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

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

We all so need to hear a bit of good news and I just noticed the Canary are reporting that “Spitting Image” will be returning to our screens. They have a genuinely hapless Downing Street clown to parody now with his neurotic evil puppet master pulling the strings to keep the toxic Tory shambolic show on the road; I can’t wait. Then, discussing the Papers Sunday night, the topic of the PM saying that there was a “moral obligation” to get kids back to school elicited a sarcastic response from political commentator Tony Grew. Grew cracked me up when he said: “First of all, if Boris Johnson is giving lectures on morality, then Irony is literally dead. I mean there are alley cats with more morals than the Prime Minister; so I think he needs to find a bit of a different script!” He pointed out that this required preparation for socially distanced classrooms and he gave examples, “you need significantly more Teachers; you need significantly more floor space.” He offered suggestions for commandeering halls and theatres…

Grew commented that the Government, “according to this report,” was “about to launch a PR campaign…” there was a full-term pregnant silent pause before he added “…That’s nice for them, and you know it fits within the skill set of the people who work in Downing Street!” Grew has such a wonderful sarcastic, dry sense of humour that makes him a truly entertaining presenter and he was in top form Sunday night. He criticized the Johnson blame game strategy saying, “But trying to demonize the Unions and blame it on them isn’t really going to work, because parents are just as concerned about the health of their children as Teaching Unions are about the health of their members.” Look I really hope that every school can open in September… ” Honesty from the press bravo Grew. BBC News featured Boris Johnson filmed aiming a bow and arrow; sadly the Tories are really accomplished experts at ‘targeting’ and we have all felt the sting of their divisive weaponry: who will be vilified next to cover up the Covid shame?

But wait, this morning I discovered another delightful revelation within a BBC Online News Report with the enticing headline, “Coronavirus: Why I want to prosecute Dominic Cummings.” Yes! I cheered! It said that, “A law student hoping to bring a private prosecution of the PM’s top aide has been told there is enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. Mahsa Taliefar, 25, from London, sought formal advice from senior criminal barristers over Dominic Cummings’ trips during lockdown. They say there is sufficient evidence in the public domain to prosecute for two breaches of the Coronavirus Health Protection Regulations 2020. Downing Street has not commented. Ms Taliefar says she has singled out Mr Cummings because he was involved in government meetings about the coronavirus and had influence in the regulations she believes he breached.”

The BBC say, “Advised by Waterfords Solicitors, she asked Benjamin Douglas-Jones QC of Paper Buildings and Nathaniel Rudolf of Bedford Row chambers to consider a range of potential offences related to Mr Cummings’ trips to Durham and later Barnard Castle soon after lockdown was imposed. They concluded that there was sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution over two breaches of Regulation 6, which came into force on 26 March, a day before Mr Cummings’ car journey to Durham.” It states that, “During the emergency, ‘no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse’ and then lists reasonable excuses such as shopping for groceries, accessing critical public services or caring for a vulnerable person.” If the ruling elite are allowed to redefine and manipulate the law due to their privilege then ordinary citizens must fight back to correct such injustices.

The BBC report that, “In the case of his car trips to Durham and later to Barnard Castle on 12 April, the explanations given by Mr Cummings did not on the face of it constitute a reasonable excuse under the regulations, the barristers advise. That view was supported by detailed government guidance that if you or any of your household have any of the main symptoms of the coronavirus then you must stay at home and self-isolate. Mr Cummings has said his wife had some coronavirus symptoms before they made the journey to County Durham, after which he said he developed symptoms himself. But he said he believes he had acted ‘reasonably’ and within the law by driving to a cottage on his parents’ farm when he realised the family would have been left without childcare in London if, like his wife, he had fallen ill. He said his sister and his nieces, who live on his parents’ land, had offered to look after his four-year-old son if necessary. He also said stories in the media had made his London home a ‘target’.”

According to the BBC, “the barristers argue this did not constitute a ‘reasonable excuse’ because, for example, Mr Cummings was not seeking ‘public services’ for his child. In regards to driving to Barnard Castle on 12 April, the barristers said: ‘Leaving the place where he was by now living, in Durham, to test his eyesight by driving a medium distance in a car to Barnard Castle to see if he could drive safely, would not, on this professional advice, amount to a reasonable excuse in law.’ The sanction for breaching the coronavirus regulations is potentially an unlimited fine.” This scandal not have blown up out of all proportion if Cummings had been fired or resigned, but he is desperate to cling to his privileged position, but he didn’t steal the Covert 2019 Rigged Election to see other people taking charge; there is a distinct possibility he might blow the whistle and bring down this corrupt Government.

The BBC elaborate on the question, “What is a private prosecution?” They explain that, “While criminal prosecutions are typically undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service, it is long-established law that any citizen can bring a private criminal prosecution under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The evidential test that has to be passed to bring a private criminal prosecution is the same as for a case brought by the Crown. Once a private prosecution is brought, the Crown Prosecution Service has the right to take over the case. The barristers approached the case using the same two-fold test used by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide whether to prosecute a criminal offence, testing first where there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and second whether a prosecution would be in the public interest.”

The BBC report that, “Driving hundreds of miles from the place where one is living is a significant breach… driving away from an intended destination to test one’s eyesight, when Dominic Cummings acknowledged there was a risk constituted a gratuitous and potentially dangerous breach of Regulation 6,” the barristers conclude. “It would be difficult to say that a prosecution was not in the public interest on the facts of the driving on either occasion,” Although this would have potentially posed a risk both to his young family, who came along for the joy ride and other drivers on the road. They add. The advice contrasts with the decision reached by Durham police, who examined evidence of offences under Regulation 6 following Mr Cumming’s press conference in the Downing Street rose garden on 25 May. They concluded there might have been a breach in the trip to Barnard Castle but decided not to prosecute because there had been “no apparent breach of social distancing.”

The BBC report that, “Mahsa Taliefar is crowdfunding the legal challenge while continuing to study law and working as a paralegal after graduating from Birkbeck College in the capital.” Well underway with £42,700 you can donate at GOFUNDME.” They say, “She is hoping to raise £300,000 to fund the full legal action – which could end up in a costly process known as judicial review. “A lot of emails and twitter messages I receive are mainly individuals telling me that they were not able to see their loved ones who passed away or at least attend their funerals due to the lockdown restrictions,” Ms Taliefar says, “So when they learnt that Dominic Cummings assumed it was ‘OK’ to travel 300 miles after suffering from suspected coronavirus and say it was due to childcare, he simply aggrieved all those who adhered to the lockdown. “I am usually a very active and outgoing person so the lockdown has been quite difficult to adapt to but I understood it was necessary as the laws were created to protect the public.”

The determined young woman said, “When a member of the government who was involved in the [Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies] meeting and had an influence in the Covid laws breaks those rules, he has actually undermined those laws and the government efforts in fighting the coronavirus.” The BBC say, “Ms Taliefar contrasts Mr Cummings’ treatment with the 17,000 “less wealthy and less connected citizens” who have been fined for offences under the coronavirus regulations. “Many people on social media feel as though the media has let it go, so it’s up to them to hold his feet to the fire,” she says. “They are simply demanding better treatment for this country.” They say, “Speaking to reporters at a news conference on 25 May, Mr Cummings refuted claims there was one rule for him and another for the public. ‘I don’t think I am so different and that there is one rule for me and one rule for other people,’ he said. He added: “I don’t regret what I did.”

This prosecution could mark a very important step in the right direction of getting rid of this dangerously toxic Tory Government. The other Legal battles ahead all need your support Jewish Voice for Labour are being sued to stop them from speaking up for the Palestinian rights. Press Gang are being sued by Ware’s gang, but they have a fighting fund of: £17.790. Corbyn doesn’t need to rely on Labour funds as his GOFUNDME page has over £330,000 in donations and Chris Williamson now has over £24,000 to fight EHRC. The people are fighting back to end this corruption and at a point where these Court cases exposes the truth we will be in a strong position to demand a full Investigation of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election so that we can force this corrupt and incompetent rabid far-right Tory Government out of office. Let’s start with the Dom; Cummings is the grenade, oust him and you pull the pin” DO NOT MOVE ON!

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

Moderator: I am getting blocked with my reply. It says: “A potentially unsafe operation has been detected in your request to this site
Your access to this service has been limited. (HTTP response code 403)” This is a test to see if all posts are blocked. Please help.

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

After hours of trying to post a comment every which way, I have had to put the material on hold. I am trying a new post with no Links to see if it will post. I hope so…

When I wrote, “In his arrogance and greed John Ware has unwittingly opened Pandora’s Box, thinking he can just bluff his way to even bigger payouts from anyone who challenges his warped perspective,” it reminded me of a fitting title Ware is by far the prize winning champion of: ‘Presstitutes!’ Ware was fully supported by Murdoch at the Sun who believe having to pay damages for their reporters abhorrent lies was, and still is, an acceptable cost of doing business in the gutter press. If we thought the BBC held their reporters to a higher standard, that era has long passed, if it ever really existed. Ware has taken the ‘Journolynching’ to a whole new level where the smear campaigners and fake news pedlars are prepared to literally pervert the course of Justice by committing perjury, lying under oath, in our High Court to extort money out of anyone daring to refute such filth in trying to clear their name. Ware scored a major win by getting Starmer to capitulate, but we absolutely cannot allow this devious tactic to succeed ever again.

Ware must be wishing he had not threatened Corbyn with Legal action to try for another big payout. Jeremy’ Legal Fund is over £330,000 and Williamson’s fighting fund has £24,000 for a case that will blow a truth bomb through the vile EHRC Zionist instigated anti-Corbyn smear campaign. I have highlighted in previous posts that, Ware also has form as a dishonest Journalist who has cost the BBC who have paid damages for his past smear style of reporting. Here in a Skwawkbox article entitled, “The background of the man behind the Panorama ‘hatchet job’ – or ‘jobs’ – on Labour Party” they reveal the details. They describe John Ware as a: “pro-Israel former Sun journalist and maker of libellous output condemned as Islamophobe and already subject of complaint by Labour over earlier ‘hatchet job’” in their assessment of “The journalist behind this week’s Panorama ‘exposé’ of Labour’s handling of antisemitism complaints has a history that will raise questions in the minds of neutral observers. Below are details.”

In providing background information the Skwawkbox report that, “The Murdoch Times has run a series of attacks recently on Labour’s handling of antisemitism complaints based on emails and data taken from the party by former employees.” They say, “Some of those former employees destroyed the same data and more when they quit after the resignation of former general secretary Iain McNicol – thousands of documents – drastically impeding the party’s ability to deal with those complaints and allowing the media to claim Labour had been lax in resolving them. Now, former Sun and BBC journalist John Ware – who has written for a number of other right-wing publications – has made an episode of the BBC’s Panorama programme, claiming to examine the question, ‘Is Labour Anti-Semitic?’” This article was posted prior to the now infamous Panorama hatchet job screening.

As stated before it’s hard to imagine what exactly the BBC expected from Ware given his reputation: a controversial reporter who came to them from the Sun Tabloid rag? Skwawkbox condemned the presentation saying that it was, “expected to be largely a regurgitation of the Times attacks.” Looking at past unwarranted attacks from Ware they cite, “Déjà vu – even before Corbyn was leader” and recall how, “In 2015, before Corbyn’s victory in his first Labour leadership contest had even been confirmed, Corbyn’s campaign was forced to complain to the BBC about a ‘hatchet job’ by Ware. Prefiguring the latest attack, the hatchet-job took the form of a Panorama programme. So extreme and transparent was the attack that it led even some of the mainstream media at the time to report that the usually-respected Panorama was being compared to Murdoch’s right-wing US propaganda outlet Fox News.” It is difficult to understand why the BBC would willingly do such serious damage to their reputation, except if they were leaned on by the Tories.

The Skwawkbox report that “Ware has a long history of articles that have outraged and offended Muslims, leading to descriptions of him as a ‘notorious Islamophobe’ ‘desperate to discredit Muslims’. So profound and widespread were the criticisms that in 2006 commentators were questioning the continued viability of the programme even as it was promoted to a prime viewing slot.” Then they detail the time it cost the BBC a significant settlement for damages with another broadcast saying that, “In one Panorama episode, Ware had accused a pro-Palestinian charity of being a front for terrorism. The following year, the BBC was forced to pay undisclosed damages to the charity’s former general manager for libel and to issue a public apology. ‘The BBC apologises for any distress caused to him as a result of including his image in the programme. It is happy to confirm that there are no grounds to investigate whether Mr Yacub was a colleague or an associate of Dr Yusuf in relation to the funding and supporting of terrorist activity in breach of the Charity Commission rules’. The BBC’s public apology for Panorama episode ‘Faith, Hate and Charity’.”

You would really think that the BBC would have learned a lesson from supporting such toxic programming as it has discredited the journalistic standard of Panorama. However Skwawkbox say the, “Accusations of Islamophobia did not end there. In 2015 – the same year as his first anti-Corbyn programme – he was heavily criticised for a Panorama episode accused of ‘othering’ Muslims as a threat to the UK. The programme led the Islamic Human Rights Commission to nominate Ware for an ‘Islamophobia award’, noting that he: claims that anti-Semitism is ‘entirely irrational’ however Islamophobia ‘is reactive,’ and therefore also justifiable? Ware had already ‘won‘ the award in 2005, after making a film attacking the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) just after the ‘7/7’ London bombings. In 2015, he was nominated for treating Islamophobia as a reaction to something about Islam and Muslims, in contrast to ‘irrational’ antisemitism.” Ware is a ‘Presstitute’ determined to cash in on hate mongering: we need to shut him down.

The Skwawkbox describe Ware’s “Anti-Palestinian – and anti-Orthodox – polemics,” but his characteristic widely recognized bigotry has become the pervasive acceptable norm and a growing cancer in UK society from the early 2000s right up to this day. They say, “Ware’s libellous attack on pro-Palestinian charity Interpal led the MCB to describe him as ‘an agenda-driven pro-Israel polemicist’. However Skwawkbox point out that it, “does not mean Ware automatically defends all Jewish people. In a 2013 film for the BBC, Ware referred often to ‘jihadists’ and ‘Islamists’ as a threat on Israel’s ‘hostile border’, but also found time to look askance at Ultra-Orthodox Jews who oppose Zionism. In an article for the Jewish Chronicle, Ware described such Ultra Orthodox Jews – who make up around a quarter of the UK’s Jewish population and are expected to represent more than half within fifteen or so years – as ‘marooned on Judaism’s farthest fringe’.”

