Reply To: Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019


Home Forums Discussion Forum Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 Reply To: Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019

#58583
Kim Sanders-Fisher
Guest

We need to recognize the danger posed by the agenda of ‘othering’ because the British Government are past masters of this policy of divide and rule, having practiced it for centuries. An alarmingly racist eugenics agenda is embedded at the very core of the Tory cabal in power right now with Cummings manipulation of a weak narcissistic PM as he calls the shots from his unelected shadow position in charge of decision making! The Tory manifesto states outright that Gypsies will be targeted, but they will only be the first soft target just as they were under the Nazis. The principal is to selectively dehumanize a sector of society while discrediting and bullying anyone who attempts to protect them. Populist rabble rousers, hate-mongers like Farage, Robinson and Katie Hopkins, serve as the most obvious Tory tools, but widely accepted TV personalities like Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman pose a far more insidious threat as does author JK Rowling cheering from the sidelines, as she holds sway over so many of our children.

The tactic is slightly modified this time around with a campaign to distract with faux protection of one ethic minority while another is contrasted as a danger to society. Beyond the Gypsies, the Muslim population of the UK are in grave danger of being targeted right now. The laws designed to criminalize the Gypsies and rid the UK of their encampments, can far too easily be adapted to target the homeless who will be turned onto our streets in growing numbers as a consequence of the inevitable widespread destitution due to crash out Brexit compounding the economic meltdown of Covid 19. All immigrants and suspected immigrants will again be the target of misdirected public anger over the chaos that will follow mass unemployment and critical food shortages. This Tory Government will need a scapegoat for their shambolic mishandling and disastrous policy errors designed to cull the ‘economically inactive’ from society. But we must fiercely resist, as playing into their hands will enable a catastrophic ‘Slaughter of the Sheeple!’

The Tory tools fermenting the hateful ‘othering’ in this country must be resoundingly called out and publically discredited for their actions, especially those who pose a more insidious threat like Riley and Oberman. Their sustained bullying of a terrified teen was unconscionable, but it is a just taste of things to come under the faux outrage banner of anti-Semitism; we can stop it in its tracks by fighting back. In the Guardian Article entitled, “Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman drop libel claim over retweet” It says that they, “dropped their joint libel claim against a barrister for retweeting a critical blog post about the pair.” However, “Jane Heybroek, an immigration lawyer, said the duo had withdrawn their case after 18 months of legal action that cost her over £80,000 in legal bills.” So despite being forced to back down and drop their case Riley and Oberman achieved most of their devastating SLAPP lawsuit goals: inflicting a crippling time, stress and financial burden to warn others of the consequences of defending the innocent!

The Guardian report that, “In 2019 Heybroek had retweeted a link to a lengthy blog post by a man called Shaun Lawson entitled ‘Beneath Contempt: How Tracy-Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley harassed, dogpiled and slandered a 16-year-old child and her father’. The article made allegations about the actions of Oberman and Riley towards a young Labour activist who had made comments about antisemitism in the party. Heybroek did not publish the original blog post, and said there was no evidence that anyone read it as a result of her retweet. Heybroek said she had spent tens of thousands of pounds on the case, while Riley and Oberman, who have been actively involved in highlighting allegations of antisemitism in the Labour party, were represented on a no-win, no-fee basis.” This is typical in SLAPP cases. Heybroek said, “This meant that there was almost no risk to them in bringing the claim. Many people would have felt forced to settle for reasons of pragmatism.” This bears all the hallmarks of extortion!

The Guardian reveal that, “At a hearing earlier this year, a judge described Heybroek as ‘broadly supportive of Jeremy Corbyn’, but said there was no other clear evidence of her political position. Heybroek said that despite Riley and Oberman’s ‘vocal stance against antisemitism’ in other legal cases, this claim ‘did not actually involve any allegations of antisemitism’.” Describing how easy it is for people to jump on this bandwagon Heybrooke said, “Unfortunately, as a result of the litigation, I was the subject of a number of nasty comments from a small minority of people who simply presumed to know what the case was about and what the outcome would be. They were wrong on both counts.” The Guardian say, Riley and Oberman’s solicitor, Mark Lewis, of Patron Law, said in a statement that his clients “chose not to proceed further after the judge had determined that the opinion expressed was capable of being defamatory, in circumstances where Jane Heybroek claimed that she had promptly deleted her tweet”.

