Tag Archives: suspension

Twitter admits it suspended @MidWalesMike account for no reason. Time to kick it into touch?

Take a look at the message immediately following, which raises serious concerns about a social media giant:

“Hello, After further review, we have unsuspended your account as it does not appear to be in violation of the Twitter Rules. Your account is now unsuspended. We appreciate your patience and apologize for any inconvenience. Please note that it may take 24-48 hours for your follower and following numbers to return to normal. Thanks, Twitter.”

Thanks for nothing, Twitter!

This social media platform – that is supposed to act in a responsible way towards its users – arbitrarily removed my ability to communicate with my readers and customers for a day short of a whole month… for no reason.

It has admitted that I did nothing wrong, as I stated on February 2 when I discovered that my @MidWalesMike account had been suspended. I wasn’t notified officially. So why did it take 27 days for staff to check and find out that I was right?

This is not the first time that my account has been wrongly suspended, either. I was stopped from using it in December after a supporter of Rachel Riley sent false information to the platform’s bosses:

Identified? This person posted screenshots that appear to show they are responsible for the complaint that had Vox Political’s Mike Sivier suspended from Twitter. Mike has no idea who this person is and a Twitter search provides no evidence of any contact.

It’s apparently a fake account – I’m told the profile picture actually belongs to somebody in Russia. Stealing people’s images is a classic troll activity and it reflects extremely poorly on Riley that she is supported by such people.

Back in December it took just five days for me to get my account back – but that was five days too long.

I have written to the powers-that-be at Twitter, demanding a more detailed explanation of why my account was suspended without investigation. Am I to expect the same treatment at any time in the future, because this enormous multinational corporation is too cheap to employ anyone to check these accusations before taking action on them?

I do not expect any meaningful reply.

Is it time, then, to leave Twitter to the trolls?

How hard is it to start up a social media micro-blogging site? I’m not a coder so I don’t know. Is it really difficult or would it be simple? Does anybody know how?

I know Twitter is huge at the moment, and many people would hate to leave it because it has billions of users – but if it is unreliable (and it is), then it is time to let it go.

And it seems a bit of competition from an ethical organisation might be what’s needed to make Twitter clean up its act.

What do you think?

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Labour had no reason to suspend Jeremy Corbyn – document proves

Jeremy Corbyn: the evidence is mounting up in his favour.

A report by the Labour Party has made it clear beyond doubt that Keir Starmer and his (acting) party secretary, David Evans, had no reason to suspend the party membership of former leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The suspension was attributed to words spoken by Corbyn after the Equality and Human Rights Commission published its report on allegations of anti-Semitism in Labour.

He said the claims had been blown up out of proportion by people who had political reasons for doing so.

Even EHRC guidance states that Corbyn had every right to say what he did but Starmer stuck to his pop-guns. Now we know he had no right to do so:

According to a section of the report from Labour’s Governance and Legal Unit, his statement “did not contain any overtly discriminatory language on the face of it”.

A panel of the party’s ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) reinstated Corbyn three weeks after his suspension but Starmer used his position as party leader to continue to exclude him from the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP).

This means Corbyn cannot stand for election as a Labour MP unless or until the suspension is lifted.

Corbyn’s lawyers say Starmer has acted in bad faith and have launched a High Court challenge.

The damning document, showing Starmer had no grounds on which to suspend Corbyn, is part of this action.

Labour isn’t co-operating (what a surprise). It is refusing to provide minutes of meetings where Corbyn’s suspension was discussed, claiming that there are no notes or minutes – and that no back room deal was struck over Corbyn’s future.

It’s an easy thing to say. They were internal meetings and there’s no way – that I can see – that anybody else can prove minutes were taken.

But it would be a huge dereliction of duty if they weren’t.

I’d like to hear from the attendees – particularly Trickett and McCluskey. Was somebody taking notes? If so, what happened to them?

It might be necessary to drag the facts out.

Source: Jeremy Corbyn: Details of Labour inquiry into ex-leader made public – BBC News

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Twitter tries to break the law – but is this the person who had Mike suspended?

Identified? This person posted screenshots that appear to show they are responsible for the complaint that had Vox Political’s Mike Sivier suspended from Twitter. Mike has no idea who this person is and a Twitter search provides no evidence of any contact.

There have been developments.