Skwawkbox report that, “The 2013 documentary led to accusations that Ware had downplayed the scale of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and attempted to demonise an Israeli Arab activist.” They also say, “Ware has also written articles targeting Muslim peer Baroness Warsi, including one from last December that accuses her of ‘beating [a Muslim appointee] with a stick ever since her appointment last January’.” While stating that they were, “unable to reach John Ware for comment,” they conclude that, “The BBC will present its Panorama programme as an impartial piece of investigative journalism – its impartiality obligations require it – and the rest of the ‘mainstream’ media will no doubt push it vigorously as such. But viewers will be justified in questioning whether the background of the reporter at the core of the programme makes such framing credible.” That Panorama episode generated 1600 complaints to the BBC that were rejected; many people also complained to Ofcom who also ignored the public outrage.

Ware has no credibility. He started off from a very low point working for Murdoch’s gutter press Sun and instead of progressing with work for the BBC on Panorama documentaries he morphed his gutter press mentality into his new role and dragged ‘Auntie’ into the gutter. Once bitten twice shy the BBC failed to learn from their last contentious experience with Ware and it will further tarnish their flagging reputation. Perhaps it’s the last straw for the public chocking down obscene levels of BBC bias propping up the Tory Party. The Court cases could fatally discredit the Tory propaganda machine and expose their racket with stacking so-called independent regulators and watchdogs with Tory yes-men when EHRC is exposed in Court. We must derail the Tory agenda for eliminating scrutiny and accountability by “Dominating, Deviating, Defunding, Disempowering or Dissolving” our checks and balances. Our Electoral Commission should have the power to investigate the Covert 2019 Rigged Election to kick out the Tories.
DO NOT MOVE ON!

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

In a last ditch attempt at damage control this Skwawkbox Article entitled, “BBC reveals Panorama hatchet-job is embarrassingly thin misdirection” they said, “Antisemitism is a deadly serious issue – but ‘allegations’ relating mostly to actions of old, right-wing regime and some as thin as ‘interpretations’ and disagreements about definitions do nothing to help the fight against it.” They said that information on the claims to be broadcast in that evening’s Panorama attack on the Labour Party revealed, “a distinct lack of substance in the programme’s claims and the distinct misdirection of attempting to use it against the current administration. In fact most relate to the party’s old right-wing regime under its unlamented former general secretary, Iain McNicol – and those that don’t are as thin and insubstantial as someone being grumpy or a disgruntled ex-staffer’s ‘interpretation’ of an email.” This just wouldn’t reach the high standard of ‘evidence’ for presentation in a Court which is why Labour Lawyers were so confident they would win.

If fact when you break it down, the much hyped expose looks more like tittle-tattle in the detailed Skwawkbox analysis of what the broadcaster had written in their BBC article promoting the documentary before it aired. According to Skwawkbox it, “reveals what the programme offers in terms of support for its much-trailed ‘revelations’, saying of the supposed whistleblowers – who almost all quit the party as soon as Jennie Formby was appointed to replace McNicol and the rest soon after: They claim:
• The leader’s office was “angry and obstructive” when it came to the issue
• Officials brought in by Ms Formby “overruled” disciplinary decisions and “downgraded” punishments to a “slap on the wrist”
• Mr Milne laughed when advised by a long-serving party official about what Mr Corbyn should do to tackle anti-Semitism in the party
• On one occasion, Jeremy Corbyn’s office ordered batches of anti-Semitism complaints to be brought to his Commons office for processing by his aides”

The Skwawkbox report, “Dealing with the ‘claims’ in order: ‘Angry and obstructive’.” This would not be an admissible charge in a Court case and Skwawkbox explain why, saying, “Apart from being so entirely subjective – and so unverifiable – an assessment as to be meaningless, these poor, sensitive ex-staffers seem to have been upset at a grumpy response from overworked aides in the leader’s office.” This reminds me of the ridiculous ‘offences’ I was falsely charged with when I was ousted from Johns Hopkins as a Whistleblower. Temporary staff were bullied into writing complaints that under questioning amounted to “she had her hands on her hips in an aggressive posture” and “she had her arms folded and I felt threatened;” so I was fired for “disruptive behaviour in the OR” which amounted to alleged “aggressive posturing.” Disruptive is often used to fire people in the US and it will be coming to a workplace near you after crash-out Brexit: I adopted it for my business card that says: “Disruptive Concept and Design Innovation!”

Vague terms like this do not work in Court which is why Ware has used smoke and mirror threats and will try hard to avoid Court. Skwawkbox say that in contrast, “Many of the same ex-staff, incidentally, were more than happy to participate enthusiastically in the suspension of members during successive ‘purges‘ of left members before each of the two leadership elections. Many of those same ‘whistleblowers’ were also so determined not to contribute to any solutions that they quit as soon as their old boss was replaced. One quoted by the BBC, Sam Matthews, managed to cling on for around three months and then quit. Most crucially, departing ex-staffers also destroyed thousands of documents relating to complaints, while taking copies to release to the media, hampering Labour’s attempts to deal with them. Corbyn’s aides may well have had ample reason to be angry and uncooperative toward those ex-staffers.” However most of the above points are provable facts that discredit the claims of the fake Whistleblowers.

Before addressing their response to the next point it is worth reviewing information from an earlier Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Hodge’s 200 ‘Labour’ complaints – 90% were NOT Labour members.” This from Hodge and others, disproportionately swelled the number of complaints to a shocking level. They say, “Formby’s email reveals that of the two hundred cases ‘put in’ by Margaret Hodge, only twenty instances concerned Labour members – the rest of Ms Hodge’s examples concerned people who had no link to the Labour Party.” While Hodge was certainly entitled to voice her concern and report vile anti-Semitic comments and offensive internet tweets, she should have modified her own deeply defamatory conduct that presented an ugly picture of Labour disunity. People reported for discipline over unacceptable conduct couldn’t be removed from the Labour Party as they were never members in the first place, but Hodge should have been disciplined for her very public attack on Jeremy Corbyn in the House of Commons.

The huge number of people joining or rejoining the Labour Party inspired by Corbyn would have increased the volume of vetting necessary to adhere to a non racist message across the board. The next complaint that the Skwawkbox examined was “Overruled decisions, slap on the wrist.” Here they say, “Again, context is key. Right-wing staff under McNicol were recommending summary expulsions and the referral of cases to the NCC (Labour’s ultimate disciplinary committee) that were found to be without evidence or substance.” Totally aside from the non-member issue there were comments and criticisms of the Israeli Government that were judged anti-Semitic. Skwawkbox cite, “Shami Chakrabarti’s report on the handling of antisemitism cases made recommendations to the party that were meant to be completely implemented by the McNicol regime. The report specifically stated that, “offences of varying seriousness should be handled in a range of ways, in a section on sanctions for members found in breach.”

Skwawkbox say that, “the report states: ‘In the event of a member being found in breach, the NCC should be encouraged to consider greater use of a wide and creative range of sanctions. These may include a warning, the requirement for apologies and/or some other form of sensitive reparation to another member or person or persons, a public warning or reprimand, suspension from the Party for up to two years, and expulsion. Chakrabarti report, page 19” They say that, “However, Chakrabarti was almost entirely ignored by the old right-wing machine. The ‘overruling’ of recommendations by that right-wing machine was entirely appropriate in those circumstances – and disgruntled ex-staffers busy ignoring Chakrabarti’s process clearly regarded anything short of summary expulsion as ‘a slap on the wrist’.” When examined by the Court for a fair, reasonable judgement, the ‘ignored’ cases highlighted in the leaked report will demonstrate the skewed logic, intense anti-Palestinian bigotry and bias of those who were handling them.

Regarding the third point that “Mr. Milne laughed” is another accusation that would be laughed out of Court. The Skwawkbox say, “See the previous section. ‘Long-serving party officials’ were the very people who had been ignoring the Chakrabarti report – a report that even Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis had said should be implemented in full and without delay.” They say, “Laughing at the pronouncements of obstructive right-wingers who had failed to implement any of the Chakrabarti report would be an appropriate response, when the Labour left was working hard to try to improve the mess left by the old regime.”

The forth accusation as detailed by the BBC was as Skwawkbox reported, “Ordered batches of complaints to LOTO.” They say, “Here the claims fly off into fantasy. A significant number of the McNicol apparatus had simply quit in pique when he was removed. Some had shredded thousands of documents relating to live disciplinary cases to hamper the party.” The shredding of documents by the rogue team must have been witnessed and appropriately documented or this rumour would not be circulating so widely. There is also proof of these documents being leaked to the right-wing press which I would have thought was a criminal violation of data protection. I believe this would be provable in Court in a way that would damage the claims of the rogue staff members.

Skwawkbox try to explain the reality Labour were faced with under extreme public pressure, “Short-staffed and deprived of vital documents, Labour went into an ‘all hands to the pumps’ mode to attempt to manage the chaos. As part of that effort, some of Corbyn’s staff, along with others, were temporarily allocated to trying to get things back on track until new staff were recruited. These staff were not demanding documents, they were requesting them to help deal with a backlog created by the actions of the same right-wing quitters who had shredded documents on their way out.” It will remain to be seen if it can be proved that the disgruntled staff shredded documents or released them to hostile press, but there is no better demonstration of them having “an axe to grind” if this was the case; thereby justifying what Labour said regarding their pathetic contributors to the documentary.

Skwawkbox were very clear about what would not be mentioned in the Panorama documentary, “The fact that departing staffers destroyed thousands of documents to hamper Labour, while taking copies they could leak to the media, was exclusively revealed by the SKWAWKBOX almost two months ago, but is easily checked by any journalist contacting the right party officials. In spite of having plenty of time to investigate this right-wing, antisemitic vandalism, it is unlikely in the extreme that Panorama will mention it at all, let alone challenge any of its ‘whistleblowers’ on whether they played any part in it. The BBC also omitted the fact that ‘interference’ alleged by Jennie Formby in one case was actually Formby asking for the case to be sped up, selectively quoted emails – and left out that ‘witness’ Matthews had dismissed another case:”

Skwawkbox included, “A series of Twitter posts seem to refute claims made by Panorama in one: “Alex Wickham @alexwickham – In other emails released by Labour tonight it emerges that it was former staffer Sam Matthews who actually wrote, “I don’t think it’s a particularly strong case” re alleged anti-Semitism case… Labour says the BBC is reporting the ‘opposite’ of the truth in this case.” In another he says, “Alex Wickham @alexwickham BBC press release claims Jennie Formby intervened in Jackie Walker’s case, but it doesn’t say how they intervened… turns out according to Labour Formby actually asked for the process against Walker to be sped up… not mentioned by Panorama…” In a third he says, “Alex Wickham @alexwickham Wow… Labour says the BBC edited a Milne email to delete a line showing he was referring to Jewish members accused of AS ‘But if we’re more than very occasionally using disciplinary action against Jewish members for anti-Semitism…’ doesn’t appear in BBC press release.”

The Skwawkbox report on the issue of NDAs saying, “The BBC article this evening also attributes significant weight to NDAs (non-disclosure agreements). Sam Matthews, who appears to be a key ‘witness’ in the Panorama programme, released a letter to the Sunday Times that he had received from the party’s lawyers, referring to the NDA he signed. The Times claimed the letter had been sent by Labour in the run-up to the Panorama programme in an attempt to curb his participation. In fact, the letter was three months old and dated to the time Matthews first started feeding information to the media for attacks on the Labour Party. The date of the published letter was blacked out, disguising its age.” This would not support Matthews credibility as evidence in Court, in fact it would very clearly demonstrate an obvious attempt to deliberately deceive those filming the Panorama documentary.

The Panorama program relied heavily on strategic screen shots and dramatic background music. The Skwawkbox ‘Interpretation’ states that “The programme appears to be aware of the thinness of its material, adding in the frankly feeble in an attempt to pad it out. In an attempt to support a claim of interference by Corbyn aide Seumas Milne, the BBC article reports: But Sam Matthews, the party’s former head of disputes, said he interpreted an e-mail sent by Mr Milne – the Labour leader’s communications chief – in March 2018, calling for a review into how complaints were handled, as ‘an instruction’.” They point out that “A ‘call for a review’ – no doubt driven by the determination of the previous right-wing administration not to implement the Chakrabarti processes – was ‘interpreted’ by Matthews as ‘an instruction’. A disgruntled ex-employee says something with its own clear meaning was in fact something else – and Panorama is so short of substance for its programme that this merits mention as an allegation.”

Heavily reliant on setting the tone with sinister music and the subjective histrionics of allegedly aggrieved staff, the conclusion drawn by Skwawkbox isn’t at all supportive of Ware or his pathetic amateur dramatics cast. They said that the, “Panorama programme has been trailed by the BBC as a major exposé – and treated by other media and assorted enemies of Labour’s leadership as some kind of ‘Holy Writ’. Instead, the BBC itself seems to have revealed that it is so thin and so transparently political that any embarrassment should be on the faces of those responsible for it – and of those demanding that the rest of the country treat it as substantial. The issue of antisemitism anywhere is a deadly serious one – but Labour has done more to tackle it in the past year than previous leaders did in the previous century. And the misrepresentation of claims by disgruntled former staff at political odds with the Labour leadership will do not one thing to advance the genuine fight against the horror of antisemitism.”

In their damage control Article Skwawkbox hail “the progressive Labour Leadership of Jeremy Corbyn and his team,” saying that by contrast, they, “have taken Labour to a place of genuinely world-leading processes and policies that make the party the safest place for its members of any ethnicity or religion. He meant what he told the party’s annual conference last autumn: But you won’t hear that on tonight’s Panorama.” Press Gang criticized the Panorama program with a well researched review of the evidence and the relevant facts as did the Jewish Voice for Labour: they are now both being sued by Ware for daring to criticize his hatchet job polemic. Even Ware admits that his legal action has broken an unspoken rule about the sanctity of free speech, but he just doesn’t care as he has this opportunity to destroy the progressive Socialist Left, protect Zionist apartheid and rake in a bunch of cash at the same time. He deserves to be run out of town by Journalists and never work as a press professional again in future.