What is the significance of their climb-down? While the Guardian report that, “They have both now made a contribution towards Heybroek’s costs,” they do not state the amount of this contribution. Certainly it would not have been made out of contrition or pity after realizing they were in the wrong, and I very much doubt it was their personal funds that were put forward. A deal will have been negotiated to end the case that probably involved shielding Riley and Oberman from public scrutiny of their egregious assault and bullying of Rosie, the original target of their dogpile of tweets, for the crime of failing to agree with their consensus of hatred towards Jeremy Corbyn. The Guardian report that, “Lewis said: ‘Their libel insurers each did not see any advantage in pursuing a case over the liability of a retweet that was deleted so quickly. There are bigger fish to fry in the pursuit of those who choose to maintain a serious libel’.” More harm to be caused elsewhere, but how tolerant are insurers in accepting financial SLAPP losses?

At the point where these legal insurers are no longer prepared to accept the considerable financial risk of losing SLAPP cases this risk free back up plan will become untenable. The well funded broad public support of defendants like Corbyn who has raised Over £332,000, Williamson fighting EHRC, Paddy French at Press Gang, Jewish Voice for Labour and Sivier at Vox will make fewer and fewer cases rich pickings for the out of Court settlements so necessary to avoiding any challenge to the unsubstantiated evidence. Lawyer Mark Lewis will drop these cases like a hot potato once fully funded defendants are able to challenge faux anti-Semitism evidence and this racist scam is exposed under full legal scrutiny. When he realizes he cannot keep the cases out of Court and he stands absolutely no hope of winning in Court he will stop representing SLAPP cases. SLAPP cases win by avoiding Court, but they also succeed by shutting down public scrutiny, investigative reporting and open public debate: we must not let this happen.

The poison of faux anti-Semitism allegations now stands a strong chance of being fully exposed as a hoax and Corbyn must be persuaded to countersue Ware. This is vital to demonstrate that the Starmer capitulation was a self-serving betrayal of the Labour membership, so he must step down. In another Vox Article Sivier writes, “Rachel Riley thought her support would boost a libellous petition against Jeremy Corbyn. Big mistake! That well-known self-proclaimed campaigner against racism and inequality, Princess Countdown (also sometimes known as Rachel Riley) has trumpeted her support for a libellous petition condemning Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite. In so doing, she has very clearly libelled Mr Corbyn. He is not an anti-Semite – or indeed any kind of racist – and is certainly not unfit to hold public office. She may feel safe in this act as Mr Corbyn is unlikely to respond. He seems to believe that doing so would lend credibility to the lies, although I’m open to other opinions and evidence.”

Sivier says. “The petition she is supporting was put on the Change.org website eight months ago by a little-known right-wing fringe group and fake charity calling itself the Campaign Against Antisemitism. I wrote about it at the time, pointing out that objectors could call for the petition to be removed by clicking on a link marked ‘Report a policy violation’. Unfortunately Change.org, in its wisdom, has only added a line saying, ‘We have received flags from our users that the facts in this petition may be contested. You should consider researching this issue before signing or sharing.’ One may also report the Campaign Against Antisemitism to the Charity Commission for violating the requirement that charities must be non-political, by Clicking this Link.” This isn’t the only fake ‘Charity’ doing Tory dirty work that required reporting; the Institute for Statecraft is also registered as a Charity. Their ‘Integrity Initiative’ has received substantial funding from the Tory Government to generate propaganda targeting Corbyn and the Opposition Labour Party.

Sivier reports that, “Ms Riley’s libellous tweet has attracted a considerable number of responses – in opposition.” One responded “This is a vile tweet it is also encouraging hate towards an individual and I am reporting you to Twitter and I hope you are sued, you horrible woman.’ She continued: ‘You are obsessed and this is becoming clearer by the day. Corbyn probably won’t sue you he probably pities you your childish arrogance and ignorance. You have made a libellous tweet imo you have gone too far and everyone should report it. You really are obsessed Rachel.” Another said: “Hopefully Jeremy sues you for libel. Might be able to put your maths skills to some use and work out how much you owe him in damages.” However this is perhaps Jeremy Corbyn’s biggest fault, if you can call it that: he is far too ready to turn the other cheek! There are numerous occasions where Corbyn should have fought back with legal action and Margaret Hodge MPs vile accusations should have removed her from the Labour Party!