Readers of This Site will be aware that This Writer’s Twitter account was suspended on Saturday, December 12. The most likely excuse, I thought, was the link to the Vox Political article discussing the evidence used in Rachel Riley’s application to strike out my defence against her High Court libel action against me.

As you can see from the image above, it seems I was correct in that. But we’ll come to it.

On advice, I contacted Twitter to appeal against the suspension, and also submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) for the information on which my suspension had been based.

Twitter seemed keen to help. I had to poke it about the SAR but eventually Twitter Support came back to me with a request for specific instructions, on Wednesday (December 16). I tried to provide this but the link didn’t work, so I had to demand one that did.

Then on Friday (December 18), I received the following message:

Thank you. Our record indicates that your account is not suspended. This case will now be closed.

It really won’t, you know.

Yes, my account was restored on Thursday (December 17), but it had still been unavailable to me for five days and I want to know why. I have a right to know why. Remember, Twitter never contacted me with a reason for my suspension.

I submitted a Subject Access Request, which is a legal requirement. By UK law, Twitter has one calendar month from the date I submitted my request (December 12) to honour it. No excuses. No apologies. If it fails to provide the information, Twitter will have broken the law.

I have emailed Twitter UK’s CEO, Dara Nasr, to remind him of this, along with overall boss Jack Dorsey. We’ll see what happens.

In the meantime, after my account was restored, I saw an interesting tweet in reply to one that I couldn’t see, being blocked by the account holder:

Holocaust denier and anti-Semite? For fuck’s sake. Does he think the Holocaust happened? And what did he say that was anti-Semitic?

It was clearly about me; someone had repeated the old lies that I was a Holocaust denier and an anti-Semite – so I did the necessary work and got a copy of the tweet I was blocked from seeing.

Dated December 13, it said (as you can see above):

Mike Sivier – @MidWalesMike

You sent me threats & abuse in the 2019 British election. Enjoy your Twitter suspension.

Hope Rachel and Tracy-Ann win in court. Show you as an antiSemite and Holocause Denier.

The account holder was, apparently, “Festive Fionn” – @Fionn_Grunspan.

I have no idea who this person is.

I do not recall having any contact with them and use of Twitter’s advanced search facility has produced no evidence of any such contact.

The likelihood of me sending “threats & abuse” to anybody is ridiculous. I have received threats and abuse from people; I don’t send it myself. Of course, some people may consider civilised responses to be abusive; it depends on your point of view.

As there is no evidence of me having contacted @Fionn_Grunspan for any reason at all, I am led to speculate on whether they were operating under another Twitter handle at the time of the alleged “threats & abuse” – if such an altercation every took place. That would suggest that the account holder had changed it for some reason, which in turn suggests that they had been caught doing something wrong.

Obviously “Rachel and Tracy-Ann” can’t win against me in court because “Tracy-Ann” (Oberman) is not one of the parties. It’s a small point but it indicates that this Twitter account cannot get its facts right.

Nor will they show me “as an antiSemite and Holocaust Denier”. Riley’s case against me is a claim that I libelled her and has nothing to do with anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial. In any case, claims that I was a Holocaust denier have been demonstrated to be lies and The Sunday Times (principally; other newspapers had to do the same) published a lengthy correction after having wrongly accused me of it, in early 2019.

Is Twitter trying to protect this – apparent – liar? If so, why?

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

Starmer’s purge of so-called Labour antisemites is now persecuting left-wing Jews

Please share the image, or even tweet it to @Keir_Starmer if you like it.

The latest victims of Keir Starmer’s politically-motivated purge of Labour Party members – using anti-Semitism as the excuse – are left-wing Jews.

It is perfectly possible for Jewish people to be anti-Semitic, of course.

This Site took Starmer to task for taking donations from one such anti-Semite only two days ago, at the time of writing.

The fact that he takes cash from an anti-Semite (and has apparently ignored demands for him to hand back the money), while victimising innocent people merely highlights the hypocrisy at the heart of his New Pale Blue Labour.

That’s right – innocent people.

Here’s one:

I urge you to read the articles to which these tweets link – to understand the reasons for the suspension and why they are wrong.

This is not the first time this acclaimed mathematician and philosopher has had his Labour membership suspended. There was no substance to those accusations either.

The other high-profile Jewish suspension was that of Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi – for being “the wrong kind of Jew”, as this video makes clear:

It wouldn’t surprise me if the video above is the reason for her suspension, even though there is no offensive material in it (unless you’re one of Labour’s current hard-right leadership).

