Tag Archives: Sunday Times

If you want to survive coronavirus it’s time to use your intelligence (and stop reading the Sunday Times)

Boris Johnson: people are calling for him to resign after the Sunday Times published an article. Why didn’t they make the same demand in their millions after This Writer published a piece with identical information, nearly three weeks ago?

This will be a short rant. Please indulge me.

It seems the Sunday Times is receiving a great deal of attention over a piece describing the failures of Boris Johnson and his government to address the threat of the coronavirus properly in the period between the end of January and the middle of March. People are treating it as brand-new information and behaving as though it is shocking knowledge that the public needs to know.

Some are also complaining that, in a time when newspapers are struggling, certain people have published snippets of the article when its online version is behind a paywall. “It’s not helping,” they say.

No.

It’s not helping that the public ignored this information – that is freely available all over the internet, and that I collected and put into a single article myself, three weeks ago – until the Murdoch rag came along and made a fuss about it, too late to do any good.

Look on Twitter and there are at least three trending hashtags related to the article – #ResignBoris, #SundayTimes and #Cobra (because Johnson missed five meetings in Cabinet Office Briefing Room A; but he’s allowed to).

Why wasn’t there such a fuss when I published my piece?

The answer’s obvious: Because I’m a small online publisher and the Sunday Times has a history.

Trouble is, the history of the Sunday Times became extremely dodgy after Rupert Murdoch took it over. This is the hack-rag that published a smear piece calling me an anti-Semite – and plenty of people (wrongly) paid attention to that, too!

The moral of this story isn’t that we should be shocked about Boris Johnson and demand his resignation. We should – but the majority of the public could have known that since March 30 if they’d read my article.

The moral of the story is: Support your online sources – like Vox Political. If the Sunday Times is in trouble, there’s a reason for it.

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

BUSTED: Sunday Times ‘investigation’ into Tory coronavirus failures was public knowledge WEEKS ago

We’re supposed to be shocked by new revelations in the Sunday Times – but the facts have been public knowledge for weeks and months.

How strange to see the Sunday Times publishing an ‘investigation’ into the Tory government’s failure to get to grips with the coronavirus crisis, when This Writer published the same information, weeks ago, on my personal blog site!

The ST piece is behind a paywall so I can’t be sure, but from what I can tell (thank you Owen Jones on Twitter), I covered all the major points.

But there seems to be a huge amount of background detail missing.

Why is nothing said about the fact that the government let all of its strategies to counter a pandemic like the coronavirus fall out-of-date, nearly a decade ago?

Where are the facts about Exercise Cygnus – the test to estimate the impact of a hypothetical influenza pandemic on the United Kingdom that concluded that such a pandemic would cause the country’s health system to collapse, due to a lack of resources. The Tory government of the day refused to buy the recommended equipment on the grounds that it would cost too much.

All those details – and more – are in my piece.

Don’t be fooled by the Sunday Times article.

It seems there’s no new information in it that makes any difference at all.

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

Local Labour candidates warned to prepare for new Sunday Times anti-Semitism witch-hunt

Witch-hunters: Let’s do all we can to foil the cartoon-character Sunday Times anti-Semitism accusers.

Labour Party candidates seeking council seats in the local government election are advised to contact their constituency party and local campaign forum chairs, and CLP secretaries – and warn their MPs – after it was revealed The Sunday Times may be planning a new slew of accusations in an article to be published on Easter Sunday.

It seems reporters for that “newspaper” may attempt to undermine the party’s high standing in the opinion polls with a series of claims against candidates.

One such person took to Facebook to say they had been contacted – by telephone – by a reporter for the newspaper.

He said he knew this person was standing for Labour in the local elections and mentioned two posts the candidate had made about Israel. He said he wanted to give the candidate the right of reply.

(Note that the posts were about Israel. It seems The Sunday Times may be trying to create a false equivalence between that – secular – nation and Judaism in order to fabricate allegations of anti-Semitism. We’ll find out on Sunday.)

The candidate wisely stated that they were not willing to discuss the matter by telephone but would give it consideration if the allegations were sent via email.

(This is wise. I responded to a Sunday Times reporter by email, before a story appeared falsely accusing me – and of course I won a rather lengthy correction from that “newspaper” thereafter.)

It seems likely that, if the Sunday Times is contacting many people in this manner, a proportion will refuse to engage, so it will be possible to publish allegations and then say, “[X] has been contacted for comment,” or, “[X] did not wish to comment when we contacted [them].”

Anyone being contacted in this manner should contact their Constituency Labour Party chair and Local Campaign Forum chair immediately, with details of the contact and any information about the allegations.

It is also advisable that, if the Parliamentary constituency in which the candidate is standing has a Labour MP, that person should be contacted and made to understand that – unless the allegation is accurate – failure to show solidarity with their fellow party members will attract the displeasure of constituency party members. If necessary, the party whips should become involved.

The Sunday Times allegations over the last few weeks have only gained any credibility because Labour MPs have treated them in that way. This is not acceptable.

Here in the UK, everybody is considered innocent of any allegation until proof of guilt has been established. That has not happened with the Sunday Times allegations of the last two weekends, yet some Labour MPs have acted as if it has. This must stop.