Sivier raises the issue of how much funding he is trying to raise, saying, “These are well-paid, well-resourced TV personalities. They are targeting people like myself, who have little money, with the cynical intention of embroiling us in legal proceedings that will cost more than we can afford, in order to force us into giving up and paying them money they do not deserve.” This was written at the beginning of his long campaign when he hoped to raise “an initial £5,000 with this appeal, with a ‘stretch’ target of £25,000, to cover the costs of retaining solicitors and a barrister who can take this case to court and put a stop to this nonsense.” He said back then that his solicitors believed they had “a very strong case but we need to be able to take it to court and have it heard. Otherwise, this case will be a victory of wealth over justice.” Since then his Crowdfunding Appeal has raised over £92,000!

Sivier regularly updates information on the case, so when Downing Street attempted to make a highly suspect appointment he had something to say about it, “Downing Street racism reveals why we must get Riley into court.” He reiterated that Riley’s libel case against him “was based on an allegation that she did not victimise a teenage Labour supporter, linking the girl with anti-Semitism after she questioned the Countdown co-presenter’s claims. Ms Riley has attacked Labour supporters and members, running right up to party leader Jeremy Corbyn, as anti-Semites, and published a series of Twitter threads that led her supporters to ‘dogpile’ the girl – who suffers with anxiety problems – in response to the criticism.” Sivier points out the hypocrisy saying of Riley that, “The TV presenter claims to be fighting anti-Semitism and racism. But how can that be true when a racist eugenicist was found to have been employed by the Conservative government as a Downing Street advisor, and Ms Riley had nothing to say about it?”

Sivier informs us that, “Eugenics is about selectively breeding ‘undesirable’ genetic aspects out of the human race. The Nazis were strong supporters of it – hence their many pronouncements about racial purity and their persecution of minority groups they believed to be inferior, leading up to and including the Holocaust. Now-former Downing Street advisor Andrew Sabisky,” (who Sivier included a picture of in his post), “had to resign his position as a lieutenant to Boris Johnson’s chief SpAd (special advisor) Dominic Cummings after it was revealed that he held the same views. From this is it easy to deduce that Cummings and Johnson both hold similar racist views.” I would add that, while Sabisky’s appointment was derailed, both Johnson and his puppet master Cummings remain in post. Cummings support for eugenics is well know and confirmed in his lengthy Blog rants; it was probably responsible for both the ‘Herd Immunity’ and the disastrous exam grade algorithm, but no comment from Riley on that!.

In Sivier’s most Recent Update headed, “Leaked Labour report shows Riley libel case is based on a falsehood,” Sivier wrote, “This is not a good look for Rachel Riley.” He explains why saying that, “Her tweet refers to a threat by her lawyer, Mark Lewis, to sue people publicising the leaked Labour Party report on how its officers handled (or rather, didn’t) accusations of anti-Semitism by members. The substantive revelation is that Labour’s leadership – especially Jeremy Corbyn – was not at fault in its attempts to handle the issue; it was hampered by right-wing officials who deliberately acted against their instructions in order to make Corbyn look incompetent, thereby putting the public off voting for him and ensuring that he could not form a government. The report does not accuse anybody of anti-Semitism who had not been accused already – although, as officials acting against Corbyn failed to act on many of those accusations, it could be argued that their inaction indirectly supported anti-Semitism.”

Sivier makes an important point that is far too often missed by those obsessing over unsubstantiated allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Sivier expresses his take on this by saying, “So Mr Lewis, by threatening to sue people who are making a fuss about this report’s revelation, is acting against the interests of anybody who is genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism; he is supporting people who suppressed investigations, and he is supporting their treachery. Or so it seems to me. Ms Riley, by publicly supporting him with a claim that he is ‘suing nasty Jew-haters’ – when he isn’t, is pushing a false narrative that brings into question much of her own behaviour – including her libel case against This Writer. The case arose because I had pointed out that Ms Riley had caused extreme distress – both directly and by encouraging others – to a teenage girl who had defended Mr Corbyn. Ms Riley’s claim was that Labour was doing nothing about accusations of anti-Semitism by party members.”