Commentators have drawn the obvious conclusion – that Starmer’s Labour Party is inherently, institutionally anti-Semitic:

But then, what can you expect from a party that takes huge amounts of money in donations from an anti-Semite?

Meanwhile – and connected: Twitter’s harassment of left-wing political voices continues. After Kerry-Anne Mendoza’s accounts were restored to her, she found herself forced to say this:

It didn’t last long but by now we’re getting used to the tactic and learning how to fight it:

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Labour is now habitually leaking member suspensions to the press in violation of Data Protection law

These days, data is digital – and that makes it all-too-easy for unscrupulous people and organisations to leak personal information to third parties in breach of the Data Protection Act and the General Data Protection Regulations. Labour has been doing it for years.

Look at this:

Yes, it’s a much more dignified statement than anything put out by the right-wingers responsible for the suspensions, but for This Writer, the really important part is in the very first paragraph.

Ms Regan stated: “I was deeply disappointed to learn from the press last Friday that I had been suspended from the Labour Party.”

It is against the law for an organisation such as the Labour Party to share personal information relating to any member with a third party without the member’s consent.

That’s in the UK’s Data Protection Act(s) and in the General Data Protection Regulations to which the UK subscribes.

However, as we all discovered from the verdict in my court case last week (didn’t we?), the law doesn’t count if the organisation (in this case, Labour) can say with a straight face that the leak was carried out by a party officer without the knowledge of their bosses, and they do not know who was responsible for the leak.

The statement doesn’t have to be true. All Labour has to do is fail to provide any information to the contrary. And as the organisation controlling all the information, you can be sure that it won’t be forthcoming.

So Ms Regan found out from the press.

Jeremy Corbyn found out about his suspension from a photographer.

Nadia Whittome found out she had been sacked as a PPS from the Guido Fawkes blog.

There have been many more, back through the years to the moment when…

I found out about my own suspension from a reporter working at the Western Mail, on May 3, 2017.

Labour has been leaking damaging private information about party members to the press for more than three and a half years.

It isn’t legal. But it is clearly de facto party policy.

Obviously the law has to change to close this loophole. I said the same in my article about my court case.

It’s going to be interesting watching Labour opposing the change (or will it?) in Parliament.

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Is Whittome Labour’s latest hypocrite in the Corbyn/suspension/free speech controversy?

Nadia Whittome: her behaviour is all the more vexing because she has no reason to be loyal to Keir Starmer – he sacked her as a Parliamentary Private Secretary because she voted against a Bill that would have protected soldiers from prosecution if they participated in acts of torture overseas, and briefed the right-wing Guido Fawkes blog about the sacking BEFORE telling her.

A Labour MP who had been considered to be on the left of the party and who said Jeremy Corbyn should be reinstated when his membership was suspended has become a turncoat, it seems.

Despite her own comments about Corbyn, it seems Nadia Whittome does not believe that her peers in the party should have the same right, as she stated in a Tweet following a meeting of Nottingham East Labour Party (she is MP for that constituency but not a member of the CLP):

It seems the agenda of last Friday’s CLP meeting included a motion that called for Corbyn’s reinstatement, the lifting of disciplinary measures from others for discussing the issues as well as for the removal of David Evans, General Secretary of the Labour Party, who imposed Corbyn’s suspension and the ban on discussing it that led to the suspensions of other party members.

Ms Whittome objected to the motion, despite having spoken against Corbyn’s suspension herself, it seems.

What are we to make of that? That she considers herself to be above her party colleagues? That she agrees that, while she may discuss such matters with impunity, it is right that rank-and-file party members be suspended for daring to do so? That she thinks party members should not be allowed to register their opposition when party officers flout rules and regulations?

That’s how it looks to This Writer.

Worse, Ms Whittome passed comment on an incident in which a Jewish CLP member left the meeting, claiming they did not feel safe there.

It appears that all was not as she led people to believe. Here‘s a statement from the CLP itself:

“There was only one interruption during the meeting. This arose when one member stated that in his personal experience he had never witnessed any antisemitism in any of our meetings. As he continued with his personal view, another member shouted out – in a manner that some found to be aggressive – that he himself had suffered personal, antisemitic abuse from the person speaking, who was taken aback and stated that this wasn’t true; the Chair intervened and tried to calm things down. At this point the member who had interrupted declared that he no longer felt safe at the meeting and left.