How dystopian could we get with Ware’s assault on free speech? You have heard about a new Restaurant that has just opened near you, what is it like? Surely a food critic has checked it out and written a review of its fare: tasty or terrible, cosy atmosphere or dull and drab, good value or a total rip off: you want to know? But sadly there are no food critics willing to risk being taken to Court for offering an honest opinion! A rather controversial author has just published a new book and you want some insight into whether it is really worth reading or if it is just ho-hum boring. You go online to search for a book review, but you draw a blank, because no one wants to stick their neck out with a critique that could cost thousands in a Court settlement! Free press and the right to criticize a body of work or a venue is an important component of our way of life. John Ware wants to take us down a slippery slope to end all that, where only the most disreputable scoundrels are able to protect their hate speech by threatening legal action: I think not!

Starmer had hoped to end the attacks by betraying Labour Party members, squandering their dues on a massive settlement to Ware and his gang of deceitful wreckers, but instead he has split the Labour Party wide open to be played like a slot machine. As an experienced Lawyer Starmer really should have known better given the overwhelming evidence against Ware, but buying him off has not even managed to silence the debate. Ware was betting on another easy score from Corbyn without going to Court, but with Jeremy’s Legal Fund, Corbyn has both the money and the moral support to refuse a settlement and countersue, which he absolutely must be persuaded to do to expose the truth. Williamson also has the support to challenge the EHRC and their Lawyers will know the game is up for their corrupt judgement of Labour. The greatest constraint on Justice is time as there is so little time left to expose the truth, but we must proceed at speed to challenge the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and Demand an Investigation. DO NOT MOVE ON!

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

Recently I have got in the habit of using more extensive segments of the articles I am finding online and I realize that some might consider this inappropriate. This isn’t laziness on my part as it still involves quite a bit of work. All of the segments are attributed to the writer, or the publishing organization, meticulously and repeatedly throughout my inclusions in order to separate the quoted text from my own interjections or relevant data from another source. I will always identify the original headline in full and try to embed a Link as long as it doesn’t cause posting problems. This tactic represents a conscious choice I made to adopt a strategy of what I call ‘Megaphoning’ the important revelations made by the neglected alternative media outlets. All of the articles and Internet sites selected are desperately trying to get the truth out there, despite being drowned out by alt-right Fake News. The far-right Tory press get to Megaphone their biased, bigoted and sometimes downright hateful propaganda on the BBC Papers Review; I will just try to make sure the progressive Socialist Left gets an equally loud blast!

In the Open Democracy Article entitled, “I saw from the inside how Labour staff worked to prevent a Labour government” Joe Ryle exposes, “The work of senior Labour staffers to stop Labour winning is only just starting to come out.” Ryle says that, Nearly 5 years ago, Jeremy Corbyn pushed open the doors into the spacious and airy Offices of the Leader of the Opposition, overlooking the River Thames on Victoria Embankment.” How much did the Corbyn team know about the concerted efforts to scupper Labour’s electoral chances just to derail the progressive Left? According to Ryle, “He already had some suspicions at this point, but he could never have fully comprehended what was being plotted against him less than half a mile away at Labour’s headquarters on Victoria Street.” Ware’s arrogance and greed might just prove a blessing in disguise as it will place the whole sorry debacle under intense scrutiny in Court where ‘Fake News’ in the biased press is torn apart under forensic legal questioning: Ware is now running scared!

Ryle reminded readers on the 7th of August that, “Today is the deadline for submissions to the internal Labour inquiry, chaired by Martin Forde QC, which is examining the past behaviour of former senior party staff. I’ve just written to the inquiry and these were my experiences. As one of the first staff appointments in the office of the former Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, I worked on the same corridor as Corbyn’s team. I was new to the Labour Party, with a background in climate activism, and mostly unaware of all its different political affiliations and factions. This was something I shared with many of my colleagues who also weren’t from the world of machine politics. We were in for quite a shock when we were confronted with the machine of Labour HQ.” It was vital that those with knowledge to support the findings of the shocking leaked report submitted evidence and the alternative media helped to get the message out there: if the evidence is overwhelming it will be hard for Martin Forte QC and his team to ignore the facts.

The controversial leaked report was prepared for a legitimate reason, in defence of Labour in response to the EHRC investigation. Starmer is trying to hide this fact, paint the report as a ‘fishing expedition’ by keeping it from EHRC consideration; he failed as Craig Murray submitted an unredacted copy to EHRC and they have no choice, but to take all this evidence seriously. The heavily Tory stacked EHRC were determinedly on track to support the Tory Government agenda of demonizing Jeremy Corbyn to lend a thin veneer of legitimacy to their ‘borrowed votes’ – ‘landslide victory‘ claim of winning the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Chris Williamson’s legal challenge against EHRC presents a major complication worthy of our support with over £24,000 raised already. John Ware has bought into his own propaganda regarding Corbyn’s popularity; the reality must be hitting him now, no coerced cash settlement to reduce financial risk, unsupported by the Party, Jeremy’s Legal Fund has surpassed £330,000; Ware must realize he can’t win in Court.

The huge response to Jeremy’ Legal Defence Fund and the sum of money raised totally disproves the fake claims that Corbyn is despised by voters. This must be a worry for Starmer too as it exposes Labour Party members resentment over his cowardly capitulation with shocking facts now revealed at last. Ryle states that, “When I’d started previous jobs I’d arrive to some kind of handover notes. But when Corbyn and McDonnell walked in on day one, the small team that had joined after working on Corbyn’s leadership campaign turned up to find that someone had prepared for our arrival in a more unconventional way: many of the computers had gone missing and the offices weren’t properly set up.” Ryle noted that, “The few computers that were in the office were the oldest ones possible and they kept crashing all the time.” Ryle quotes, a former senior adviser to Jeremy Corbyn tells me. “The situation was so dire that one time after a day on the road with Jeremy I came back to find that a new colleague had taken my screen because he didn’t have one.”

Ryle reveals how the situation in John McDonnell’s offices was even worse. “When we took up the offices they were completely gutted of their contents. There were only half pulled out staples in the walls and bits of blue tack. The desks were without chairs let alone computers and I had to work off my own mobile and laptop, my former colleague James Mills, who was John McDonnell’s Head of Communications, remembers all too well. I don’t remember anyone ever getting to the bottom of where the computers had disappeared to. But the responsibility for ensuring the offices were set up was Labour HQ’s and this was to be a first warning sign. Some of the behaviour of senior officials at Labour HQ has already been documented in the 860-page leaked Labour report. But there’s a lot more that went on behind the scenes and I think it’s important that people have the whole story.” Those who leaked the report probably knew that unless they did so the disgraceful truth about massive sabotage within the Labour Party would stay buried.

As astounding as these revelation are there were other issues that impacted the progressive new team that now highlight the harm that would have destroyed a less determined and imaginative Leadership group. It is all the more credit to them for accomplishing as much as they did given an excessively high level of internal sabotage. Ryle stated that, “Another constant battle that took place was over the hiring of staff. Almost every appointment was either delayed, frustrated or blocked by Labour HQ, which had control of the party’s finances.” Ryle reports that, “A full year into Jeremy’s leadership, we still only had around 16 members of staff which was about half the amount compared to when Ed Miliband was leader”, the former senior Corbyn adviser told Ryle. Apparently, “James Meadway, a former treasury economist and chief economist at the New Economics Foundation, had to be seconded from one of the trade unions to serve as Economic Advisor in McDonnell’s team after the party repeatedly refused to hire him.”

Ryle described the damage caused by repeated leaks and how they had to work around the problem saying, “Relationships were so strained that colleagues would regularly turn up to meetings with party staff, get back to their desks, and be left feeling horrified on learning that the contents of the meeting had already been leaked to journalists. This became a major headache as it was almost impossible to plan effectively without the ability to share vital information between the leader’s office and party HQ. Senior aides close to Corbyn were regularly forced to withhold information on policy announcements until the very last minute for fear of leaks. This fear had the effect of putting most people on edge and helped contribute to an office in a justified state of paranoia. It was in these early days that one Corbyn aide aptly renamed the party’s HQ from its official name – Southside – to the ‘Darkside’, a term which quickly caught on – reinforcing a sense of them and us.”

Ryle reports that, “The most shocking sabotage I personally witnessed was an encounter with the notoriously difficult regional offices who were often the most ideologically opposed to the Corbyn regime. At my request, attempts were made to organise a rally for John McDonnell via one of the regional offices. Given that John was one of the most senior members of the shadow cabinet, I expected my request to be met with enthusiasm. When I found out that the location they had chosen was in the middle of nowhere I was left flabbergasted. I was told this tactic had been used before – apparently to avoid lots of members showing up and being won round by the new regime.” This too failed to some extent because a newly enthused progressive support base became really efficient at spreading the word and drawing huge crowds for Corbyn much to the dismay of his opponents. The BBC and right-wing Media did an incredible cover-up job to keep such gatherings under wraps, but pictures were shared widely online.

Ryle stressed that, “There were hundreds more incidents like this that I’m aware of; press releases regularly blocked from going out, staff members briefing against Corbyn’s office, weekly planning grids leaked including the 2019 General Election grid, an almost constant refusal to share content on the party’s social media platforms and the coordination of staff resignations to damage the party. As a political first, the party’s 2017 manifesto was also infamously leaked.” In a way that must have frustrated those who hoped this crucial leak would have a devastating impact, instead it put rocket–boosters on the progressive Corbyn project and shifted the Overton Window of politics significantly to the Left. The Blairites and the Tory Party have had to contend with this shift in public opinion ever since as scraping Tuition Fees, Nationalization of Rail and Utilities have all joined saving our NHS as priorities. Along with divisive anti-immigrant messaging and belligerent Brexit rants, Johnson had to include empty pledge lies regarding the NHS.

Ryle recalls, “Perhaps the most Kafkaesque example is the bizarre story of party officials designing Facebook adverts to be seen by only Corbyn’s team.” Ryle explained how, “A party official helpfully explained the strategy to the Sunday Times: ‘They wanted us to spend a fortune on some schemes like the one they had to encourage voter registration, but we only had to spend about £5,000 to make sure Jeremy’s people, some journalists and bloggers saw it was there on Facebook. And if it was there for them, they thought it must be there for everyone. It wasn’t.” Quite possibly this tactic also failed in that the positive messages were widely shared online and progressives were getting the message out there to the public via not just Facebook, but the growing presence of vocal activists like Rachael @Swindon on Twitter. However, while the progressive Left were sharing the possibility of a new truly Socialist Left Labour Government with the many, Cummings VICS program was singling out the most vulnerable with weapons grade PsyOps!

Ryle turns to the reactions on Election night and says, “It gets worse. On the night of the 2017 General Election I was in the press team at the party’s HQ. I’ll never forget the deathly silence and the looks on the faces of those staffers that we knew to have been plotting against Corbyn since day one. While we celebrated robbing Theresa May of her majority, party staffers mourned in the room next door: ‘they are cheering and we are silent and grey faced. Opposite to what I had been working towards for the last couple of years!!’, one senior staffer allegedly wrote on WhatsApp that night, according to the leaked report.” Ryle reports that, “They were so confident Corbyn was going to do badly that just before the exit poll results came in, all of Corbyn’s staff had their access to Labour HQ revoked.” That is a massively damning piece of concrete evidence that will now be exposed in Court; very hard to explain how, in combination with those WhatsApp messages, there could have been anything but a conspiracy to sabotage.

Ryle points out that, “It’s important to note that all of the key staff implicated have already moved on from working for the party. But the Forde Inquiry must heed the outcry and astonishment from many of the party’s half a million members. For the inquiry’s recommendations to be seen as credible, a lifetime ban for these former Labour staffers has got to be the bare minimum.” I believe that appropriate justice and accountability demands so much more than that, because elements of the above revelations demonstrate a conspiracy to commit what is essentially fraud: these people were not volunteers, but employees paid via Labour Party membership dues to do a legitimate professional job! This far exceeds the bounds of innocent incompetence by a country mile; if a similar conspiracy was to occur in a large Corporation or public organization a number of key figures would be facing serious criminal charges.

Ryle says, “Jeremy Corbyn may have been ideologically further away from his fellow Labour MPs than any former leader, but that doesn’t justify the relentless nature of the attacks. What Corbyn and his team had to deal with behind the scenes went far beyond factionalism and showed a scorched-earth mentality. Not only did they not want Labour to win under Corbyn, they seemed to be actively trying to lose. Once the dust finally settles on the Corbyn-era, historians may ponder how different things might have been if these Labour staffers, and numerous Labour MPs, had spent their energies supporting their leader rather than working against him.” We have already endured a decade of misery under Tory austerity and the only deviation from that we will get from Boris Johnson will amount to lies, empty pledges and good PR spin. The most critical deadline for the Tories now is getting past crash-out Brexit as that will represent a point of no return where we cannot appeal against injustice and Human Rights issues to the EU.

Ryle reminds us of the slim margin of loss in 2017 saying, “The number of extra votes in marginal seats that Labour needed in 2017 to give Corbyn a chance of being prime minister was an agonising 2,227. This will forever remain a sore point for many of us. Because as the leaked report exposed – we know that in 2017 party resources never reached many of the winnable seats that they should have, with allies of the small faction in party HQ standing in safe seats seen as the first priority.” Ryle says, “We were a young and diverse team, mostly new to electoral politics and passionate about our jobs. Of course we made mistakes. But we came incredibly close to changing this country’s politics for good. Without the actions of this small group of highly experienced saboteurs, I genuinely believe we would now be three years into a Labour government investing in our NHS and public services – an outcome which surely would have better prepared the country for the Coronavirus pandemic.”