Sivier reveals that, “Because the teenager said she did not believe Corbyn was responsible for this, Ms Riley attacked her on Twitter and her tweets encouraged others to do the same – to the point where the girl reported that she had received death threats. The Labour report shows that, if the party machine was doing nothing, this was nothing to do with Mr Corbyn. So, if the report is accurate (and I have reason to believe it is), the basis on which Ms Riley attacked the girl was false.” He asks if she had apologised? No! He informs us, “She has doubled down by claiming the information in the report is false and anybody publicising it must be an anti-Semite (even though they are pointing out how anti-Semitism was allowed to happen within the Labour Party because of the inaction of party officers). If I’m right, her lawsuit is based on a falsehood. She had no justification in attacking a teenage girl in the way she did, and therefore no reason to accuse me of libel, for pointing out what arose from Ms Riley’s behaviour.”

The leaked Labour report does a whole lot more than just exonerate Sivier for his defence of the young girl targeted by Riley; it is solid evidence for exonerating the Labour Party with regard to the EHRC investigation. The Williamson case presents a tangible stumbling block for EHRC regarding any attempt they might make to declare Labour institutionally anti-Semitic by ignoring the leaked Labour report, an unredacted copy of which was provided to them by Craig Murray before the interim finding was sent to Williamson. Obviously the EHRC didn’t count on Williamson’s Judicial Review, where the burden of proof will be on them. If Corbyn can be persuaded to countersue Ware the burden of proof is on Ware and his band of con-artists. Once the truth emerges in Court the Labour membership will want to oust Starmer for his betrayal and craven capitulation that has cost the Labour Party dearly. Many of the SLAPP cases that Mark Lewis is representing on a ‘no win no fee’ basis are all linked to the same tainted evidence!

Could Ware, and the ‘Poison Dart Blowers,’ be charged with committing perjury or perverting the course of justice and could their ruthlessly opportunistic Lawyer Mark Lewis face being disbarred? Lying in Court documents to threaten an innocent defendant in order to coerce a settlement payment could also potentially lead to charges of fraud and/or extortion. I am no legal eagle, but this would potentially seem possible, especially since this is such a high profile political case. The Labour Party as a whole or certainly Corbyn could bring multiple defamation cases against rogue Labour MPs, Tory MPs and news outlets including the BBC. This is worth pursuing because if these MPs and right wing outlets have to settle out of Court the progressive Left will be able toWe need to recognize the danger posed by the agenda of ‘othering’ because the British Government are past masters of this policy of divide and rule, having practiced it for centuries. An alarmingly racist eugenics agenda is embedded at the very core of the Tory cabal in power right now with Cummings manipulation of a weak narcissistic PM as he calls the shots from his unelected shadow position in charge of decision making! The Tory manifesto states outright that Gypsies will be targeted, but they will only be the first soft target just as they were under the Nazis. The principal is to selectively dehumanize a sector of society while discrediting and bullying anyone who attempts to protect them. Populist rabble rousers, hate-mongers like Farage, Robinson and Katie Hopkins, serve as the most obvious Tory tools, but widely accepted TV personalities like Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman pose a far more insidious threat as does author JK Rowling cheering from the sidelines, as she holds sway over so many of our children.

The tactic is slightly modified this time around with a campaign to distract with faux protection of one ethic minority while another is contrasted as a danger to society. Beyond the Gypsies, the Muslim population of the UK are in grave danger of being targeted right now. The laws designed to criminalize the Gypsies and rid the UK of their encampments, can far too easily be adapted to target the homeless who will be turned onto our streets in growing numbers as a consequence of the inevitable widespread destitution due to crash out Brexit compounding the economic meltdown of Covid 19. All immigrants and suspected immigrants will again be the target of misdirected public anger over the chaos that will follow mass unemployment and critical food shortages. This Tory Government will need a scapegoat for their shambolic mishandling and disastrous policy errors designed to cull the ‘economically inactive’ from society. But we must fiercely resist, as playing into their hands will enable a catastrophic ‘Slaughter of the Sheeple!’

The Tory tools fermenting the hateful ‘othering’ in this country must be resoundingly called out and publically discredited for their actions, especially those who pose a more insidious threat like Riley and Oberman. Their sustained bullying of a terrified teen was unconscionable, but it is a just taste of things to come under the faux outrage banner of anti-Semitism; we can stop it in its tracks by fighting back. In the Guardian Article entitled, “Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman drop libel claim over retweet” It says that they, “dropped their joint libel claim against a barrister for retweeting a critical blog post about the pair.” However, “Jane Heybroek, an immigration lawyer, said the duo had withdrawn their case after 18 months of legal action that cost her over £80,000 in legal bills.” So despite being forced to back down and drop their case Riley and Oberman achieved most of their devastating SLAPP lawsuit goals: inflicting a crippling time, stress and financial burden to warn others of the consequences of defending the innocent!