Trial by media is trial by witch-hunt. Enough is enough.


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

Blackford threatens to sue Tory MP over ‘arms dealer’ claim. Why won’t Corbyn sue the Sunday Times?

Jeremy Corbyn and Ian Blackford: Both have been subjected to claims they say are false, but they have reacted in markedly different ways. Why?

The SNP’s leader in Westminster is threatening to sue Conservative MP Ross Thomson over a claim that he is an “arms dealer”.

According to The Herald, the threat follows a tweet from Mr Thomson of a news story claiming that an investment fund Mr Blackford chairs profits from defence deals.

Mr Thomson included a shocked-face emoji and the line “Just a simple arms dealer”.

He deleted the tweet two hours later but the SNP has said Mr Blackford’s solicitors have contacted Mr Thomson, demanding an apology and a charitable donation.

This chain of events raises an obvious question: Much more serious allegations were made about Jeremy Corbyn by reporters for The Sunday Times – so why hasn’t he demanded reparations from them?

His inaction encourages readers and commentators – including certain Labour backbenchers – to claim that the allegations (of anti-Semitism) are true.

It is hugely damaging – not only to Mr Corbyn but also to all Labour members who have been falsely accused of anti-Semitism, just because they support Mr Corbyn and the direction he has taken the Labour Party.

As a victim of this discrimination, I certainly don’t understand the thinking behind Mr Corbyn’s lack of action. Isn’t it time we had an explanation?

Source: Ian Blackford threatens to sue Ross Thomson over ‘arms dealer’ comment | HeraldScotland

Sunday Times reporter disgraces himself AGAIN – and Labour MPs let him lead them by the nose

The Sunday Times reporter who published ‘fake news’ claims that Jeremy Corbyn’s office had interfered in more than 100 anti-Semitism investigations and that the Labour leader had an “anti-Semite army” has put his foot in it again.

Gabriel Pogrund responded to criticism of the story he co-wrote in the April 7 edition of that “newspaper” by tweeting another leaked Labour document – a letter from general secretary Jennie Formby, discussing the coverage. Unfortunately his own commentary completely misrepresents that letter, according to another Twitter user.

Here’s Mr Pogrund’s tweet. Take screenshots quickly because it may not stay up for long!

He went on to state that “Formby also says the most extreme abuse highlighted by The Sunday Times “is being treated extremely seriously by the Party and we hope the NCC will hear it soon as a matter of urgency.” Refers to abuse of Jewish MPs Margaret Hodge and Ruth Smeeth”.

And he tweeted, “BUT Formby doesn’t say why Labour readmitted members who spread conspiracy theories re. Rothschilds controlling the world, Theresa May plotting Manchester bombing abd Jews plotting 9/11. Or why “Heil Hitler” member has not been expelled. (Labour denies none of the above.)”

His claims have been comprehensively debunked by a Twitter user going by the handle “leftworks”. Here’s the thread:

You can see that there is clear cause to doubt Mr Pogrund’s integrity in this matter (as there has been previously).

But it seems he has done his damage.

According to the Huffington Post‘s Paul Waugh (himself no friend to Mr Corbyn), the usual suspects were causing trouble over the false information in the Sunday Times at this week’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party – treating it as if it were true.

And Stella Creasy retweeted details of a motion that went before the PLP – again treating the “revelations” in the ST fiction as though they were accurate:

The motion goes far beyond what should be required at the moment.

The demand for information allowing MPs to establish for themselves whether the information in the ST story is accurate is reasonable – MPs want to put their minds at ease.

But there’s no reason to lump a demand for the party leadership to publish its response to the EHRC investigation on alleged Labour anti-Semitism. That is a separate matter from this.

There’s no reason to demand a statement of solidarity with the treacherous Jewish Labour Movement which, under the terms of Labour Party membership, should by rights have its affiliation removed and the memberships of those members of that organisation who are also members of Labour revoked, as they have made it clear, not only that they will not help get a Labour government elected – they will actively try to prevent the election of a Labour governent led by Jeremy Corbyn. That’s against party rules.

And there is no reason to “commit to a fully independent complaints process for all allegations of racism, bullying and harassment by party members”. That said, This Writer thinks it is an excellent idea, as the party’s National Constitutional Committee has proved completely incapable of acting properly in this matter – hence its nickname: “National Kangaroo Court”.

Of course, the format of this independent complaints process would be contentious, and no MP with an interest in the result of complaints would be able to contribute to the process of deciding what form it takes. That means no member of Labour Friends of Israel, the Jewish Labour Movement, or MP claiming to have been abused could decide how abuse allegations are handled.

There are ways of handling complaints that could be independent and impartial – and you should take close note of the fact that the word “impartial” was omitted from the motion – but I have serious doubts that they will be considered.

Yet again we see Labour MPs acting improperly in the wake of allegations against the party’s leadership.

And then they complain when local members call for their removal.


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

Was Sunday Times smear timed to influence Jewish Labour Movement confidence vote on Corbyn?

Jeremy Corbyn is clearly not an enemy of the Jewish people.