“The member who left has changed his narrative on social media to stating that the member he accused had ‘witnessed an anti-Semitic attack’ on him rather than had attacked him personally.”

Ms Whittome also mentioned the possibility that disciplinary proceedings had been launched against a member of the CLP. This appears to be CLP chair Louise Regan, a former NUT president and (I really hope this has nothing to do with it) vice-chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

It seems Ms Regan’s party membership was, in fact, suspended:

This can only be for allowing the motion to be heard (it was passed by 23 votes to 10). Ms Regan’s conduct during the meeting was described in the CLP statement as “exemplary” and Ms Whittome is said to have joined in thanking her for the way she chaired it.

If that was everything, it would be bad enough, but it seems even worse than that, as evidence has come to light claiming that Ms Whittome actually participated in a smear campaign against Ms Regan. Read:

Maybe Mr Kazmi has his own axe to grind (although, considering the number of Tweets by other people linking Ms Whittome with this AWL group, this seems doubtful). In any case, This Writer will be happy to hear what the MP has to say about all this.

At the moment, it seems likely she has fatally wounded her reputation among the very people on whom she would have to rely in order to be re-elected in any future Parliamentary poll.

And at the very least, it seems likely that she should expect a flood of complaints to Labour’s Governance and Legal Unit, that her comments have brought the party into disrepute – the very charge which, when used against her colleagues, she supported.

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

Rayner defies EHRC by threatening to suspend ‘thousands’ of Labour members

Angela Rayner (here with her boss Keir Starmer): hypocrites – and very possibly anti-Semites without acknowledging it.

Note to Sienna Rodgers at LabourList: the headline on your report is wrong. It should have read Angela Rayner is a big ol’ hypocrite.

In the article, Rayner states that the findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party are not open to debate:

There’s no debating what the EHRC said.

LabourList also reported another statement she made to the Jewish Labour Movement’s conference – insultingly held on the International Day of Solidarity with Palestinians – that she and Keir Starmer attended rather than support the Palestine solidarity event:

If I have to suspend thousands and thousands of members, we will do that.

The two comments are mutually exclusive. The report clearly states that

We have concluded that the practice of political interference was unlawful… The Labour Party should… implement clear rules and guidance that prohibit and sanction political interference in the complaints process.

Her threat to suspend thousands – a warning that the leadership is planning to purge the party of anybody who dissents against its dictatorship – is itself political interference in the process, as it is an attempt to suppress complaints by members against the actions of the leadership of which she is a member. Therefore she is not only debating the legitimacy of the EHRC’s finding; she is ignoring it altogether.

Remember that this is all about the attack on Jeremy Corbyn by Keir Starmer, party general secretary David Evans, and others at the very top of the Labour leadership including Rayner herself, despite the fact that she once said this:

She went from that position to saying that the truth is “unacceptable”:

She is a hypocrite. She has revealed her true colours. She cannot be trusted. She should be ejected from her position of power.

This will be hard because the Labour Party leadership has a well-known track record of rejecting any complaints against its own members and friends, no matter how well-justified they may be.

But we have all seen this behaviour and we are talking about it:

And organisations that formerly wanted Rayner’s support and endorsement are now rejecting her. To be honest, I don’t know if the following tweet was connected with what she said on LabourList, but I anticipate that this is the soft footfall that precedes a stampede:

Oh, and by the way, Labour is not completely irredeemable. Members across the UK did come out in support of Palestine, unlike their treacherous leader and deputy leader. Here’s a tweet from Wales:

Let’s remember that Rayner – and her vile boss Starmer – are saying that they are taking all this action against the good members of their own party because of hurt, harm and injury done to Jewish people in the UK.

What about the harm done to Jewish people who agree with the viewpoint Rayner, Starmer and the others are attacking?

That’s right. These Jews feel that Rayner, Starmer and the others are attacking them. And Rayner, Starmer et al treat them as though they don’t even exist.

Isn’t that attitude a little… you know… anti-Semitic?

Finally, Labour’s deplorable leaders need to acknowledge that this confrontation between them and party members arose because the EHRC found that the leadership had been interfering in investigations of anti-Semitism complaints in order to make it seem that there were more anti-Semites in the party than was the case.