The Guardian report that, “In 2019 Heybroek had retweeted a link to a lengthy blog post by a man called Shaun Lawson entitled ‘Beneath Contempt: How Tracy-Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley harassed, dogpiled and slandered a 16-year-old child and her father’. The article made allegations about the actions of Oberman and Riley towards a young Labour activist who had made comments about antisemitism in the party. Heybroek did not publish the original blog post, and said there was no evidence that anyone read it as a result of her retweet. Heybroek said she had spent tens of thousands of pounds on the case, while Riley and Oberman, who have been actively involved in highlighting allegations of antisemitism in the Labour party, were represented on a no-win, no-fee basis.” This is typical in SLAPP cases. Heybroek said, “This meant that there was almost no risk to them in bringing the claim. Many people would have felt forced to settle for reasons of pragmatism.” This bears all the hallmarks of extortion!

The Guardian reveal that, “At a hearing earlier this year, a judge described Heybroek as ‘broadly supportive of Jeremy Corbyn’, but said there was no other clear evidence of her political position. Heybroek said that despite Riley and Oberman’s ‘vocal stance against antisemitism’ in other legal cases, this claim ‘did not actually involve any allegations of antisemitism’.” Describing how easy it is for people to jump on this bandwagon Heybrooke said, “Unfortunately, as a result of the litigation, I was the subject of a number of nasty comments from a small minority of people who simply presumed to know what the case was about and what the outcome would be. They were wrong on both counts.” The Guardian say, Riley and Oberman’s solicitor, Mark Lewis, of Patron Law, said in a statement that his clients “chose not to proceed further after the judge had determined that the opinion expressed was capable of being defamatory, in circumstances where Jane Heybroek claimed that she had promptly deleted her tweet”.

What is the significance of their climb-down? While the Guardian report that, “They have both now made a contribution towards Heybroek’s costs,” they do not state the amount of this contribution. Certainly it would not have been made out of contrition or pity after realizing they were in the wrong, and I very much doubt it was their personal funds that were put forward. A deal will have been negotiated to end the case that probably involved shielding Riley and Oberman from public scrutiny of their egregious assault and bullying of Rosie, the original target of their dogpile of tweets, for the crime of failing to agree with their consensus of hatred towards Jeremy Corbyn. The Guardian report that, “Lewis said: ‘Their libel insurers each did not see any advantage in pursuing a case over the liability of a retweet that was deleted so quickly. There are bigger fish to fry in the pursuit of those who choose to maintain a serious libel’.” More harm to be caused elsewhere, but how tolerant are insurers in accepting financial SLAPP losses?

At the point where these legal insurers are no longer prepared to accept the considerable financial risk of losing SLAPP cases this risk free back up plan will become untenable. The well funded broad public support of defendants like Corbyn who has raised Over £332,000, Williamson fighting EHRC, Paddy French at Press Gang, Jewish Voice for Labour and Sivier at Vox will make fewer and fewer cases rich pickings for the out of Court settlements so necessary to avoiding any challenge to the unsubstantiated evidence. Lawyer Mark Lewis will drop these cases like a hot potato once fully funded defendants are able to challenge faux anti-Semitism evidence and this racist scam is exposed under full legal scrutiny. When he realizes he cannot keep the cases out of Court and he stands absolutely no hope of winning in Court he will stop representing SLAPP cases. SLAPP cases win by avoiding Court, but they also succeed by shutting down public scrutiny, investigative reporting and open public debate: we must not let this happen.

The poison of faux anti-Semitism allegations now stands a strong chance of being fully exposed as a hoax and Corbyn must be persuaded to countersue Ware. This is vital to demonstrate that the Starmer capitulation was a self-serving betrayal of the Labour membership, so he must step down. In another Vox Article Sivier writes, “Rachel Riley thought her support would boost a libellous petition against Jeremy Corbyn. Big mistake! That well-known self-proclaimed campaigner against racism and inequality, Princess Countdown (also sometimes known as Rachel Riley) has trumpeted her support for a libellous petition condemning Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite. In so doing, she has very clearly libelled Mr Corbyn. He is not an anti-Semite – or indeed any kind of racist – and is certainly not unfit to hold public office. She may feel safe in this act as Mr Corbyn is unlikely to respond. He seems to believe that doing so would lend credibility to the lies, although I’m open to other opinions and evidence.”