I believe that the alarmingly close call for the Tories in 2017 prompted them to step-up their plan to steal the Covert 2019 Rigged Election by rapidly increasing and consolidating control of the postal votes under Idox. Cummings knew his Voter Intention Collection System would reveal an accurate profile of exactly where and by how many votes the Tories would need to rig the system; he promised 80 seats and he delivered as predicted. But the PR campaign to make this unfathomable result appear legitimate had to be equally relentless and aggressive to convince people that they really had voted against their own best interests to focus on Brexit. Even after voters knew that under Labour Brexit would safely prioritize workers rights and environmental concerns the BBC propaganda machine and the Tory controlled Media tried to convince us we had opted for the brainless slogan of a pathological lire and that it was ‘borrowed votes’ that elected a thoroughly despised Tory PM who was forced to avoid public appearances for damage control.

But while the BBC News featured Johnson in tightly controlled small gatherings, the other side of this grotesque PR con trick was to make sure that all the massive Corbyn support rallies never featured at all on the BBC or in the press, where he was demonized on a daily basis as an absolute monster. Court cases will hopefully reveal the truth, because only when we manage to correct the false narrative can we fully mobilize the people in mass demonstrations. The fact that the Tory Party used state funds to pay the Integrity Initiative to pump out propaganda defaming the official opposition is as yet an ignored criminal offence; it renders this Tory Government illegitimate even without a full investigation into the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Once that knowledge is highlighted and confirmed during a Court case it will drive public opinion. Young people and minorities know they will suffer under the coming Tory agenda; they are already taking to the streets, without jobs they are free to protest. Belarus protesters are trying to extricate their Dictator; must we suffer decades of corruption before we remove this Tory Government from office? DO NOT MOVE ON!

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

Warning the ‘SLAPP Happy’ Lawfare tactics targeting the progressive Left threaten Free Speech and our Democracy! US Website ‘anti-slapp.org’ alerts us to an alarming, rapidly growing trend as the UK seeks to emulate litigious hungry America; the acronym SLAPP stands for: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Here in the UK we are about to get slapped about quite a bit as we dare to pit public interest against political and Corporate power and greed. This imbalance of power used to manipulate justice or indeed yet another route for what should be, as the Judge who threw out an attempt to shut down a legitimate BDS campaign said, “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” This dirty and disreputable legal battlefield is accruing its own terminology as we try to articulate the colossal danger that “Lawfare” poses to freedom of speech in our waning democracy. It is all out war to main freedom of the press and it challenges them to be more daring in exposing the truth, not less.

Elaborating on how things stand in the US this organization under, “Amendment to the United States Constitution,” say that, “Free speech and healthy debate are vital to the well-being of a democracy. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has said that the right to petition the government is the very foundation of our democracy.” I thought the UK shared that principal, yet at this very moment the US Government is seeking to extradite political prisoner, Journalist, Whistleblower Julian Assange currently being held under inhumane conditions in Belmarsh Prison. How could the extradition, conviction and incarceration of WikiLeaks Editor Julian Assange affect freedom of the press worldwide? It contravenes the protection offered by UN Treaties to ‘Political Prisoners: it will gag the press: sign two Petitions – RSF. It would establish an extremely dangerous precedent where a foreign national could be charged for an alleged ‘public interest Journalism crime’ committed anywhere in the world with US censorship enacted globally.

On their Website anti-slapp.org outline their goal, “The Public Participation Project (PPP) is currently working to pass federal anti-SLAPP legislation in Congress. Our coalition of supporters includes numerous organizations and businesses, as well as prominent individuals. PPP also assists individuals and organizations working to pass anti-SLAPP legislation in their states. An important part of our work includes educating the public about SLAPPs and the consequences of these lawsuits intended to limit free speech.” Under “Legal Resources” they wrote, “The Public Participation Project spent months drafting a balanced piece of legislation that provides excellent protection for First Amendment rights. Many of the sources are linked below, including seminal cases about the First Amendment rights of petition and free speech, and the history of protections for those rights. Materials on federalism issues, civil procedure, and other considerations in drafting federal anti-SLAPP legislation are also linked below.” In the UK; how can we learn to combat SLAPPs?

anti-slapp.org explain how Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation corrupt our justice system. They warn that, “These damaging suits chill free speech and healthy debate by targeting those who communicate with their government or speak out on issues of public interest. SLAPPs are used to silence and harass critics by forcing them to spend money to defend these baseless suits. SLAPP filers don’t go to court to seek justice. Rather, SLAPPS are intended to intimidate those who disagree with them or their activities by draining the target’s financial resources. SLAPPs are effective because even a meritless lawsuit can take years and many thousands of dollars to defend. To end or prevent a SLAPP, those who speak out on issues of public interest frequently agree to muzzle themselves, apologize, or ‘correct’ statements.” We have every right to be totally outraged when Labour, our main UK opposition Political Party, faced a SLAPP and Starmer capitulated with a huge settlement and an unjustified grovelling apology.

The Labour Party should have stood their ground and fought the case not just because they were in the right and their Lawyers advised them that they stood a good chance of winning the case, but because like most other SLAPP cases Ware would not have wanted to go to Court. But, this is the exact same reason you do not pay ransom money to a kidnapper, because all you manage to do is increase the likelihood of future kidnapping incidents! If the tactic pays off, morally bankrupt individuals like Ware will keep trying it on in the hope of another big payout. Starmer’s cowardly self-serving betrayal of the Labour membership, squandering their dues to bribe Ware, now has dozens of other fortune hunters getting ready to SLAPP Labour down so hard it will never get back up. But, the Labour Left knows better, as demonstrated by their overwhelming support for their venerated former Leader Jeremy Corbyn. We are all eagerly willing him to fight-back and countersue; with Legal Funds over £331,000, he has the means.

Starmer might try to fool himself that he has acted decisively and in a way that will impress the right faction, with his zero tolerance policy, but the reality is that he has opened the flood gates. Cocky after his triumphant drubbing of the Labour Party to humiliate, demonize and erase the Corbyn legacy, by coxing weak-willed Starmer into putting personal power and his pro-Israel, right-wing agenda before justice and truth, Ware has now set his sights on two Journalist at the Jewish Voice for Labour. He wants to use a SLAPP to silence or shut down this Jewish, pro-Palestinian critic of the Israeli apartheid Government and force the Zionist agenda of the BoD as the unchallenged voice representative of all Jews within the UK. In reality there are large segments of Jewish society here who to not conform to the Zionist cause or support Israeli persecution of the Palestinians or the theft of their land. The right-wing JLM and the BoD do not speak for all Jews, but those who don’t subscribe to their politics are labelled ‘self-hating Jews.’

To read the JVL response to this devastating news visit the JVL Website, as they get ready to fundraise where they say, “We are much encouraged by the flood of supportive messages and offers of financial help we have received since announcing that we are defending a libel action brought by John Ware against Jewish Voice for Labour and two of its officers. Solidarity in defence of principles and justice has been the driving force behind our work over the three years since JVL was founded, and we know this is what drives the many thousands of progressives, Jews and otherwise, who share our perspective. So, as well as seeking your support contesting litigation against us, we are also supporting fundraising for legal action planned by some Labour Party members who, like so many others, have found no other avenue for challenging injustices they have faced under the party’s disciplinary processes. Their aim, with our support, is to end those injustices and make those processes fit for purpose from now on.”

Like a virus the pernicious Lawfare of SLAPPs spreads rampantly out of control; what did Starmer unleash? He might want to be remembered as ‘Forensic’ with a distinctive ‘ism,’ but to his dismay that might just be ‘Starmer Capitulism!’ Press Gang’s Editor Paddy French is also fending off a SLAPP. Press Gang say that, “Ware’s action concerns the Press Gang report, ‘Is The BBC Anti-Labour? Panorama’s Biased Anti-Semitism Reporting: A Case To Answer.’ John Ware claims this publication is ‘seriously defamatory’.” His demands include, “a full retraction; an apology; a statement to be read out in open court and payment of substantial damages and legal costs. Mark Lewis of Patron Law, who acts for Ware, has agreed a ‘conditional fee arrangement’ where the firm acts for Ware on a no-win, no-fee basis. In addition. Patron Law has taken out insurance which limits Ware’s exposure should he lose. This means that if Press Gang fails to win, the website will also be liable for the cost of the insurance.”

Press Gang say they have, “instructed the London solicitors Bindmans to act for Paddy French. In a statement, issued today (April 15) Paddy French said “It’s clear John Ware feels our report is an attack on his professional integrity.” They said, “Press Gang feels equally strongly that the report met the highest standards of ethical journalism — and we’ll be defending it strongly. We’re confident it was a fair criticism of a contentious piece of broadcasting and that a court will agree with us. But we cannot get to that point without your help.” According to Press Gang they, “asked the BBC if it was supporting John Ware’s action. A spokesperson told us ‘the BBC won’t be commenting.’ In a 21st of April Update Press Gang said, “Yesterday our lawyers, Bindmans, replied to the letter from John Ware’s solicitor claiming the Press Gang pamphlet ‘Is The BBC Anti-Labour?’ is ‘seriously defamatory’.”

Bindmans letter says, “editor Paddy French has ‘complete defences’ under section 2 (Truth), section 3 (Honest Opinion) and section 4 (Public Interest) of the Defamation Act 2013.” They conclude: ‘The defamatory allegations against your client are matters of opinion, based on the facts set out in the… report.’ ‘Mr French is surprised that an experienced journalist like your client has threatened libel proceedings rather than joining in public debate and we invite you to withdraw the threat forthwith.’ ‘In the event that your client commences legal proceedings then the matter will be vigorously defended.” They say, “John Ware’s solicitor, Mark Lewis of Patron Law, has acknowledged receipt of the letter and says he will reply by the end of the month.” Press Gang’s appeal now over £18,500 exceeded its initial £5,000 target. “It’s often said that libel is a rich man’s game,” said Paddy French. “In this case, the support of 200 people is helping to level the playing field. It’s also a vote of confidence in the integrity of Press Gang journalism.”

Where does this end? These litigants use ‘no win, no fee’ Lawyers with backup insurance coverage to further reduce risk; we must render this option totally unviable with no insurer willing to cover that risk. Arron Banks has hit Guardian Investigative Journalist Carole Cadwalladr with a SLAPP for reporting his less than transparent, or downright dodgy, funding of the Brexit Vote Leave Campaign, alleging potential Russian connections. A number of civil liberties groups including, Reporters Without Borders (RSF); ARTICLE 19; European Federation of Journalists (EFJ); European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF); Greenpeace UK; Index on Censorship; PEN International and Scottish PEN all signed a letter drafted by Reporters Without Borders. Anyone interested in contacting RSF UK, their Press contact: RSF UK Bureau Director Rebecca Vincent on [email protected] or +44 (0)207 324 8903. These free speech champions all rallied to Cadwalladr’s defence drafting a letter that all of these civil liberties groups signed; it is printed on their Website as below.

“We, the undersigned organisations, welcome today’s judgment on meaning in the case of Arron Banks vs Carole Cadwalladr. The judgment clarified the context of the comments that form the basis of this lawsuit, and noted that aspects of the claimant’s argument were ‘far-fetched and divorced from the specific context in which those words were used’. We consider this case to be an example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), as it is vexatious in nature and intended to silence Cadwalladr’s courageous investigative journalism. We call on Banks to drop this abusive lawsuit and cease efforts to stifle public interest reporting.

We note with concern the abusive approach Banks has taken in targeting Cadwalladr as an individual on the basis of comments she made orally – including a single sentence in a TED talk – and on Twitter, rather than similar reporting that had been published in the Guardian. Cadwalladr is a laureate of Reporters Without Borders’ press freedom prize – and a series of prestigious journalism prizes – for her courageous reporting on the subversion of democratic processes in the US and UK. As such, she has explored the funding of Banks’ Leave.EU campaign and questioned Banks’ ties to Russia following the leak of documents exposing the Russian government’s offer of a gold and diamond deal to Banks – serious matters that are clearly of high public interest.

We are alarmed by the increasing use of SLAPP lawsuits as a means of attempting to silence public interest reporting – a trend that is posing a growing threat to freedom of expression internationally. We reiterate our call for the UK government to address this as a matter of priority, including through the consideration of anti-SLAPP legislation. We also encourage support for Cadwalladr’s crowdfunder to build up a team to pursue further investigative reporting into data, disinformation and democracy, and show that such bullying tactics will not be successful in silencing critical reporting.”

So does that make Williamson’s legal challenge directed at the Equality and Human Rights Commission for making accusations that defame him a SLAPP? Good question, but emphatically and categorically no! While EHRC are supposedly an independent public body acting in the public’s best interests by exposing wrongdoing, Williamson’s concerns will undoubtedly focus on false allegation for which, despite an in-depth investigation, no evidence has been produced. If this were not the case Williamson would not be so determined to go to Court; that is the major difference Williamson is not seeking to avoid Court and bluff his way to a substantial payout. Beyond any personal desire to clear his name Williamson is also driven by a powerful and legitimate public interest obligation to expose corruption and party political bias within EHRC that poses a very serious threat to the integrity of our UK democracy. As the litigant Williamson is in the driving seat with no intention of settling for less than full exposure of EHRC bias.

Why is this so important right now? During this miserable decade of austerity and rampant privatization the corrupt Tory Party have infiltrated every aspect of Governance; reaching well beyond the bounds of democratic votes in Parliament, to unfairly stack the deck in all of our regulatory bodies. The Tory strategy for these supposedly independent bodies includes: Dominating, Deviating, Defunding, Disempowering or Dissolving to remove all scrutiny and accountability from the Government and eliminate our checks and balances. The EHRC has seen ethnic minorities removed and replaced by wealthy business elites dominating decisions to match Tory goals.. The already amalgamated body has significantly deviated from its core goals and faced massive defunding. While not yet disempowered the power they do wield has been ruthlessly weaponized to attack the opposition Labour Party and derail the public vote in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election with baseless accusations and toxic propaganda: this violates the law!