A court found only last week that the process of investigating accusations against This Writer – me, Mike Sivier – was perverted in order to produce a false finding against me.

Labour failed to follow its own investigation procedure. It did not adequately inform me of the nature of the allegations against me (in fact, the party changed those claims as it went on, in order to ‘fix’ the result), and a party officer leaked false claims about me – including a lie that I was a Holocaust denier – to The Sunday Times (which subsequently had to publish a lengthy correction).

And I’m not the only one who has suffered this treatment. The EHRC report found that, of the investigations it examined, no fewer than 60 per cent suffered from bias calculated to discriminate against the respondent – against the person accused of anti-Semitism.

Where are the apologies for lying and smearing us? I still receive abusive messages accusing me of anti-Semitism, even now. It may be that I will continue receiving them for the rest of my life. The Labour Party is to blame for that. Where is the contrition? Where is the apology for that?

After his supporters bleated over Corbyn, how can Starmer avoid corruption claims?

Keir Starmer: he’s not looking so smug now (image for illustrative purposes only, before anybody points out it’s old).

Keir Starmer dug a deep hole for himself when he allowed Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour membership to be suspended.

This Site has already discussed the fact that it led other party members to protest and they, in turn, were suspended for talking about it – even though Starmer and other members of his party elite had been doing the same.

It has been said that these suspendees were not allowed to vote in the NEC elections that took place while Corbyn’s suspension was ongoing – or rather their votes weren’t counted – so there is already a smell of corruption about the business.

To this may now be added the possibility that it was unlikely Labour would ever have suspended Corbyn because he may have taken the case to court. Corbyn has hundreds of thousands of pounds in a fund that was raised when it seemed he may be sued over the Panorama documentary Is Labour Antisemitic? – and he has the facts on his side; he was well within his rights to say the words that led to his suspension.

And now Starmer’s own supporters have undermined him by complaining. This Writer has engaged with one of them as follows:

Hodge’s response is, I’m told, mild in comparison with some of the others.

I tend to agree with Skwawkbox‘s interpretation of this:

After weeks of bleating about political interference by party leader Jeremy Corbyn (even though his office only intervened to tell heel-dragging right-wing staff to get on with it), they are now demanding political interference by party leader Keir Starmer – and threatening to flounce out unless he does interfere – even though the reinstatement was decided by a right-dominated NEC panel.

These are the same people who have been loudly demanding that the party implement the full conclusions of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report – which bans political interference. Yet as soon as a disciplinary process ends in a result they don’t like, they come over all ‘To hell with that!’, which makes you wonder what kind of ‘independent’ process they’d accept. Of course, the ‘mainstream’ media is pointing out precisely none of this shameless hypocrisy.

You’d almost think the ‘moderates’ weren’t serious about wanting impartial and just outcomes to disciplinary complaints and had just been cynically exploiting an opportunity in a way that can only be described as, well… political.

Starmer has promised to implement all the recommendations of the EHRC report mentioned above – including the ban on political interference. He may not have done it yet but, by demanding it, they are at least breaking the spirit of the new rules Starmer plans to bring in.

And there are all the complaints that have already been made about those of Starmer’s lieutenants who have passed anti-Semitic comments without fear of suspension.

Put it together and Starmer faces corruption accusations from all sides.

By suspending Corbyn supporters, he may be accused of corrupting the NEC elections.

By not suspending his own supporters, he may also be accused of corruption.

Either way, it seems clear he sits at the head of a corrupted Labour Party machine – with himself as the cause of the corruption.

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

This week, Corbyn, next week – Vox Political’s Mike. But will Labour admit its ‘anti-Semitism’ blunders?

 

Has the Labour Party followed its own rules for investigating the complaint against Jeremy Corbyn?

After any party member is accused, they have to be given warning of the claim against them, with questions to answer in order to give their side, and two weeks to answer them.

Then the party has to investigate the validity of the complaint – a matter that can take several months.

Then the issue goes before a panel from the National Executive Committee.

As far as we know, Jeremy Corbyn still doesn’t know the accusation against him. How could he? Keir Starmer hasn’t been able to get it right in any of the many interviews about it in the two weeks and five days since it happened.

Starmer keeps saying silly things, such as that Corbyn had said anti-Semitism had been exaggerated. He didn’t; he said the extent of A/S in the Labour Party had been exaggerated by certain people for political reasons.