Sivier says. “The petition she is supporting was put on the Change.org website eight months ago by a little-known right-wing fringe group and fake charity calling itself the Campaign Against Antisemitism. I wrote about it at the time, pointing out that objectors could call for the petition to be removed by clicking on a link marked ‘Report a policy violation’. Unfortunately Change.org, in its wisdom, has only added a line saying, ‘We have received flags from our users that the facts in this petition may be contested. You should consider researching this issue before signing or sharing.’ One may also report the Campaign Against Antisemitism to the Charity Commission for violating the requirement that charities must be non-political, by Clicking this Link.” This isn’t the only fake ‘Charity’ doing Tory dirty work that required reporting; the Institute for Statecraft is also registered as a Charity. Their ‘Integrity Initiative’ has received substantial funding from the Tory Government to generate propaganda targeting Corbyn and the Opposition Labour Party.

Sivier reports that, “Ms Riley’s libellous tweet has attracted a considerable number of responses – in opposition.” One responded “This is a vile tweet it is also encouraging hate towards an individual and I am reporting you to Twitter and I hope you are sued, you horrible woman.’ She continued: ‘You are obsessed and this is becoming clearer by the day. Corbyn probably won’t sue you he probably pities you your childish arrogance and ignorance. You have made a libellous tweet imo you have gone too far and everyone should report it. You really are obsessed Rachel.” Another said: “Hopefully Jeremy sues you for libel. Might be able to put your maths skills to some use and work out how much you owe him in damages.” However this is perhaps Jeremy Corbyn’s biggest fault, if you can call it that: he is far too ready to turn the other cheek! There are numerous occasions where Corbyn should have fought back with legal action and Margaret Hodge MPs vile accusations should have removed her from the Labour Party!

Sivier raises the issue of how much funding he is trying to raise, saying, “These are well-paid, well-resourced TV personalities. They are targeting people like myself, who have little money, with the cynical intention of embroiling us in legal proceedings that will cost more than we can afford, in order to force us into giving up and paying them money they do not deserve.” This was written at the beginning of his long campaign when he hoped to raise “an initial £5,000 with this appeal, with a ‘stretch’ target of £25,000, to cover the costs of retaining solicitors and a barrister who can take this case to court and put a stop to this nonsense.” He said back then that his solicitors believed they had “a very strong case but we need to be able to take it to court and have it heard. Otherwise, this case will be a victory of wealth over justice.” Since then his Crowdfunding Appeal has raised over £92,000!

Sivier regularly updates information on the case, so when Downing Street attempted to make a highly suspect appointment he had something to say about it, “Downing Street racism reveals why we must get Riley into court.” He reiterated that Riley’s libel case against him “was based on an allegation that she did not victimise a teenage Labour supporter, linking the girl with anti-Semitism after she questioned the Countdown co-presenter’s claims. Ms Riley has attacked Labour supporters and members, running right up to party leader Jeremy Corbyn, as anti-Semites, and published a series of Twitter threads that led her supporters to ‘dogpile’ the girl – who suffers with anxiety problems – in response to the criticism.” Sivier points out the hypocrisy saying of Riley that, “The TV presenter claims to be fighting anti-Semitism and racism. But how can that be true when a racist eugenicist was found to have been employed by the Conservative government as a Downing Street advisor, and Ms Riley had nothing to say about it?”

Sivier informs us that, “Eugenics is about selectively breeding ‘undesirable’ genetic aspects out of the human race. The Nazis were strong supporters of it – hence their many pronouncements about racial purity and their persecution of minority groups they believed to be inferior, leading up to and including the Holocaust. Now-former Downing Street advisor Andrew Sabisky,” (who Sivier included a picture of in his post), “had to resign his position as a lieutenant to Boris Johnson’s chief SpAd (special advisor) Dominic Cummings after it was revealed that he held the same views. From this is it easy to deduce that Cummings and Johnson both hold similar racist views.” I would add that, while Sabisky’s appointment was derailed, both Johnson and his puppet master Cummings remain in post. Cummings support for eugenics is well know and confirmed in his lengthy Blog rants; it was probably responsible for both the ‘Herd Immunity’ and the disastrous exam grade algorithm, but no comment from Riley on that!.