Of course it was. We are looking at a co-ordinated campaign of disinformation about Labour and its leader.

In case you’ve been living under a rock since around 11pm on April 6: The Sunday Times has published another smear piece claiming a link between Jeremy Corbyn and anti-Semitism. I debunked it immediately (here) and now the Labour Party has also attacked the article as a load of nonsense.

According to a Guardian report, “Labour said the figures… were not accurate and that lines had been selectively leaked from emails to misrepresent their overall contents.”

This corresponds exactly with the way the author of the Sunday Times article, Gabriel Pogrund, treated me when he smeared me in a piece in February last year.

I have to admit I am not wholly sympathetic to Labour as regards this defence, because the party is guilty of using the same practice – selectively quoting information – to create a false impression that I was an anti-Semite (from which Mr Pogrund took his cue when he wrote his piece about me, although he also altered the material to fabricate another false claim).

It would be easy to ask how party representatives feel, now that the shoe is on the other foot.

It would be satisfying to point out that this is what happens when you try to appease an aggressor by giving in to its claims and helping persecute innocent people.

And in the run-up to the Jewish Labour Movement’s annual general meeting, at which members are expected to support a vote of “no confidence” in Mr Corbyn, I think it is important that the Labour leadership be made aware of its huge blunder and the harm it has done to innocent people and the party’s own good name.

The Guardian quotes shadow attorney general Shami Chakrabarti pleading with the JLM “to stay in the Labour movement and to tackle racism together, not to personalise it and make it about Jeremy Corbyn, because he is one person and he won’t be leader forever”. Wrong!

Although it is the Labour Party’s official Jewish affiliate, the JLM does not require its members to be Jewish, or even to be members of the Labour Party. It is a huge security risk to Labour as it provides an opportunity for supporters of other political organisations to infiltrate and sabotage Labour affairs.

One example of this is the way JLM members have secretly and unethically recorded Labour members during events at party conferences in 2016 and 2017, at which those members had the right to expect confidentiality, in order to falsely accuse those members. Why on Earth would anybody do this?

It is clear that the Jewish Labour Movement has a different agenda from that of the Labour Party and it is time the organisation was expelled.

There are far more appropriate alternative organisations that could take over as the party’s official Jewish affiliate. Jewish Voice for Labour represents Jewish people who are members of the Labour Party exclusively – no entryists – and is far more appropriate as a representative of Jewish Labour views.

If you’re still unconvinced that The Sunday Times and the Jewish Labour Movement are trying to spread false claims that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite and that the Labour Party under him is rife with anti-Semitism, perhaps you should consider Mr Corbyn’s record. Feel free to check the following facts for yourself, if you like:

1. In October 1936, Jeremy Corbyn’s mother participated in the battle of Cable Street in defence of British Jews after British fascists had staged an assault on the area. Corbyn was raised in a household passionately opposed to antisemitism in all its forms.

2. In 23rd April 1977, Corbyn organised a counter-demonstration to protect Wood Green from a neo-nazi march through the district. The area had a significant Jewish population.

3. On 7 November 1990, Corbyn signed a motion condemning the rise of antisemitism in the UK

4. In 2002 Jeremy Corbyn led a clean-up and vigil at Finsbury Park Synagogue which had been vandalised in an anti-Semitic attack

5. On 30 April 2002, Corbyn tabled a motion in the House of Commons condemning an anti-Semitic attack on a London Synagogue

6. On 26 November 2003, Jeremy Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning terrorist attacks on two synagogues

7. In February 2009, Jeremy Corbyn signed a parliamentary motion condemning a fascist for establishing a website to host antisemitic materials

8. On 24th March 2009, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising British Jews who resisted the Holocaust by risking their lives to save potential victims

9. Nine years ago, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising “Jewish News”for its pioneering investigation into the spread of antisemitism on Facebook

10. On 9 February 2010, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion calling for an investigation into Facebook and its failure to prevent the spread of antisemitic materials on its site.

11. On 27 October 2010, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising the late Israeli Prime Minister for pursuing a two state solution to the Israel/Palestine question.

12. On 13 June 2012, Corbyn sponsored and signed a motion condemning the BBC for cutting a Jewish Community television programme from its schedule.

13. 1 October 2013, Corbyn appeared on the BBC to defend Ralph Miliband against vile antisemitic attacks by the UK press.

14. Five years ago Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning antisemitism in sport.

15. On 1 March 2013, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning and expressing concern at growing levels of antisemitism in European football.

16. On 9 January 2014, Jeremy Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising Holocaust education programmes that had taken 20,000 British students to Auschwitz.

17. On 22 June 2015, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion expressing concern at the neo-nazi march being planned for an area of London with a significant Jewish population.

18. On 9 October 2016, Corbyn, close to tears, commemorated the 1936 Battle of Cable Street and recalled the role his mother played in defending London’s Jewish community.

19. On 3 December 2016, Corbyn made a visit to Terezin Concentration Camp where Jewish people were murdered by the Nazis. It was Jeremy’s third visit to such a camp, all of which were largely unreported in the most read UK papers.