Why do I feel so passionately about this issue, the sanctity of genuine Whistleblowers like Assange and so deeply aggrieved that Ware and the ‘Poison Dartblowers’ succeeded in landing a costly SLAPP on the Labour Party? Although I myself brought lawsuit against an NHS Trust and my University, my case was most definitely not a SLAPP. I paid careful attention to the public good by decided not to demand huge damages, instead taking the moral high ground to accomplish certain important goals in the public interest: essentially public good must always be the litmus test. Keir Starmer has capitulated against the public good, sacrificing Labour party members dues and the public good for his own selfish political ambitions. This chronic injustice can only be rectified by going to Court to expose the truth so we must support this legal process with resounding solidarity. We cannot allow this vital process to be negated or stalled for time as we have just a few short months before crash-out Brexit ends all democracy in the UK.

Exposure of the baseless smear campaign used to sell the fake ‘landslide victory’ ‘borrowed votes’ lie of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election will be publically revealed at last. There is a distinct possibility that the payment of state funds to the Integrity Initiative to spread propaganda targeting the Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party can be highlighted among the evidence submitted in at least one of the cases. This constitutes illegal sabotage of the Electoral process quite aside from the highly suspicious postal votes outsourced to Idox beyond the monitoring or inspection of the toothless Electoral Commission. The public must demand tougher scrutiny and “Rescue our Watchdog” as “A Watchdog that cannot watch is just a dog.” The disreputable role the BBC, played in disseminating Tory propaganda for the Covert 2019 Rigged Election will further render the unfathomable result invalid so we can demand a full Investigation and immediate removal of this Tory Government to enable the UK to hold free and fair elections. DO NOT MOVE ON!

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

Britain gets a “D;” in fact were scoring a deluge of “Ds.” Distraction to destruction is this Tory Government’s devious PR plan to detract from the shambolic reality of their policies that have delivered a devastating death toll nothing short of a Global disgrace. It isn’t just those disappointed students dealing with a grotesquely unfair dent in exam grades to distribute the degradation of a result downgrade the most disadvantaged did nothing to deserve. Inequality in overdrive as the elite excel; a designer ploy to deliberately double-down on the damage to long deprived schools, destroying the life chances with a depressing destiny of destitution as dire future difficulties lie ahead in a diminished job market. A discarded class of desperate drones tirelessly toiling for a pittance as this Tory Government develops its policy of “Decimating Down!” Diversionary distractions as directives and disorganized decisions on lockdowns, districts, destinations and quarantine change on a daily dice roll dominating the news with disturbance and disruption.

Disguising a far more sinister agenda, the distraction hides destruction of the core tenants of our democracy as we descend into decades of dictatorship. The Tory power grab continues unabated a potential corruptly facilitated by the stolen ‘landslide victory’ Tory majority delivered by Dominic Cummings’s deceitful plan in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. The shambolic, torturous and reckless policy meandering screams “could do better,” but while it would be hard to do much worse, the distress they are causing fills the airwaves, of little consequence and easily ignored by Johnson and Cummings focused on reaching that critical deadline of crash-out Brexit. Scrutiny and accountability is being steadily stripped away with the checks and balances of our parliamentary system increasingly neutralized. Formerly independent agencies and watchdog organizations are transformed into Tory compliant Quangos: due to a conscious program of Dominating, Deviating, Defunding, Disempowering or Dissolving, democracy is in decline.

Meanwhile as the distraction of justified student outrage easily redirects public attention, the Tory cabal are spoilt for choice on who to scapegoat next in their blame-game ‘News Spin.’ Now there are massive fines for not wearing a mask decried as a liability only a few short months ago; the Tory majority does not require consistency or sane, logical, pragmatic leadership while they asset strip the UK! Headline news of ‘wretched migrants’ arriving in overcrowded unsafe boats always helps the Tories to stoke racial tension and calls for tougher immigration as we set up a new system for a ‘Scavenge, Exploit, Deport’ visa system to break all UK Unions after crash-out Brexit. Once we lose the protection still offered within the EU, workers rights will vanish overnight and our Human Rights will be ‘redefined’ into a more business friendly model that favours Corporate greed. Judicial Review will soon be severely curtailed to greatly reduce or totally eliminate our access to justice or holding the powerful and the Tory Government to account.

The people of this country have already suffered massive injustice and faced international criticism for inhumane treatment of the disabled. The needless austerity decade cost thousands of lives, so I refuse to believe that the working poor were driven by mass Stockholm syndrome to vote for further exploitation following crash-out Brexit that was obviously going to cost countless thousands of jobs even before Covid 19 hit! Abandoning the International Court of Human Rights is a perilous warning sign, especially so as another Tory manifesto pledge is to target Gypsies! This is a clear signal of the UK decent into fascism. Despite ongoing ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests demanding equality, racial profiling for ‘Stop and Search’ has increased during the Covid 19 crisis. Despite the urgent need to remove dangerous cladding that led to the tragic loss of life at Grenfell Tower; robust building inspections and social tenant rights have been ignored as Housing regulations are about to be even further gutted for diminishing vital scrutiny.

We must learn to recognize the deliberate distractions being spun as ‘News;’ firstly, was all the chaos really unavoidable? Imposing a local lockdown disproportionately targeting Muslim households to selectively disrupt the religious gathering, just hours before the celebration of Ede, while contact in the workplace and travelling to work remained inexplicably immune to infection risk? Spawned by the abysmal nondisclosure of crucial centralized data that effectively sabotaged any hope of early intervention, predominantly Muslim communities suffered collective punishment for Government failures while they were demonized and arbitrarily blamed for “not adhering to distancing rules.” It was a vile Tory campaign of ‘othering’ that still penalizes areas in the deprived north; there is no intention of ever ‘levelling up’ just the harsh Tory reality of ‘Decimating Down!’ The PM keeps repeating ‘levelling up’ while the lived experience of cruel Tory policy choices continues to target the most vulnerable: we must discredit Johnson’s fake narrative.

Quarantine is back in the news. Did the UK impose quarantine when it could have drastically restricted Coronavirus entering the UK following the first early warning signs from China, Italy and then Spain? No, Boris was eager to “take it on the chin” realizing that there weren’t enough test kits, he tried to bluff through the looming crisis by hailing Cummings’ warped eugenics plan of “Herd Immunity.” Quarantine was saved for a PR stunt touting British exceptionalism to pretend that other countries were handling the crisis worse than the UK. He conned badly hit tourist destination countries into accepting “air-bridge” arrangements that had no real prospect of lasting. The wealthy could travel as they pleased knowing that if quarantine was reinstated they could work from home. Among those who did not share such distance work options some were foolish enough to go abroad. As if a foreign holiday is our single greatest concern, desperate stories of vacationers caught out scrambling to avoid the lockdown now dominate the news.

Then there’s the facemask fiasco. When the Tory Government in its ignorant negligence had depleted the emergency reserves of PPE, with the dire shortage endangering medical staff they insisted masks were unnecessary; the Tories relied on ‘the science’ to assure us of nonsensical reasons why masks might increase risk. Once the rampant spread of infection had seriously taken hold in the UK, Johnson imposed a belated lockdown, but still issued dictates consistently at significant variance with the WHO as if our ‘science’ was superior to elsewhere. The public were not expected to strictly abide by lockdown, but they did, causing frustrating delays in the planned Tory cull of ‘economically unproductive,’ weak, elderly and disabled victims. The ‘Slaughter of the Sheeple’ was not going to plan so, on exceptionally short notice, he ordered people back to unprepared work places on overcrowded public transport. Finally a requirement to wear facemasks was introduced, strategically delayed for over a week to increase infections.

Each of these shambolic decisions has prompted controversy and copious news coverage, but that 80 seat majority in Parliament, Tory MPs unable to rebel and Starmer’s impotent opposition, no meaningful debate or progressive shift was possible so the ‘fake news’ rumbled on. The BBC has morphed from public broadcaster to Tory Party mouthpiece; The PM and his Tory Ministers are coveniently never available for comment on Newsnight and even the News itself has changed. Now we announce the news as if the coverage targets an audience ‘around the world’ even the Paper Review is including foreign newspapers, but is it really a shift to ‘Global Britain’ or just another cheap Tory con trick? There is fastidious attention paid to any bad Covid 19 statistics overseas to detract from the dire crisis and phenomenally high death toll in the UK. There is coverage of Donald Trump as we switch to his press conferences in preparation for coming subservience to the US. Vaulting to a foreign story avoids bad news here in England; sunburnt British bums on Spanish beaches annoyed over new restrictions is ‘international news.’

What is so important about the plight of tourists who should have had the common sense not to go abroad during a Pandemic? Far less attention was paid to Britain resuming arms sales to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns from campaigners that its weapons could be deployed to commit war crimes killing innocent civilian children in Yemen! The BBC and Mainstream Media aren’t just pumping out ‘Fake News’ they are padding this out with ‘Fluff News’ to placate the masses and keep the public docile until that critical point of no return has passed with crash-out Brexit done and dusted. Jonny Depp’s dirty Dobie dominated the ‘Fluff’ as his very public spat to quash accusations of abuse played out for weeks in the High Court. But by far a more important Court case was almost completely ignored as persecuted political prisoner, WikiLeaks Journalist Julian Assange, fought extradition to the US on trumped up espionage charges that seriously threaten our freedom of speech and vital protections offered to the free press worldwide.

Young people are an easy and vulnerable target for Tory Government cuts and gross injustice; with their lower wages, zero hours contracts, insecure jobs and a reduced state safety net, they will be disproportionately hardest hit by the recession still to deepen and intensify. Grading scholastic achievement for teenagers unable to sit exams should have been anticipated and prepared for well in advance. Instead young people were dealt another cruel blow with the private and privileged receiving a boost while pupils from schools starved of cash for a decade were unfairly downgraded based on universally low expectations that drive the disparity between rich and poor. Where is Keir Starmer’s forensic analysis of this injustice as future Labour voter evaluate the ferocity of his response? He is too distracted by other matters following his cowardly capitulation and the inevitable rush to cash in with more vexatious legal threats as Labour NEC try to gag all descent over the capitulation with a ban on any discourse or motions on the matter by CLPs.

In the Skwawkbox Article entitled, “Bigger class, bigger downgrades. Wrong postcode, bigger downgrades. Tories’ smash-and-grab algorithm scandal robs poor pupils and massively boosts rich” they expose the shocking manipulation that ignores years of hard earned progress and they justifiably alleging that the, “Theft of working-class and especially ethnic minority kids’ futures is a criminal act. The scandal of the downgraded A-level awards has grown bigger with the revelation that the government’s algorithm used to adjust grades was designed to guarantee a huge negative impact on students from working-class and especially ethnic minority areas – and a huge boost to the children of the wealthy.” This is the harsh reality underlying all Tory Government policies to relentlessly “Decimate Down” to keep the poor and disenfranchised perpetually poor and disenfranchised while granting copious privilege and advantages to the wealthy elite and getting the Tory ‘Fake News’ machine to keep repeating the ‘levelling up’ lie.

The Skwawkbox reveal that, “The algorithm’s adjustments were weighted to apply downgrades to more children the larger their class size – and also included postcodes in its calculations. Bigger class? Down you go – in spite of years of Tory claims that increasing class sizes driven by cuts didn’t damage our children’s education. Poor postcode? Down you go again. The algorithm also weighted up for small classes and wealthier areas and the effect was clear: ordinary sixth form and further education colleges lost out massively – while the private schools used by the wealthy saw their number of As and above hugely increased. Private schools benefitted more than state schools to the tune of almost 16 to 1. The Sixth Form Colleges Association found that a third of their members had seen results from the process that bore ‘little or no’ resemblance to achievements in previous years – and that poor and ethnic minority students had been hammered.” This cannot be allowed to stand, MPs must demand justice for our youth.

The Skwawkbox report that, “Some schools and colleges have reported fifty percent or more of their students being downgrades, with black children affected several times more often than the proportion of the population they represent. Huge numbers of students have reported withdrawn university offers based on the downgrades.” They claim a crime has been committed saying that, “Education Secretary Gavin Williamson admitted that the downgrades had been applied selectively to children from poor backgrounds in case they found themselves promoted to ‘jobs beyond their competence’.” They note that, “It doesn’t seem to matter if rich children go beyond their competence. Williamson’s department also boasted that ‘Almost 60% of grades students received are exactly the same as those submitted by schools and colleges’ – in other words, 40% weren’t – and admitted that the vast majority of those were downgraded.” MPs are calling for his resignation, but Johnson is standing by his man.

The Labour opposition are hardly championing the downtrodden with a “could do better” interview performance the Skwawkbox have righty criticized saying, “Meanwhile, Shadow Education Secretary Kate Green’s ‘limp dishcloth’ performance on last night’s Newsnight came nowhere near to reflecting the justified outrage of parents and teachers.” In a far more realistic interpretation of the genuine anger over this injustice the Skwawkbox claim, “The Tories have performed a naked smash and grab on the futures of our children – and are dancing off laughing down the street with the spoils, while telling the rest of us to be happy about it and still claiming they’re ‘levelling up’.” In Scotland, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has admitted that a grave error has occurred and readily apologised. Realizing an immediate correction is required to put it right she announced that they would be scrapping the faulty moderation and respecting all of the assessments made by the teachers who know the children’s performance best.

The Skwawkbox warn that, “many people are predicting the impact on GCSE grades will be even worse.” As Education Secretary Gavin Williamson has had five months to plan how the grades would be awarded in the absence of exam results and he cooked up a wealthy elite fast-tracking system to please the Tory base. Once again the Tories have found an ingenious way to help entrench their privilege while faking an agenda of ‘levelling up’ that they have no intention of fulfilling, but don’t expect the BBC or alt-right Media to call them out on it. Will the Captain of capitulation Keir Starmer bother to demand justice for the children of the working poor? He’s too busy pandering to the Zionist BoD, reinstalling the right-wing and obsessing over revamping the Labour Party in a capitalist image more acceptable to the wealthy elite; fighting vigorously for genuine Social justice just doesn’t make the news. The Tories know they needn’t be concerned young people will not vote Tory as their Dictatorship will render future voting superfluous!