Starmer’s insistence on exaggerating what Corbyn did would suggest that he is one such person. Wouldn’t it?

I’ve already touched on the next point: nowhere near enough time has passed for a proper investigation, according to Labour’s rules, to be carried out.

So it seems any discussion by any NEC members today (November 17) can only take the form of a “show trial”. If he loses his party membership as a result, the party will be accused of holding a kangaroo court.

Mention of kangaroo courts brings This Writer to my own mistreatment by Labour and the fact that my case against the party, for breaching its contract with me by failing to mount a proper investigation and by passing false information about me to the newspapers, will return to court in a week.

The hearing at 2pm on November 24 will take place by telephone – but space is being made available at Bristol Civil Justice Centre for interested members of the public to attend and hear the verdict.

This hearing may take an unexpected path as the Equality and Human Rights Commission published its own report on the way Labour has handled accusations of anti-Semitism since the trial.

I think some of that report should have been included as evidence. I am concerned that the Labour leadership postponed its publication until after the trial took place – possibly in the belief that the verdict would be announced on the same day.

It wasn’t. I hope to bring the judge’s attention to Chapter Six of the report, which gives details of serious failures of the Labour complaint investigation process, and to another part that is pertinent to my case.

I also submitted a request for information to the EHRC, about whether it considered my own case. The organisation has promised to respond before the hearing on November 24.

(This means it will have replied within two weeks of receiving the request. Contrast that with Labour’s response when I sent the party a Subject Access Request: it took the party two years and two months to deliver only a partial response.)

If the verdict goes in my favour, then doubt will be cast on the relevance of Labour’s decision today. And I expect the verdict to go in my favour.

Source: Anti-Semitism: Labour ruling body to meet over Jeremy Corbyn suspension – BBC News

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

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


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

Donate Button with Credit Cards

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

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

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

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

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

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

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

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

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


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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

HWG PrintHWG eBook

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

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Labour anti-Semitism: Nandy investigated but not suspended – where’s the fairness?

Keir Starmer’s Labour leadership has shown its innate bias yet again, with an investigation but no suspension after multiple complaints against Lisa Nandy. Meanwhile left-wingers continue to face immediate suspension.

The party’s infamous Disputes office is said to be investigating multiple complaints after Nandy described anti-Semitism on BBC Radio 4 as “a form of racism that punches up”.

The Prole Star reported that “Nandy’s remarks have been equally offensive to other BAME communities who felt the idea of ‘punching down’ depicted them as being somehow beneath the racists attacking them”.

And despite being chair of Labour Friends of Palestine, Nandy failed to secure a meeting with Starmer for leading British Palestinians who are concerned that the party’s approach to antisemitism was preventing them raising real abuses inflicted every day by the Israeli state on occupied Palestine.

He said he was too busy. And she also declined to meet them.

Contrast this with the treatment of Wirral Labour councillor Jo Bird, who has been suspended by the party for a third time after commenting on the EHRC’s report about anti-Semitism in the party, and on the suspension of former leader Jeremy Corbyn that followed it. Cllr Bird is Jewish.

After Bristol West CLP voted to condemn Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension and demand his reinstatement to the party, and to oppose any and all politically motivated disciplinary actions against the left by the leadership, chair Dr Hannah Little and co-secretary Darran McLaughlin have been suspended by the party. No complaints were said to have been made.

This is clear victimisation. The two named members may have allowed the motion to be discussed but every member present had a vote. Why have they not been accused? Is it too much bother? Is it easier to select two high-profile members for a “show trial”?

Meanwhile, Labour members across the UK continue to defy Starmers diktat that they must not criticise his leadership over the EHRC report and/or about Corbyn’s suspension – including in his own Holborn constituency.

The Highgate branch has expressed its solidarity with Corbyn as a “lifelong campaigner against racism and antisemitism”. The motion stated: “We believe that unity, not division, is important for the Party to make progress and effectively challenge racism, fascism, antisemitism and harassment in whatever form this may take” in a clear jab at Starmer’s protestations that he wants to unify the Labour Party.

His idea of unity seems to be to drive out or silence anybody who disagrees with his diktats.

This Site has said it before and no doubt I’ll say it again: Starmer can say what he likes but he cannot stop party members from acting in accordance with the rules and there is no rule to stop them discussing the activities of the leadership.

If you all do it, there’s nothing he can do about 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