20. Last year, a widely-endorsed 2018 academic report found ninety-five serious reporting failures in the reporting of the Labour antisemitism story with the worst offenders The Sun, the Mail & the BBC.

21. On 28 February 2016, five months after becoming leader, Jeremy Corbyn appointed Baroness Royall to investigate antisemitism at Oxford University Labour Club.

22. On 27 April 2016 Corbyn suspended an MP pending an investigation into antisemitism.

23. A day later, Corbyn suspended the three times Mayor of London after complaints of antisemitic comments.

24. On 29 April 2016, Corbyn launched an inquiry into the prevalence of antisemitism in the Labour Party. In spite of later changes in how the inquiry was reported, it was initially praised by Jewish community organisations.

25. In Corbyn’s first seven months as leader of the Labour Party, just ten complaints were received about antisemitism. 90% of those were suspended from the Labour Party within 24 hours.

26. In September 2017, Corbyn backed a motion at Labour’s annual conference introducing a new set of rules regarding antisemitism.

27. In the six months that followed the introduction of the new code of conduct, to March 2018, 94% of the fifty-four people accused of antisemitism remained suspended or barred from Labour Party membership. Three of the fifty-four were exonerated.

28. When Jennie Formby became general secretary of the party last year, she appointed a highly-qualified in-house Counsel, as recommended in the Chakrabarti Report.

29. In 2018, Labour almost doubled the size of its staff team handling investigations and dispute processes.

30. Last year, to speed up the handling of antisemitism cases, smaller panels of 3-5 NEC members were established to enable cases to be heard more quickly.

31. Since 2018, every complaint made about antisemitism is allocated its own independent specialist barrister to ensure due process is followed.

32. The entire backlog of cases outstanding upon Jennie Formby becoming General Secretary of the Labour Party was cleared within 6 months of Jennie taking up her post.

33. Since September 2018, Labour has doubled the size of its National Constitutional Committee (NCC) – its senior disciplinary panel – from 11 to 25 members to enable it to process cases more quickly.

34. Under Formby and Labour’s left-run NEC, NCC arranged elections at short notice to ensure the NCC reached its new full capacity without delay.

35. Since later 2018, the NCC routinely convenes a greater number of hearing panels to allow cases to be heard and finalised without delay.

36. In 2018, the NEC established a ‘Procedures Working Group’ to lead reforms in the way disciplinary cases are handled.

37. The NEC adopted the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and all eleven examples of antisemitism attached to it.

38. A rule change agreed at Conference in 2018 means that all serious complaints, including antisemitism, are dealt with nationally to ensure consistency.

39. Last year, Jennie Formby wrote to the admins and moderators of Facebook groups about how they can effectively moderate online spaces and requested that any discriminatory content be reported to the Labour Party for investigation.

40. Since last year, no one outside Labour’s Governance and Legal Unit can be involved in decision-making on antisemitism investigations. This independence allows decisions free from political influence to be taken.

Is that clear enough for everyone?


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

‘Mainstream’ bid to take back initiative from anti- Witch-hunt campaigners – with lies – may be anti-Semitic

How kind of Steve Walker at Skwawkbox to read the Jewish Chronicle – it means the rest of us don’t have to check that hack-rag for its latest nonsense.

His latest article concerns a desperate – and rather pitiful – attempt to discredit the letter by 12 Holocaust survivors, published by The Sunday Times, supporting Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party against allegations that it is anti-Semitic.

The claim is that one of the signatories cannot be a Holocaust survivor because they left Nazi Germany in 1939, aged two.

But the current definition of a Holocaust survivor (more accurately, a Shoah survivor, in the case of Jewish people), held by Yad Vashem, is any Jew who lived for any amount of time under Nazi domination and survived.

This includes people who left Germany during the 1930s.

It is clear that the definition must include Jews who lived in Nazi Germany during the 1930s.

Readers with long memories will remember the huge controversy in 2016 when Ken Livingstone mentioned the Haavara agreement between the German Federation of Zionists and the Nazi Government of the early 1930s.

There was only one reason the German Zionists sought that agreement – fear of persecution by the Nazi government.

It facilitated the escape of around 60,000 people from Germany to what was then British Mandate Palestine – and they are all Holocaust survivors as well.

In fact, the JC piece may itself be described as anti-Semitic. The IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism includes among its examples “denying the fact, scope, mechanisms… or intentionality of… the Holocaust”, and the accusation in this piece certainly does so.

The JC article also suggests some of the signatories of the letter in The Sunday Times didn’t know what they were signing, but in fact they not only understood it perfectly well, but some of them also suggested amendments to the letter.

What a weak response from people who have trumpeted their righteousness for years! And what will they try next?


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

My complaint to the Sunday Times about its libellous article

The accused (clockwise, from left): Jeremy Corbyn and Lee Jasper, Yours Truly, Terence Ewing, Kingsley Abrams, and Janine Booth

I’ve also complained to ITV after Robert Peston described me as “vile” in Peston on Sunday.

Last week, This Writer – Mike Sivier, for clarity – was contacted by a Sunday Times reporter named Gabriel Pogrund, saying he wanted to write about my readmission to the Labour Party after a meeting of the National Executive Committee’s disputes panel. I declined a telephone interview, fearing misrepresentation, and provided my answers by email. I then published those answers here, so readers could weigh them against the published piece and decide for themselves whether I had been treated fairly.