We cannot afford to keep falling for the ‘Fake and Fluffy News’ that detracts from reality; we need really impartial news that we can thoroughly trust to tell us the truth both on screen and online. Perhaps the hopefully short-lived triumph of Ware defending his defamatory Panorama Documentary will be the final straw for the public chocking down the obscene levels of BBC bias propping up the Tory Party. The impending Court cases could potentially not only restore justice, but also fatally discredit the rabid Tory Party propaganda machine and expose the Tory racket that stacks our so called independent regulators and watchdogs with Tory yes-men when EHRC is exposed in Williamson’s Court case. Tory funding of the ‘Institute of Statecraft’ and their ‘Integrity Initiative’ was exposed for generating propaganda to defame and destroy Corbyn’s Labour Party; they’ve also medalled in foreign elections. This illegal contract alone renders the Covert 2019 Rigged Election invalid: this Tory Government is too corrupt to remain in office!

Viewing the footage of courageous rebellion in Belarus as their Dictator clings on after 26 years in power; will we emulate their solidarity and street protests to kick out this UK Government before a Tory dictatorship becomes entrenched? Will the EU support the British establishment even if their right to office is conclusively delegitimized? Will they support the public, including EU citizens as we seek to overthrow our Tory tyrant and his unelected puppet master? Possibly if it is in their best interests to protect the level playing field from “Singapore on the Thames” they might threaten Johnson’s global credibility and even call for sanctions; but the real drive to restore justice will come from us. We must derail the Tory Party agenda for eliminating scrutiny and accountability by “Dominating, Deviating, Defunding, Disempowering or Dissolving” our checks and balances. “A Watchdog that cannot watch is just a dog!” The Electoral Commission must have the power to fully investigate the Covert 2019 Rigged Election to kick out the Tories. DO NOT MOVE ON!

[cimarrón]

Kim, You’ve obviously seen Carole Cadwalladr’s Ted talk video since it’s shown on her fundraiser page that you have linked to in your August 16, 2020, 16:22 comment.

I thought it so good, and so relevant to this thread, that I’ve linked to the video here for others to see who may have missed it. I think it gives good insight, too, into some of the techniques used by Cummings and his cohorts to bend votes.

Facebook’s role in Brexit — and the threat to democracy | Carole Cadwalladr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=OQSMr-3GGvQ&feature=emb_logo

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

Cimarrón – This was a powerful presentation by Cadwalladr although I deviate, as does Craig Murray, from her thinking on the implied malevolent intervention of WikiLeaks in the 2016 US Election. I agree with him that the DNC data was not hacked by the Russians, but sent to WikiLeaks from an internal DNC source Julian will not reveal, but I believe the decision to publish was impartial. The real crime in the US Election was the DNC’s targeting of Bernie Sanders in favour of flawed candidate Hilary Clinton; the DNC have doubled-down on their mistake by backing yet another weak, flawed looser in Biden this time around! Cadwalladr has evolved into an accomplished investigative journalist, but I am both alarmed and confused by her connections to the Integrity Initiative, an organization that was paid by the Tory Party to generate corrupt smear propaganda targeting Jeremy Corbyn to sabotage the Electoral chances of the most progressive iteration of the Labour Party in decades! I would like to know how and why is she involved with this thoroughly disreputable organization?

Truth, Justice and the integrity of the UK Electoral System that legitimizes our democracy still remain perilously at stake as we face yet another disastrous consequence of Boris Johnson’s Tory Government blunders since his unfathomably suspicious ‘landslide victory.’ I hope the industrial scale fraud that facilitated the Covert 2019 Rigged Election will be exposed, just as the fake promise of ‘levelling up’ unravels to reveal the standard Tory agenda of ‘Decimating Down.’ We have dodged a bullet, but the public realize they were lied to: the gross manipulation of the exam grading algorithm stands exposed as rigged to conspicuously disadvantage the already disadvantaged in favour of the wealthy elite. But, each and every time we discover that one man is at the very heart of all of this ongoing corruption: the despised puppet master controlling every decision the PM makes, a man whose Machiavellian manoeuvres serve the warped eugenics philosophy that drives his sick mind, none other than shameless grade ‘D for Dominic’ Cummings!

Downgraded students are now spared the fallout of an injustice designed to sabotage future prospects via a maladjusted algorithm, but the malicious interventions of unelected Chief Adviser Cummings cannot be excluded from the fray. We should not forget that before Boris Johnson was eagerly sniffing Cummings’ dirty bum, Michael Gove was partaking of the Dom’s odious eugenics brain farts. Gove’s assignment at that time was none other than the Department of Education, where Cummings first got to wield his wrecking ball, reinventing Tory Education Policy; a disaster that cost us 50,000 loyal Teachers! A Canary Article entitled, “Dominic Cummings’ blog reveals he’s behind the A-Levels ‘class war’.” This is a shocking theory that, “The scandal over Ofqual’s downgrading of hundreds of thousands of A-Level results continues. But a blog post by Dominic Cummings in 2015, and his links to Ofqual, show where the motivation for what The Canary‘s editor-at-large Kerry-Anne Mendoza called ‘class warfare’ may have come from.”

From whence does this troubling assumption arise? According to the Canary, Cummings himself implies as much, “Because Boris Johnson’s right-hand man explicitly wrote that civil servants and MPs had ‘corrupted’ A-Levels, essentially making them too easy… that the drive to give as many pupils as possible ‘access’ to be able to take them had ‘devalued‘ the whole process. But reading between the lines, it may actually be GCSEs that are the Tories’ real target, and it’s embedded in notions of Eugenics. ‘A-Level carnage…’ The Canary previously reported on a growing controversy over this year’s A-Level results.” They noted: “The proportion of A-level entries awarded an A grade or higher has risen to an all-time high, with 27.9% securing the top grades this year, figures for England, Wales and Northern Ireland show. But exam boards downgraded nearly two in five (39.1%) pupils’ grades in England, according to data from Ofqual – which amounts to around 280,000 entries being adjusted down after moderation.”

The Canary reported that, “Since then, the education secretary Gavin Williamson has come under renewed pressure to resign, with Boris Johnson so far standing by him. Students have held protests over the results. ‘…dissent in the Tory ranks appears to be growing.’ The Conservative chair of the Education Select Committee told BBC Radio 4‘s World at One programme that: some figures suggest that disadvantaged students have been penalised again… If the model has penalised disadvantaged groups this is very serious and if it has disadvantaged colleges that has to be looked at. Ofqual will have to adjust the grades.” Despite creating yet another shambolic Tory mess, they said, “So far, Ofqual and Williamson have refused to budge, with the former appearing to be in chaos. In the space of a few hours on Saturday 15 August, it released then withdrew its guidance over the appeals process.” Where was Boris Johnson, our part-time Prime Minister, as the nation faced yet another perfectly avoidable crisis created by Tory incompetence? Relaxing on holiday again!

In the Canary article, Mendoza was keen to point out that, “at the heart of this story is Ofqual’s algorithm, which favoured private school pupils best and students from the most deprived areas worst. This is because it was partly designed around subject pupil numbers – so the smaller the ‘cohort’ taking a subject, the higher the average grades would be. Some commentators are claiming that Ofqual should have realised this would happen. For example, one analyst correctly predicted the percentage of downgraded results over a week ago. The Good Law Project is planning a judicial review of Ofqual’s grading process. Although it may fall on deaf ears – because, by giving students free access to appeals, the Tories will say the issue is resolved.” Mendoza claims that, “a blog post by Cummings in 2015 shows that this huge downgrading of A-Level results fits almost exactly with his plans for education reform.” A bit like that 80 seat majority Cummings promised the Tories in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and then miraculously delivered exactly as he had predicted!

According to Mendoza, “In his blog, Cummings criticised a Department for Education (DfE) decision to stop independent annual reviews of A-Level papers. The A-Level Content Advisory Board (ALCAB) did this to see if they were of the right standard.” She said, “Cummings wrote: The DfE hated giving away control, obviously, and hated ALCAB. The very point of the process, a sword of Damocles in the form of eminent professors saying ‘crap questions’ each year was supposed to force the DfE, exam boards, and Ofqual to raise their game. You can imagine how popular this was. Now the situation will revert to the status quo, the DfE firmly in charge and those pesky professors who point out things like specific papers do not test the maths skills in the specifications, are happily excluded, with no ‘unhelpful’ public scrutiny of standards.” This last few words should alarm us all, as it reveals Cummings’s undemocratic beliefs that ‘public scrutiny’ of any variety is ‘unhelpful’ to his aspirations for total control of every area of UK Government!

Essentially Mendoza is claiming this has exposed that Cummings motivations back when he ‘advised’ Gove in the Department of Education are perhaps only now reaching full fruition as if Gove’s tenure at DfE wasn’t damaging enough. She said, “In short, Cummings believes A-Levels ‘need improving’. But there’s another side to this story: next week’s GCSE results. It seems that Ofqual will be using the same algorithm to determine these results. Some organisations are warning that the effect on disadvantaged pupils may be worse than with A-Levels. Once again, Cummings wrote at length about the devaluation of GCSEs, bemoaning the fact that they had been made ‘easier’. His thinking appears to be that the whole education system is being watered down, and that pupils who are not naturally academic are still appearing as such, because of higher grades.” Mendoza notes, “a paper he wrote several years ago reveals why he thinks this is a bad thing;” she describes it as “Brazen Eugenics!” Thankfully that Tory U-turn offered a last ditch reprieve for Students!

Mendoza revealed that, “Cummings wrote this paper during his time as a Special Adviser to the then Education Secretary Michael Gove. From the views expressed therein, Cummings appears to believe that ‘cognitive ability’ is hereditary. Therefore, as he notes: Raising school performance of poorer children is an inherently worthwhile thing to try to do, but it would not necessarily lower parent-offspring correlations (nor change heritability estimates). When people look at the gaps between rich and poor children that already exist at a young age (3-5), they almost universally assume that these differences are because of environmental reasons (‘privileges of wealth’) and ignore genetics.” Cummings has obviously never experienced the depravation of poor nutrition or near starvation in his own privileged upbringing! A serious drop in blood sugar caused by malnutrition starves the brain of fuel, cutting off critical thinking; that is why feeding children breakfast at school and the milk that “Thatcher, Bottle Snatcher” stole proved so vital.

After Cummings immersed himself in discredited pseudoscience he should have lost his credibility to ‘advise.’ Mendoza quotes from Cummings’s misguided fake logic, “It is reasonable to hope that the combination of 1) finding the genes responsible for cognitive abilities, 2) scientific research on teaching methods, and 3) the power of computers to personalise learning will bring dramatic improvements to education – but this will not remove genetic influence over the variation in outcomes or ‘close the gap between rich and poor’. [Emphasis added] From this paper and his blog posts, it’s clear that Cummings has a problem with the focus on improving education for the poorest pupils, in terms of pushing them to get good GCSEs and go on to A-Levels. When you break his rhetoric down, he is essentially saying that by encouraging children who are not (in his opinion) intelligent to try and perform better in school, you’re dragging all other students down with them. Hence the idea that GCSEs and A-Levels are now devalued.”

Cummings’ belief in the discredited pseudoscience of eugenics is alarming. Mendoza points out, “The idea that some children are genetically predisposed to be more stupid than others, and that we have to separate them out to make sure the brightest and most ‘naturally’ able reach the top, is nothing short of Eugenics. And it’s happening now – right under our noses. Williamson’s speech. In July, Paul Goodman wrote for Conservative Home that Tory education reform is coming. Essentially, it seems that the Tories (led behind the scenes by Cummings) will be shifting to an emphasis on more vocational education along with science. Williamson said in a speech on 9 July that: Further education is central to our mission of levelling up the nation. Or quite simply, giving people the skills that they need to get the jobs that they want. Essentially, the Tories want to stop so many people going to university. Instead, as Williamson put it, the focus will be: to put further and technical education at the heart of our post-16 education system.”

Mendoza claims that, “Cummings is in the driving seat.” Saying, “The education secretary also noted: The tragedy is that for decades, we’ve forgotten about half of our education system. When Tony Blair uttered that 50% target for university attendance, he cast aside the other 50%. It was a target for the sake of a target, not with a purpose. This is similar thinking to what Cummings wrote in his blog. He said: There is massive political pressure to focus exclusively on the numbers taking an A Level rather than the quality of the A Level. He also said: Now, everything to do with A Levels is dominated by political not educational concerns about the numbers doing them and ‘access’. This has helped corrupt the exam system. If we had professors of physics, French, music etc every year publicly humiliating exam boards for errors, this would soon improve things from a low base and make it much harder for MPs and Whitehall to keep corrupting public exams.” This might seem to contradict his earlier objection to their intervention!

Mendoza continues, “So, where does Ofqual’s algorithm fit into this?” The unhealthy connections: “The links between Cummings and Ofqual are already being exposed. As Miles King, CEO of People Need Nature, noted: Appears that Ofqual’s algorithm caused today’s A-level chaos. Ofqual chair Roger Taylor, also chairs the Centre for Data Ethics & Innovation (CDEI). Cummings’ fave AI consultants – Faculty, have some juicy contracts with CDEI. And Faculty’s COO Richard Sargeant is on CDEI board. On the same day Johnson took the PM’s office (23 July 2019), Ofqual announced three new board members. One of them was Mike Thompson, a former Barclays executive who specialised in apprenticeships and the new, more hands-on T-Level qualifications. As the then education secretary Damian Hinds noted, these appointments came as: Ofqual oversee an exciting period of reform to vocational and technical qualifications, as well as continuing to ensure the safe delivery of reformed GCSEs and A levels.”

Mendoza takes note of those moving in on the action, “Interestingly, in October 2019, DfE strategy chief Tom Nixon left his civil service role to join Faculty – the AI firm Cummings used for the Vote Leave campaign. This firm is now embedded in the Tory government. As New Statesman Tech reported: Nixon… has been tasked with establishing the company’s Government practice and deepening its work with Whitehall and the wider public sector. In January of this year, Ofqual was already looking into AI marking of exams. Then when it came to designing 2020’s marking algorithm, more people came on board. These included Tim Leunig, a prominent civil servant who Cummings reportedly had ‘quite a good relationship’ with when they were both at the DfE. If Cummings did have a hand in (or influence over) the Ofqual algorithm, it would fit in well with the government’s drive to promote further education for the ‘less-intelligent’ (i.e. ‘poorest’), and universities for the ‘brightest’ (‘richest’) students.”