In Sivier’s most Recent Update headed, “Leaked Labour report shows Riley libel case is based on a falsehood,” Sivier wrote, “This is not a good look for Rachel Riley.” He explains why saying that, “Her tweet refers to a threat by her lawyer, Mark Lewis, to sue people publicising the leaked Labour Party report on how its officers handled (or rather, didn’t) accusations of anti-Semitism by members. The substantive revelation is that Labour’s leadership – especially Jeremy Corbyn – was not at fault in its attempts to handle the issue; it was hampered by right-wing officials who deliberately acted against their instructions in order to make Corbyn look incompetent, thereby putting the public off voting for him and ensuring that he could not form a government. The report does not accuse anybody of anti-Semitism who had not been accused already – although, as officials acting against Corbyn failed to act on many of those accusations, it could be argued that their inaction indirectly supported anti-Semitism.”

Sivier makes an important point that is far too often missed by those obsessing over unsubstantiated allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Sivier expresses his take on this by saying, “So Mr Lewis, by threatening to sue people who are making a fuss about this report’s revelation, is acting against the interests of anybody who is genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism; he is supporting people who suppressed investigations, and he is supporting their treachery. Or so it seems to me. Ms Riley, by publicly supporting him with a claim that he is ‘suing nasty Jew-haters’ – when he isn’t, is pushing a false narrative that brings into question much of her own behaviour – including her libel case against This Writer. The case arose because I had pointed out that Ms Riley had caused extreme distress – both directly and by encouraging others – to a teenage girl who had defended Mr Corbyn. Ms Riley’s claim was that Labour was doing nothing about accusations of anti-Semitism by party members.”

Sivier reveals that, “Because the teenager said she did not believe Corbyn was responsible for this, Ms Riley attacked her on Twitter and her tweets encouraged others to do the same – to the point where the girl reported that she had received death threats. The Labour report shows that, if the party machine was doing nothing, this was nothing to do with Mr Corbyn. So, if the report is accurate (and I have reason to believe it is), the basis on which Ms Riley attacked the girl was false.” He asks if she had apologised? No! He informs us, “She has doubled down by claiming the information in the report is false and anybody publicising it must be an anti-Semite (even though they are pointing out how anti-Semitism was allowed to happen within the Labour Party because of the inaction of party officers). If I’m right, her lawsuit is based on a falsehood. She had no justification in attacking a teenage girl in the way she did, and therefore no reason to accuse me of libel, for pointing out what arose from Ms Riley’s behaviour.”

The leaked Labour report does a whole lot more than just exonerate Sivier for his defence of the young girl targeted by Riley; it is solid evidence for exonerating the Labour Party with regard to the EHRC investigation. The Williamson case presents a tangible stumbling block for EHRC regarding any attempt they might make to declare Labour institutionally anti-Semitic by ignoring the leaked Labour report, an unredacted copy of which was provided to them by Craig Murray before the interim finding was sent to Williamson. Obviously the EHRC didn’t count on Williamson’s Judicial Review, where the burden of proof will be on them. If Corbyn can be persuaded to countersue Ware the burden of proof is on Ware and his band of con-artists. Once the truth emerges in Court the Labour membership will want to oust Starmer for his betrayal and craven capitulation that has cost the Labour Party dearly. Many of the SLAPP cases that Mark Lewis is representing on a ‘no win no fee’ basis are all linked to the same tainted evidence!

Could Ware, and the ‘Poison Dart Blowers,’ be charged with committing perjury or perverting the course of justice and could their ruthlessly opportunistic Lawyer Mark Lewis face being disbarred? Lying in Court documents to threaten an innocent defendant in order to coerce a settlement payment could also potentially lead to charges of fraud and/or extortion. I am no legal eagle, but this would potentially seem possible, especially since this is such a high profile political case. The Labour Party as a whole or certainly Corbyn could bring multiple defamation cases against rogue Labour MPs, Tory MPs and news outlets including the BBC. This is worth pursuing because if these MPs and right wing outlets have to settle out of Court the progressive Left will be able to set terms. The Tory ‘landslide victory’ will be delegitimized even before any Investigation of the Vote; lying politicians who refuse to resign will face huge settlement costs; it could clear the decks and wipe out the fake Tory majority stolen in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. DO NOT MOVE ON!