The Sunday Times published its article late yesterday evening (February 3) and as far as my part is concerned, it is almost entirely inaccurate. If the people mentioned in the article have been treated similarly unfairly, then the newspaper could be in considerable difficulty.

Here’s the headline and the part about me:

Labour welcomes back banned activists and Holocaust denier

Another individual who has been readmitted, Mike Sivier, was suspended by Labour only last year for comments about Jews and Zionism. On his website, Sivier, 48, said it “may be entirely justified” to say Tony Blair had been “unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers”.

He also said he was “not pretending it was a big problem” if Jews were omitted from a list of Holocaust survivors, and claimed “I’m not going to comment” on whether thousands or millions of Jews died in the Holocaust as “I don’t know”.

Sivier, who wrote a book defending Ken Livingstone’s claims about Hitler and Zionism, entitled The Livingstone Presumption, has been readmitted on the basis that he attends a workshop about anti-semitism. But he told the Sunday Times he would boycott the event. “I’m not accepting my readmission under the terms offered to me,” he said.

The NEC voted by 12 to 10 to issue Sivier a “warning” but not to expel him, suggeting the new arithmetic on the body had a decisive impact.

Long-term readers will be aware that I have already answered the false claims mentioned by Mr Pogrund; clearly he hasn’t done his research. In fact, if you check the language used, it seems likely he lifted all his information (we can’t call any of it “fact”) from the Campaign Against Antisemitism’s hate piece about me, written in April last year. I believe it was done to corruptly influence the county council elections, in which I was a candidate, to prevent me from winning.

Even those of you who may only have read yesterday’s article on This Site may be justified in wondering why Mr Pogrund chose not to mention the example of my supposed anti-Semitism that I covered, but published others without asking me about them or researching whether his claims had any foundation at all.

I considered these elements when writing my complaint. Here it is:

I am writing to demand an apology and correction of your piece entitled Labour welcomes back banned activists and Holocaust denier, published in the Sunday Times today, February 4. It contains many falsehoods about me. Am I supposed to be the “Holocaust denier” in the headline?

It won’t go without saying, so let me make this clear: I am not a Holocaust denier. In fact, I published an article only a few days ago, detailing how a Labour MP shamed one such person. My pieces on this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day are also unequivocal on this subject.

But let’s get to the substantive issues:

Your piece claims that I “was suspended by Labour only last year for comments about Jews and Zionism”. This is not true. As I explained to your reporter Gabriel Pogrund by email, “My membership of the Labour Party was suspended in early May 2017, after allegations were received that I may have been involved in a breach of Labour Party rules, ‘relating to social media posts which may be described by some as anti-Semitic and may cause offence to some members’.” So my membership was not suspended FOR any acts, but ON SUSPICION. Big difference as the first implies guilt and the second does not.

It continues: “On his website, Sivier, 48, said it ‘may be entirely justified’ to say Tony Blair had been ‘unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers’. This is a quote from a hate piece written against me last year by an organisation calling itself the Campaign Against Antisemitism, which had lifted words from my articles and (in this case, their comment columns), twisting them out of context.

I had been asked about comments that were not directly related to the subject under discussion – by a person posting under the pseudonm ‘Ben’ (my attackers very rarely reveal their real names – isn’t THAT interesting?). He wrote, “Yes of course there will always be individuals with aberrant views” and then referred to an incident in which “In 2003, Tam Dalyell suggested that Tony Blair was “unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers”.

My response was to point out that the claim had been stripped of its context, so it was impossible to comment on it: “I would point out that (without further information) concerns that Tony Blair was being ‘unduly influenced’ by ‘a cabal of Jewish advisors’ may have been entirely justified.” In other words, there’s no point in presenting a bald statement like that to anybody without information on whether there was any accuracy in the claim or not. Where was the context? Nowhere to be seen. Then the CAA leapt on my response, stripped it of the qualifying words, and presented it as proof of anti-Semitism. That is not acceptable and your reporter’s use of it is not acceptable either.

In discussion (if you can call it that) on Twitter today (February 4), I came up with an explanation which I think may be easier to understand:

It doesn’t actually matter which group is said to be over-influencing the prime minister – or indeed, which prime minister was said to be under their influence. Anyone with an interest in politics who is told the prime minister is being swayed by a single group, more than any other, may have good reason for concern, until information is provided that disproves the claim – in which case, there’s no problem – or proves it – in which case serious questions would have to be asked in the corridors of power. Agreed?

Your reporter stated: “He also said he was ‘not pretending it was a big problem’ if Jews were omitted from a list of Holocaust survivors, and claimed ‘I’m not going to comment’ on whether thousands or millions of Jews died in the Holocaust as ‘I don’t know’. This is quite a complicated lie as it not only takes my words out of context to remove their meaning, but also quotes my words out-of-sequence.