Mendoza takes a closer look at the, “Material disadvantage: The breakdown of 2020 A-Level award results by socioeconomic status were broadly in line with previous years. But historically, there have been issues with the poorest students having their predicted grades wrongly estimated. ‘High ability’ but poor students (AAB grades or above) have seen this effect the most in terms of downgrading of their predicted results, while over-prediction is high among poor students generally.” However, according to reliable reports from the Teaching sector, there was a far greater in house scrutiny of Teacher predictions this time around than in previous years. Due to the increased responsibility for accuracy demanded by the absence of exams, schools typically reviewed the predictions at three levels before submitting their estimation of pupil’s results. Teaching institutions across the board wanted to be seen to be fair in the certain knowledge that their judgement might come under greater scrutiny due to the Covid crisis situation.

In previous years a predicted grade would only affect a pupil’s potential for acceptance at their desired University, giving those who might otherwise be easily overlooked a fighting chance at consideration in the hope that the student would achieve their best result. But without the confirmatory process of exam results these predictions needed to be more seriously assessed. Mendoza explains the reality, “This disparity between predicted and actual grades could well be due to a student’s socioeconomic status and factors like availability of study resources, time poverty and so on. In other words, when it comes to sitting exams, poorer students may already be at a material disadvantage. This shows in the widening GCSE attainment gap between rich and poor. So, a sudden upsurge in poorer students’ final grades (both GCSE and A-Level), would throw the Tories’ and Cummings’ plans for education off kilter.” She claims, “Therefore, the status quo (rich students doing better, poor students not so much) had to be maintained.”

Mendoza further explains the system that is, “maintaining the status quo. In non-coronavirus times, Ofqual uses previous years’ overall results as guidance for marking. It also uses something called the National Reference Test (NRT) – where thousands of students sit exams to get a benchmark result of what standard certain GCSE grades are at. So in short, this year’s grades will have the effect of maintaining the benchmarks for 2021 A-Level and GCSE results – and this will continue on and on. Moreover, if students don’t get the required GCSE grades for certain A-Levels, it allows the government to immediately start promoting its further education and vocational routes. Williamson and the DfE have already set out increased funding for these areas. The same principles apply to A-Level results and university places. So, by holding back poorer students this year, the Tories have maintained the environment for their ‘class war’ reforms to continue.” This alarming revelation should thoroughly disgust us all.

The exam grades algorithm scandal comprehensively debunks the ‘levelling up’ lie touted by the Tories as they try to maintain the shallow façade of fake legitimacy and they cling to power with their ‘borrowed votes’ scam! It is just a blatant lie; the Tory boot will remain firmly on our necks as they pursue the perennial Tory goal of ‘Decimating Down’ based on an elite, exceptionalist belief that the poor should, “know their place!” Mendoza also reveals that, “Cummings wrote in no uncertain terms that: Many of those now attending university courses in the UK and USA are wasting their time, and their own and taxpayers’ money, and would be better off in jobs or work-based training. In many third-rate HE institutions, there is a large amount of ‘social science’ work (in economics, anthropology, sociology, literary theory, and so on) of questionable value both from an intellectual perspective and from the perspective of the students’ job prospects. Reform of the long tail of HE [higher education] and FE [further education] is crucial.”

This latest grotesque injustice to our already disadvantaged and exploited young people was derailed through determined public protest but, “It seems that ‘reform’ is coming.” Mendoza separates certain undoubted advantages from the truly disturbing underlying agenda; she said that, “While an increase in vocational education is no bad thing, it’s why the Tories are doing it which is the problem. Make no mistake, it is little more than eugenicist classism: that poorer people should know their place, stick to manual jobs, and leave the critical thinking and complex study to those with the silver spoons in their mouths. Moreover, this class-based assault on the education system has long been in Cummings’ sights, since his ‘toxic antics’ as Gove’s ‘master of the dark arts’ special adviser. Under the guise of ‘levelling up’, Cummings and the Tories are hell bent on returning us to a Victorian class system.” Students won this last battle, but she logically claims that, “this year’s GCSE and A-Level students are on the front line in this ongoing class war.”

One of the very few books I have felt compelled to read twice is US author Ira Levin’s, ominous sci-fi novel, “This Perfect Day.” In a book review it says: “The story is set in a seemingly perfect global society. Uniformity is the defining feature; there is only one language and all ethnic groups have been eugenically merged into one race called ‘The Family.’ The world is ruled by a central computer called UniComp that has been programmed to keep every single human on the surface of the earth in check. People are continually drugged by means of regular injections so that they can never realize their potential as human beings, but will remain satisfied and cooperative. They are told where to live, when to eat, whom to marry, when to reproduce, even the basic facts of nature are subject to the UniComp’s will, men do not grow facial hair, women do not develop breasts, and it only rains at night. With a vision as frightening as any in the history of the science fiction genre;” I agree it is one of Ira Levin`s most haunting novels.

The more I discover about the Dom the closer we get to this doom filled drab future for the exploited drones with AI in overdrive and the eugenics mindset of Cummings dystopian nightmare ensconced. Cummings has a warped fascination with AI that is now being heavily funded by the Tory Party who benefited from his weapons grade PsyOps and VICS Voter Intention Collection System of data harvested, almost certainly illegally, from Social Media to manipulate vulnerable individuals and target areas for stealing of postal votes. Without Industrial scale fraud the grossly unpopular Tories could never have achieved the fake ‘landslide victory’ they claimed in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. Without the blatantly illegal Tory Government payments to the Integrity Initiative to relentless pump out propaganda in a campaign aided and abetted by the fully compliant biased BBC and all the Tory elite Media moguls, the public would have seriously questioned that unfathomable result and demanded an investigation, but it is not too late.

It is vital that we change the narrative despite Tory dominance of the media and our once reliable ‘Auntie’ the BBC. The Tories have become overconfident regarding their seemingly unstoppable success, arrogantly pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with due to their stolen 80 seat majority. The ‘Special Advisor’ who brazenly ignored lockdown and now even an accused rapist MP both remain in post; Johnson is unlikely to fire Williamson as he thinks he and his Tory cabal can get away with anything. The Tory lies that once supported their fake credibility are being unravelled: the people know this exam fiasco was no ‘levelling up’ exercise, so how much longer will it take to pop the bubble of the ‘borrowed votes’? As I have claimed here many times before, Cummings is a massive threat to our democracy, but he also holds the key to exposing the truth about the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. His links to this latest eugenics scandal could enlighten the public to the extreme danger that he poses: we need him gone. Cummings is the grenade; oust him and you pull the pin! DO NOT MOVE ON!

[SA]

Cimaron
All very good and wholesome. But Carole instead of sticking to fact attacks two soft targets, without evidence, Russia and Wikileaks, obviously to ingratiate herself to the neoliberals. Interestingly neither she nor the Observer bothered to apply their investigations to the way clearly foreign powers interfered with the 2019 elections and how the red wall magically collapsed. I have not seen a similar attack on the 2019 election results.

[cimarrón]

Kim, I agree that Carole Cadwalladr is somewhat compromised by the Integrity Initiative connection. Unfortunately, her Twitter response to criticism on this was very weak – https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1074356097870389255

SA, I agree with your points about Carole Cadwalladr’s attacks on Russia and Wikileaks and her failure to investigate the suspect 2019 election result.

My point, though, is that the methods she has highlighted regarding very specifically targetted Facebook advertising represent some of the techniques which Cummings and his data manipulation contacts are using to generate the results they want in referendums and elections.

I believe that the main thrust of the 2019 election coup was via postal vote manipulation. However, closely-targetted Facebook advertising is obviously a powerful technique, and one of which everyone needs to be aware.

[SA]

cimarrón
“I believe that the main thrust of the 2019 election coup was via postal vote manipulation. However, closely-targetted Facebook advertising is obviously a powerful technique, and one of which everyone needs to be aware.”

I agree with you but this was done in broad daylight because it was very clear that the press will not investigate. Carole having discovered these techniques for the leave vote, hers and the Observer’s pet hate, seems not to be taking up the cause for the lost 2019 election. This is selective virtue signalling.

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

Cimarrón – SA – You are right to point out that it’s curious we “have not seen a similar attack on the 2019 election results.” I remain conflicted about where Cadwalladr’s allegiance might lie, but have seriously considered getting in touch to ask her to investigate. What you wrote made me realize that, with the inside knowledge she already has, surly she should be hot on the case already. In reality no one should need to persuade her that the result of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election was so completely illogical and unfathomable that it reeks of industrial scale fraud. The lack of evidence supporting the various Russian conspiracies and WikiLeaks demonstrate an investigative blind-spot that aligns with the Integrity Initiative, but I cannot comprehend why she is onboard with them at all as it appears to conflict with her whole motivation for defending our endangered democracy. It’s hard to believe that anyone was fooled by the propaganda attempting to legitimize the 2019 vote, but we will only determine Cadwalladr’s take on this by contacting her.

A CSW Civil Service World Article entitled, “Hancock confirms Public Health England axed with test and trace boss Dido Harding to lead replacement body,” imparted the extraordinary news. It said, “Harding will be interim head of the National Institute for Health Protection, which will aim to tackle threats like biological weapons and pandemics.” The tiny word ‘aim’ is extremely useful to inept Tory Government Ministers like current Health Secretary Mat Hancock: ‘aim’ leaves ample scope for future failures and the wholesale fudging of public expectation. In a sudden move that is universally understood to be an effort to erase the catastrophic Covid crisis healthcare failures of his recent past Hancock decided to ‘disappear’ the agency involved so that no one was left in a position where they could be held accountable for the huge unnecessary loss of life. “Matt Hancock has confirmed Public Health England is being scrapped and replaced by a new body to protect the nation’s health ‘now and in the future’.”

As if this radical announcement wasn’t controversial enough Hancock proceeded to drop another bombshell with his choice to lead this ill defined new Quango. He said, “Baroness Dido Harding, who currently heads up NHS test and trace, will provide interim leadership for the new National Institute for Health Protection.” CSW said that, “Setting out his plans for a shake-up of the public health system in a speech to the Policy Exchange think tank, Hancock said: ‘The changes that I am announcing today are designed entirely to strengthen our response’.” His wording was deeply troubling, bearing in mind that Public Health England’s remit ranges well beyond the confines of ‘response’ to encompass a whole range of preventative strategies that are essential to reducing unnecessary burdens on our NHS. Everything from early screening, to smoking sensation, drug and alcohol programs and the Governments latest crusade for deflecting blame over the horrific Covid death toll through ‘fat shaming;‘ these were all handled by PHE.

CSW dispassionately reported on the situation as, “Defending scrapping PHE in the middle of the pandemic, the health secretary said: ‘We are making the change now because we must do everything we can to fulfil our responsibilities to the public, to strengthen public health in the UK’.” But CSW didn’t fail to notice the coded message in that statement saying that, “PHE has been criticised by ministers for its response to Covid-19,” and leaving the reader to consider why the Health Secretary might have considered it an opportune moment to ‘scuttle the ship’ before any post Covid inquiry had a chance to expose the catalogue of policy errors that had caused so much unnecessary carnage.

CSW report, “Announcing the formation of the NIHP, the cabinet minister said: ‘To give ourselves the best chance of beating this virus and spotting and tackling other external health threats now and in the future, we need to bring together the science and the skill into one coherent whole.” Hancock said, “The National Institute for Health Protection will have a single and relentless mission: protecting people from external threats to this country’s health… like biological weapons, pandemics and, of course, infectious diseases of all kinds.” It was as if he was trying to reinforce the British exceptionalism hype by stressing ‘external threats’ as if all bad stuff comes from the bad guys overseas. Like the Russian threat polluting our undemocratic elections with disinformation and the Chinese spying on us via 5G, the terrorist threat, immigrants and refugees… it serves the Tory Government to stoke paranoia detracting from a genuine threat posed by Tory propaganda to support the perpetual exploitation and neglect of our population as the wealthy elite asset strip the nation.

CSW reported that, “Hancock said England’s public health system would learn from South Korea and Germany’s Robert Koch Institute ‘where their health protection agencies have a huge, primary, focus on pandemic response’.” So that’s a ‘lessons learned’ model adopted by a Tory Government incapable of learning from their past mistakes and far too arrogantly ‘world beating’ to even trust the WHO, let alone build on the success stories of better prepared well governed countries overseas. They say, “It will combine the existing ‘talent and science infrastructure’ of PHE with NHS test and trace and the work of the Joint Biosecurity Centre, and be dedicated ‘to the investigation and prevention of infectious diseases and external health threats’.” On no, not more ‘guided by the science’ excuses from the same team that supported the discredited science of unvaccinated ‘Herd Immunity’ and Dominic Cummings’s warped emphasis on eugenics; what could possibly go wrong?

In praise of notorious Tory serial failure, “He said from today, PHE, the JBC and NHS test and trace will operate under a single leadership, reporting to Harding, who will establish the NIHP and ‘undertake the global search for its future leadership’.” I am sure she’s been promised a rich departure sum for when she has finally driven the project into the ground in preparation for a major sell out to a US Healthcare Corporation. He blathered on, “I have no doubt that under Baroness Harding we will found the NIHP as a thriving, mission-driven organisation.” No doubt he was instructed not to use the words ‘world beating, but his hype was in that vein, “We have a common mission, the greatest mission of any of our working lives, and we have no time to lose in building the institution of the future.” Tory Ministers must know ‘where to bury the bodies’ and when to ‘scuttle the ship.’ Public Health England had to go ASAP as there would be damaging information exposed when an inquiry looked into the shocking policy errors of Covid.

CSW pointed out the folly saying, “There has been criticism of the decision to award the job to the Tory peer, who has no prior public health experience and was boss of mobile phone giant TalkTalk when it was fined £400,000 after the personal and banking details of thousands of its customers were accessed in a serious data breach.” They then quoted the scathing criticism of others, “Dr Michael Head, a senior research fellow in global health at Southampton University, told The Guardian her new role ‘makes about as much sense as [chief medical officer] Chris Whitty being appointed the Vodafone head of branding and corporate image’.” Labour shadow minister Jess Phillips said: “What the hell does Dido Harding know about cervical screening, substance misuse, sexual health, contraception, smoking cessation, obesity or even pandemic planning? This from government who brought you the death of 10% of care home residents and long drives for eye tests.”

