about how it is possible to fight these attempts to use the law as a bullying tool.

I will not refer to details of the Riley case. It is an ongoing lawsuit and as such I may not say anything that may prejudice the result.

But I will talk about how it feels to be attacked in this way, why it is important to resist such actions, and what anybody who is put in the same position can do about it.

The bullies would like us to think that we can do nothing apart from give up – that the cost of taking part in a court case is so huge that we cannot ever possibly afford it, because we are so small, so poor and so insignificant.

But my case proves that this is not true.

I am not part of a larger organisation that has been able to fund me. I am not a celebrity in my own right, able to fund my defence from my own resources. I am a carer living on the poverty line, who happens to be a qualified journalist and who therefore writes about politics in such spare time as is available.

And I have managed to bring the case against me to a trial that my opponent almost certainly did not intend to happen, because I asked for help and thousands of people – who have no direct connection with me apart from being readers of my work or being concerned about the issues surrounding my case – answered.

I still need help to bring the case to trial, of course – these cases are phenomenally expensive. So please help by doing 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.

And please come to the Festival of Resistance – if you are able.

I would very much like to meet at least some of the people who have helped me get this far.

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