‘Ben’ (again) stated: “In 2008, the SWP issued an explanation of the Holocaust that referred to ‘thousands’ (not ‘millions’) of victims and omitted any reference to Jews. Whether this was ‘organised’ or ‘just a mistake’ seems irrelevant. See http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/08/18/has-swp-discovered-jew-free-holocaust (including, in particular, the last two BTL comments).”

There was no link to anything written by the SWP – just the article commenting on it. So I responded: “I’m not going to comment on ‘thousands’ instead of ‘millions’ because I don’t know – meaning, of course, I don’t know why the SWP had said that. I have always used the ‘high’ figure of six million Jews who were killed in the Nazi Holocaust. Perhaps your reporter should have read my recent articles on Holocaust Memorial Day before typing that reference into his piece? Or, indeed, ANY of my articles at all?

‘Ben’ pressed me, writing: “Mike, you are simply sticking your fingers in your ears, defending the indefensible, and pretending that there isn’t a problem.” This was in reference to my responses to the whole series of issues he presented to me, not just that of the SWP, so your reporter’s use of it is a distortion – as are the words he quoted as my response. I stated: “I’m not pretending there isn’t a problem, though. I’m simply not pretending it’s a big problem.”

Consider what your reporter stated – that I said I was “not pretending it was a big problem” (which is inaccurate as a quote, by the way). It makes it seem that I was saying it was not a problem at all. People do it all the time – dismissing claims by saying, “Oh, that’s not a big problem”. In this case, though, it’s not true to present me in that way. I acknowledged very clearly that there is a problem. My point – and it’s an accurate one, I think, is that it isn’t huge. There aren’t a huge amount of anti-Semites lurking in the Labour Party. The fact that people like the Campaign Against Antisemitism and your own reporter have to fabricate claims about me tends to prove that, I think.

The line about the warning and attending a workshop about anti-Semitism is accurate, and “I’m not accepting my readmission under the terms offered to me,” is ALMOST an accurate quote. I said “I’m not accepting IT under the terms offered to me”. But your reporter failed to include my reasons for rejecting the decision: “It implies guilt for an offence I have not committed.” Without that, you present a false impression of guilt.

And the line that “The NEC voted by 12 to 10 to issue Sivier a ‘warning’ but not to expel him, suggeting the new arithmetic on the body had a decisive impact” is pure fabrication. I provided detailed information to Mr Pogrund about the discussion, and it seems clear that members were split between those who accepted that I was not guilty of anti-Semitism and those who simply thought “there’s no smoke without fire” – that there must have been something in the accusations against me, simply because they had been made. I have no information on how the disputes panel was split, and it seems your reporter doesn’t have any either. There could have been more left-wingers ranged against me, for all I know.

You should be aware that I have published the information I provided to your report on my website – at https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/02/03/the-sunday-times-wanted-me-to-talk-about-labours-antisemitism-investigation-so-i-did/ – so readers can judge for themselves whether your reporter has represented me accurately.

Given the enormity of the inaccuracies I have detailed above, it is clear that your report is defamatory. You must publish an appropriate apology and correction at your earliest possible opportunity. I expect it to receive the same prominence as the original article – and would appreciate it if you included the link to my article about the information I provided, in the name of accuracy.

Fair enough? Apologies if I have laboured any of my points. Unfortunately, some readers will be determined to twist my words so I have to do what I can to make it hard for them.

While I was writing my complaint to the Sunday Times, I heard my name mentioned by Robert Peston on his show, Peston on Sunday. He was referring to the Sunday Times piece and at one point described me as “vile”.

The complaint to ITV was much shorter than that to the newspaper – because I was able to attach the complaint above and link to the other pieces I’ve mentioned. I wrote:

I was alarmed to hear myself being discussed in defamatory terms by Robert Peston on his show, Peston on Sunday, today – February 4.

Mr Peston was discussing me in relation to an inaccurate Sunday Times article,  headlined Labour welcomes back banned activists and Holocaust denier. The article’s references to me appear to be based primarily, not on my own words, but on a hate article about me, published by an organisation called the Campaign Against Antisemitism in the run-up to the county council elections last year, in which I was a candidate. I believe it was published in an attempt to corruptly influence the election result by making false statements about me in breach of s.106 of the Representation of the People Act, 1983.

You will see that, where it discusses the issues included in the Sunday Times report, the newspaper’s language is similar to that of the article, if not identical.

It does include links to my own pieces and, if you were to visit them, you would see that the CAA has “quotemined” my articles – clipping out parts of sentences in order to publish them out-of-context, to present a false impression of my character and my work.

Alternatively, you could read the article I wrote in response to the CAA smear piece.

Further information is available in the text of the email I wrote to Sunday Times reporter Gabriel Pogrund. Mr Pogrund wanted to interview me by telephone but I declined – a wise choice, it seems. I have attached it to this email; alternatively you could read my article, published late on February 3, which includes Mr Pogrund’s questions to me.

I published that piece because I was concerned that the Sunday Times might misrepresent me and wanted the public to be able to see what I had told the reporter.

I am also providing the text of my email demanding an apology and correction from the Sunday Times, as it deals with the inaccuracies in Mr Pogrund’s piece directly.

In the light of the above, I hope you will understand my distress at being described as “vile” on national television by Mr Peston.

Has nobody working on that programme considered the value of doing a little research? I’ve been a news reporter and journalist for 24 years and I distinctly recall being trained to have the facts at hand.

Given the enormity of the inaccuracies I have detailed above, it is clear that Mr Peston’s words were defamatory. Please broadcast an appropriate apology and correction on Peston on Sunday at your earliest possible opportunity – on this evening’s repeat if possible, and certainly on next week’s edition.

At the time of writing, I await a response from both the newspaper and the TV station.

In the meantime, feel free to send your own observations to the comment column. If you want to attack me, be sure you have a strong argument!


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

The Sunday Times wanted me to talk about Labour’s #antisemitism investigation – so I did


The question is whether the Murdoch paper’s reporter then decided to misrepresent me.

A reporter calling himself Gabriel Pogrund contacted me with the following:

Several suspended members of the Labour party were readmitted following a recent meeting of the NEC.

I understand that:

i) you were given a warning and mandated to attend Jewish Labour Movement training, after which you will be readmitted to the party as a member of Brecon and Radnorshire CLP

ii) you were previously suspended from the party in 2017 for posting comments and material online that was interpreted to be anti-Semitic

Could you confirm that the above details are accurate?

And, if you are happy to, could you also provide a comment about your readmission and your view on the current direction of the party?

Sure. Why not?

But it occurred to me that my words might not be reproduced as I intended them.

So I decided to reproduce them here, at the same time as the Sunday Times came off the presses and was distributed to the nation. Hopefully, that way, there would be no going back and readers could check the words published in the paper against those I provided.

Paranoid? Well, you are reading an article by someone whose words were lifted and twisted to fabricate the case against me in the first place.

Here are my words. Yes, there are a lot of them. No:

My membership of the Labour Party was suspended in early May 2017, after allegations were received that I may have been involved in a breach of Labour Party rules, “relating to social media posts which may be described by some as anti-Semitic and may cause offence to some members”. The complainant had sent an article, published on the Campaign Against Antisemitism website, which had cherry-picked words from several pieces on my website, http://voxpoliticalonline.com in order to present a false impression of my work. So the description of my posts as anti-Semitic was a deliberate lie, and it seems to me that any offence caused was after reading the CAA article, not my original work.

I was running as a candidate in the Powys County Council elections at the time, and the CAA article – together with the complaint to the Labour Party – were, in my opinion, politically-motivated; an attempt to affect the election by making false statements about my personal character/behaviour, in breach of s.106 of the Representation of the People Act, 1983. Nothing in the allegation had anything to do with my political activities. The articles, from which the CAA mined its quotes, dated back to April 2016, so there had been plenty of opportunity to air any grievance before the election. It is my opinion that the only possible reason for publishing it at the end of April 2017, days before the vote, was to corruptly influence the result.

One example of my alleged anti-Semitism that has been quoted very often is this line: “This conspiracy – and it is a conspiracy, have no doubt about that,” which the CAA – and its many supporters who have been sending hate messages to me via the social media and writing blog articles about me ever since the allegations were made – demands must refer to the anti-Semitic trope about a fictitious “international Jewish conspiracy”. In fact, it refers to the very real and actual attempt at a conspiracy by former Israeli embassy official Shai Masot, as exposed in episode 4 of the Al-Jazeera documentary The Lobby. He was trying to get Tory aide Maria Strizzolo to help him remove Alan Duncan from his position as a Foreign Office minister, on the grounds that Mr Duncan’s pro-Palestine stance was considered to be against Israel’s political interests. At one point in the episode (around 23 minutes in), he actually says, “It sounds like a conspiracy” – because it was. He also claims, around 21 minutes in, to be working with Labour Friends of Israel, and this raises real questions about the influence of a foreign country on politics and political decisions here in the UK – questions that, it seems to me, are being dodged with false accusations of anti-Semitism.

At the meeting of the NEC disputes panel in January, I understand that a very one-sided report was put to members which referred to an interview I attended at Welsh Labour HQ, falsely suggesting that my answers were “vague”. I brought a witness to that meeting, and – like me – she is furious at that inaccurate claim. Several members spoke up in my defence, raising points that I made during that interview, but my understanding is that other members wanted to reject this evidence because it had been omitted from the report that had been submitted to them. The recommendation had been for my case to be referred to the National Constitutional Committee, with a recommendation for my dismissal, but the disputes panel was not happy with it. However, members were not willing to dismiss the case altogether. It seems that some of them take a “no smoke without fire” attitude to reports that are submitted to the panel, so a compromise was discussed and agreed, in which I would be given a warning and told to attend “training” by the Jewish Labour Movement.

I have rejected that. It implies guilt for an offence I have not committed.

Also, of course, it was at a “training” session run by the Jewish Labour Movement that Jackie Walker was recorded, and her words were subsequently used to support a claim of anti-Semitism against her. My understanding is that the event had been advertised as a “safe space” meeting, in which attendees were encouraged to discuss their concerns without fear of being recorded or having the concerns they raised used against them. Clearly this did not happen; the JLM either made the recording or allowed it to be made. So you will appreciate my reasons for doubting the motives behind such “training” sessions, and for referring to them in quotation marks; they are said to be training sessions but seem to be something else.

For the time being, I have been restored to full membership of the party. My case will be reconsidered after I reject an invitation to a JLM event. Personally, I think that’s just prolonging the matter – I have already made my rejection of the decision perfectly clear and I am keen to demonstrate to my fellow Labour Party members that they have based their decision on false information.

How do I feel about my readmission? As you can tell, I’m not accepting it under the terms offered to me. I don’t blame the disputes panel members; they can only act on the information that has been provided to them. I do question the procedure it has followed. Clearly the report they received was biased against me; I thought people facing accusations in the UK were deemed to be innocent until proven guilty, but there appears to have been a presumption of guilt in my case, and I had no opportunity to set the record straight. The procedure needs to be reformed to ensure fairness.

That being said, I hold no grievance against the Labour Party as a whole. I believe our policies are better for the UK than those of any other political party – obviously, as I wouldn’t be a member otherwise – and the growing list of catastrophes affecting Theresa May’s government is demonstrating that to the general public. The huge increase in membership since Jeremy Corbyn became leader has fuelled reform of internal party democracy that means Labour in Parliament is increasingly reflecting the wishes of its members. That is an ongoing, and healthy, process.

I would like to add that I consider the behaviour of the Campaign Against Antisemitism and its supporters to be a politically-motivated act of violence against me. This hate campaign was an attempt to ruin my reputation as a reliable political commentator and, in doing so, seriously harm my income. It raises serious questions about the political allegiance of an organisation which – according to Charity Commission rules – is supposed to be impartial. And it seems very strange that an organisation dedicated to the fight against hatred directed at innocent people, for no reason other than their religious/ethnic origin, should fabricate reasons to engage in a campaign of hate against me.

It’s far too much information for a news story about a wider issue – but enough to make my meaning clear.

I wonder if it tallies with Mr Pogrund’s story.


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

Did strapped-for-a-story Sunday Times resurrect six-month-old Labour deselection twaddle?

The good fellows at Momentum were up in arms earlier, because of this:

Sunday Times front January 21.

The Momentum Twitter account had this to say:

“The Sunday Times contacted us at 9pm, half an hour before print. The story is based on one unnamed source. Others on twitter say they rewrote half the paper at the last minute as their big story was pulled.

“Desperate for a new front page, have @thesundaytimes just made this up?”

Well, the Sunday Times is behind a paywall that This Writer won’t cough up to get past, so I looked up the story in downmarket sister rag The Sun instead (don’t judge me – it’s all in the name of research). Apparently, it goes like this:

“As many as 50 Labour MPs are on a de-selection hit-list drawn up by leftist supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, it has been claimed.

“Moderate Labour MPs have been warned that Corbyn’s allies want centrist candidates ousted toe e replaced by hard line lefties.

“A Labour Party whip has been privately telling moderates not to rock the boat or they could face the chop.

“The news comes amid fears many will be targeted if rule changes are pushed through this autumn, The Times reports.

“Chris Leslie, former shadow chancellor, and Hilary Benn, son of Left wing icon Tony Benn, are believed to top the list.

“Angela Eagle, who challenged Corbyn for the leadership in 2016, and her sister Maria, are also thought to be in the activists’ sights.

“A source told The Times: “Allies of Corbyn have admitted they have a list of MPs they want to get rid of.”

“The disclosure came as three Momentum-backed candidates, including founder Jon Lansman, were elected to Labour’s national executive committee last week.”

It all seemed a bit familiar, so I got on a search engine and found this, from the Daily Mail website, dated July 7 last year – six months ago:

Hard left activists have drawn up a deselection ‘hit list’ of nearly 50 Labour MPs who have criticised Jeremy Corbyn.

A Momentum group in South Tyneside has published a list of politicians who they say should ‘join the Liberals’.

They include Chuka Umunna – who led a revolt against Mr Corbyn over leaving the EU single market – Chris Leslie and Jess Philips.

The list emerged as it emerged that another moderate MP had been ordered to apologise to Mr Corbyn after a hard-left clique took over her local party.

Luciana Berger, who is currently on maternity leave, was told by one newly-elected member of the executive in Liverpool Wavertree that she should ‘get on board quickly’ or face being axed.

The similarities are obvious – not just the names of those involved, like Chris Leslie and Maria Eagle (whose name is on the list published in the Mail‘s story, but also the language: In the Times story, moderate MPs are being told not to “rock the boat”, while in the Mail, Luciana Berger was allegedly told to “get on board quickly”.

Snap reaction: This is fake news. The Sunday Times has resurrected an old allegation about Momentum – most probably in response to the victory of Momentum-backed candidates including the organisation’s founder, Jon Lansman, in elections to the party’s ruling National Executive Committee last week.

Is there anything to it? Doubtful.

I’m sure a leading Labour figure ruled out mandatory reselection of MPs in an interview last week (although I admit I can’t find it at the time of writing), and the commentariat seemed to be taking that person at their word.

In the Labour Party, it seems, the ceasefire has been holding.

But that could change if these Murdoch rags stir up submerged animosities. Let’s hope nobody lets that happen.


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