While Boris Johnson hides in a Scottish tent it seems the Captain of Capitulation our knight in rusting armour, Keir Starmer, might have crawled under a rock! How was such a massive shake up of our beleaguered Healthcare system waved through without the slightest intervention from Parliament? This wasn’t included in the Tory Manifesto and even the consummate lying king of spin, our hapless part-time Prime Minister couldn’t be bothered to deliver this latest disastrous pitch. This decision must have come from the very top, so why would Cummings want to pester the PM while he was on holiday? It was better to keep Johnson hidden in times of crisis and the exam grading scandal had yet to blow over. Even the Torygraph ripped into the Government over the appointment of Harding due to her obvious lack of experience and total unsuitability for the job.

Is this another of Boris Johnson’s ‘Titanic success’s;’ deliberately doomed from the outset in order to help sink the NHS and leave the wreckage to be pillaged and picked over by our new US masters after the calamity of crash-out Brexit? CSW reported on calls for sanity, Liberal Democrat health spokeswoman Munira Wilson said: “We need to have total transparency in how appointments of this kind are made, rather than promoting a Tory insider who’s been responsible for the sub-par test and trace system.” This Tory Government are committed to the removal of transparency, scrutiny, integrity and all forms of accountability: we must fight back. CSW noted that, “Christina Marriott, chief executive of the Royal Society for Public Health, meanwhile said the planned changes would leave health officials ‘with more questions than answers. We question the timing of an announcement to scrap our national public health agency in the midst of a global pandemic and before any public inquiry any has started, let alone reported,’ she said.”

Identifying the underlying reason for the move CSW reported Marriott saying, “We recognise that there have been some serious challenges in terms of our response to Covid-19, including the timing of the lockdown, the ongoing ineffectiveness of Tier 2 track and trace and postcode-level data previously not being available to DPHs. Multiple lessons need to be learnt before solutions can be in place in advance of the winter. To do otherwise risks avoidable mistakes in subsequent waves of the pandemic which will only harm the public’s health further.” CSW said, “Marriott argued that successive governments had ‘sidelined’ public health, with public health budgets ‘slashed’ under the coalition government. It may be appropriate for the functions to sit in different agencies – but clear accountability for outcomes in health improvement, health inequalities and health protection must be established.”

In another Civil Service World Article entitled, “McKinsey banks £560,000 consulting on ‘vision, purpose and narrative’ for new test and trace body – DHSC drafted in consultancy to help plan permanent organisation to manage coronavirus programme,” the plot thickens. Is Hancock just making this up as he goes along? CSW report, “A contract document, made public ahead of today’s announcement that test and trace chief Baroness Dido Harding will lead a new National Institute for Health Protection, shows the Department of Health and Social Care enlisted McKinsey’s help in May to consult on what the organisation should look like.” “Building on the work to establish a national testing programme, the programme is now being expanded into a comprehensive NHS Test and Trace service. While this service is being rapidly stood up to meet near term objectives, work is required to develop options for the longer term future of the organisation responsible for this and associated services,” the document says.

It really is sounding like a ‘back of a fag packet’ creation as CSW report, “The objectives of this work are to define options for: the vision, purpose and narrative; end-to-end journeys; organisation, roles and talent; interfaces and governance; and integrated roadmap all for the medium-term entity”. They say, “A business plan for test and trace was published at the end of last month, shortly after the work was completed, setting out objectives for the organisation. The plan said test and trace should provide rapid and accessible large-scale testing; conduct research into antibodies and immunity; deliver a resilient and stable service; and develop ‘a diverse and engaged workforce’.” Reports so far indicate that the ‘diverse and engaged workforce’ a bored rigid with scant few leads to do follow up on and hours spent feeling guilty about the frustration of doing nothing.

CSW reveal that, “Health secretary Matt Hancock today confirmed test and trace would be combined with the existing ‘talent and science infrastructure’ of PHE and the work of the Joint Biosecurity Centre in the new NIHP. The body will have a ‘single and relentless mission’ to protect the UK from threats such as including infectious diseases and biological weapons, he said.” No doubt new fragrances of Russian ‘perfume’ and even more elaborate and fanciful false flag incidents can be more discreetly managed in house! For more confidence shattering news CSW confirmed that, “It will be led by Harding, a former TalkTalk chief exec who started out her career at McKinsey, and who has led the coronavirus test and trace programme since May. Consultants began working with Harding and other members of the test and trace leadership team on plans for a new, permanent test and trace body the same month.” Dido Harding might just beat ‘failing Grayling’s’ track record for catastrophic screw-ups!

CSW report that, “A contract notice for the deal was published a couple of weeks before reports emerged of plans to scrap and replace PHE. A DHSC spokesperson said the work was non connected to the abolition of the public-health body and that the contract was to consider a range of options for a long-term test and trace organisation.” They admitted that, “Public Health England have played an integral role in our national response to this unprecedented global pandemic. We have always been clear that we must learn the right lessons from this crisis to ensure that we are in the strongest possible position, both as we continue to deal with Covid-19 and to respond to any future public health threat.” The British public have learned the right lessons from this crisis: we should have had a responsible Government in place to deal with the Covid 19 threat by always acting in the publics best interests. Because of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election we have a Tory cabal capitalizing on the disaster to line their own pockets.

CSW report that, “Between May and June, McKinsey was helping to set the design principles and performance objectives for test and trace, as well as ‘user and data journeys across which the organisation will operate’. It also considered potential organisational structures and their pros and cons.” After one failed project you might expect not to get another contract, but Tories are impervious to logical considerations like that. The most disturbing information that CSW reveal is that, “Under the deal, McKinsey is authorised to process personal data for test and trace personnel, contractors, customers, users and suppliers, for seven years after the work is completed. The data includes people’s names and addresses, driving licence details, pay, biometric data, next of kin contacts and medical conditions. Once the work is finished, McKinsey will own all concepts, tools and databases and other outputs it has generated. It has agreed to give DHSC a worldwide, royalty-free licence to use and copy any tools developed through the work.”

Although CSW say that, “The licence is non-exclusive but McKinsey must have DHSC’s permission to share any tools with other organisations or allow them to ‘remove or circumvent’ security or technological safeguards,” this is of little reassurance to the public given Harding’s data breach scandal at Talk-Talk. Cummings will be rubbing his hands with glee, a whole treasure trove of data for him to scavenge and manipulate as he establishes his fully funded AI eugenics nightmare scenario to get inside our heads. Our part-time PM is hiding in the highlands, Starmer has yet to crawl out from under his rock or perhaps he’s still fighting fake demons constructed by the BoD. We cannot wait for so called ‘leaders’ to demonstrate leadership they must be forced to act. The irate youngsters protested and got fair results; we need to harness that rage to demand an Investigation into the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, overturn this latest assault to our NHS and the evil Dom must go. Cummings is the Grenade; oust him and you pull the pin! DO NOT MOVE ON!

[SA]

Thank you for this Kim. I agree with everything you say. We now realise the full scale of the nightmare facing us. A major health service shakedown without wide scale or even parliamentary discussion whilst parliament is suspended and in the middle of a pandemic is the beginning of an experiment whereby the Tories have done away with parliamentary democracy without much of a whimper from Starmer. This is obviously a blueprint for wide scale sell out of the whole NHS.
The rather muted response to this is alarming.

[SA]

Kim
My initial thought about contacting Carole was why bother? I presume you will either be ignored or fobbed off with some anodyne answer. However it may be a good idea, because exposure of double standards by the media is no bad thing.
The ‘establishment’ or the PTB (beloved of conspiracy theorists and an expression I dislike) is not a monolith, it is a disparate group with different agendas and the aims sometimes coincide and sometimes are in conflict. Carole’s association with the II means that she is part of the loose network and the agenda of that part is anti Trump but also anti Russia remainers. The other faction, the Atlanticist Brexiteers are on the ascendant and the conflict between the two is as to whether it is best to throw all our efforts directly and openly behind the US, or to do it indirectly, with some safeguards offered by our European friends. The main aim of the II was to spread anti-Russia and anti Corbyn misinformation and Carole played a good part in that. I think this particular network is probably lower key than the main Luke Harding, security services one that has taken over the Guardian. The picture is that there is a diversity of opposition but in fact the main aim is to preserve the privilege of the ruling class of politicians, serving the interests of the few rather than the many. After all the main scandal about foreign interference in the 2019 elections by two states is there in plain sight and is very well known and documented but totally ignored, and is in fact made into a taboo not to be discussed. Pompeo said it openly, there was no outrage. Others did it in an organised clandestine way, but again no outcry. Good luck to you.

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

SA – As I said before you’re right to draw my attention to why we “have not seen a similar attack on the 2019 election results.” One other thought though is that Cadwalladr one or more of the other investigative Journalists might actually be working on this already’ if so they would not want to break the story until it was well and truly solidified because to go off half cock would wreck a vital opportunity to restore justice. I sometimes wonder if Craig is on to this too. I think we should try to make contact with Cadwalladr and find out where she stands at least. With the inside knowledge she already has, she must have some good contacts as already said, “no one should need to persuade her that the result of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election was so completely illogical and unfathomable that it reeks of industrial scale fraud… it’s hard to believe that anyone was fooled by the propaganda attempting to legitimize the 2019 vote.” Does anyone know how to message her without relying on Twitter?

Cadwalladr knows the power that Cummings can wield by manipulating the public via access to personal data and now Covid has provided the perfect opportunity. The most seriously alarming revelation from the CSW was that, “Under the deal, McKinsey is authorised to process personal data for test and trace personnel, contractors, customers, users and suppliers, for seven years after the work is completed.” They will be gaining access to data they have no legitimate need of; it’s closer to the data points Cummings requires to crawl inside your head. It, “includes people’s names and addresses, driving licence details, pay, biometric data, next of kin contacts and medical conditions. Once the work is finished, McKinsey will own all concepts, tools and databases and other outputs it has generated. It has agreed to give DHSC a worldwide, royalty-free licence to use and copy any tools developed through the work.” This contract represents a data gold mine for the Dom; Cadwalladr should be hot on his case, but no one seems to care.

The Johnson/Cummings Tory Government pick ‘D’ for Dido Harding to join their disastrous line-up of Dunces! Harding is definitely not on a winning streak with regard to her managerial track record. Harding’s dismal failures with organizing the UK Track & Trace system was preceded by her stellar screw-up as CEO of Talk-Talk; earning the worst Customer Service reputation in the industry and suffering a massive, very costly, data breach. It would be a real challenge for Matt Hancock to appoint a more abysmal choice to take charge of this most crucial healthcare role. This jockey, a notorious horse woman, is taking us all for a ride, but we fear she will stumble and fall before the new organization even gets out of the starting blocks, just as she did with the rapidly abandoned ‘world beating’ Covid 19 tracing App! This isn’t a race the Harding Horse should be running, so please PM postpone the disruptive hurdles of a hasty Healthcare shake-up, scraping PHE or more scapegoating during this national crisis and put Dido out to pasture!

I was looking for more information on Dido Harding that might indicate why her catastrophic past managerial failures had not rulled her out of the running for her latest plumb job when I came across a Morning Star Article entitled: “The woman who will sell our NHS to the United States.” With an alarming headline like that I was eager to find out exactly who this privileged woman was and why she had even been considered for the challenging task she has now been assigned with regard to our NHS. They report that, “In the week test and trace has been declared inadequate, Peter Frost finds out a bit more about the woman friend Prime Minister Johnson put in charge. He calls her his Dido.” Frost reveals, “Surprise, surprise, Boris does have a real Dido in his life. How close the couple are is a tightly kept secret, but we do know Prime Minister Johnson has made her chairwoman of NHS Improvement.”

Frost elaborates on the background of Dido aside from the most obvious detail of ‘privileged elite,’ he says, “Her real name is Diana Mary Harding, Baroness Harding of Winscombe. She has long been close mates with Johnson and before him she studied policy, politics and economics at Oxford alongside David Cameron. These long-term political friendships have placed her in the leadership of the corrupt political cabal the runs Britain today. Most people first heard her name when in early May this year Health Secretary Matt Hancock announced that she had been appointed to head up the introduction of the new world-beating coronavirus test and trace system. Later in May the Prime Minister told the House of Commons liaison committee that Dido, as he liked to call her, was a senior NHS executive. This was a strange way to introduce someone who didn’t work for the NHS, had never worked for the NHS and had certainly never been a senior NHS executive. Yes, it was another complete Johnson lie.”

Frost reports that, “In fact she is a businesswoman, with some interesting failures and shortcomings in her business career. But she is married to a Tory MP and close to the Prime Minister — just the qualification you need to be drafted in as something called chair of NHS Improvement. Her husband is John Penrose, Tory MP for Weston-super-Mare. Penrose is a key member of the advisory board of a right-wing Tory think tank called 1828. This think tank argues Britain should scrap the NHS in favour of an insurance-based system. Sounds like the softening-up of British opinion before we sell our wonderful NHS to some US pirate health set-up. 1828 has also called for the abolition of Public Health England, which has a key role in the coronavirus test and trace system now headed by, yes, you guessed it, Dido Harding.” Perhaps, with her track record of failure, Johnson thought Dido was just the right person to oversee grotesque misspending of NHS funds and catastrophic bungling to kill off our precious Healthcare system.

Frost elaborates on Dido’s NHS foray so far, “Harding’s first job was to get test and trace off the ground. Clearly, the world-beating app we had all heard so much about was the key part of test and trace. It failed to test or trace at all and was quietly pushed aside to play a minor support role (ie, no role at all). One reason the test and trace system didn’t work too well was because it isn’t run, as you might expect, by the NHS, but by Serco, the company that has become unbelievably rich from innumerable privatisations and public contracts. Serco has built a strong reputation over the years for inefficiency, money-wasting and not worrying too much about breaking the law. It has already illegally released the email addresses of some of its Covid-19 contact tracers. Many working for test and trace describe it as chaotic, so how the government gave Serco the job is a mystery.” He asks, “Transparent process? Competitive tender? No. Just as puzzling is how the woman Johnson calls Dido came to be in charge of the entire shooting match.”

Frost inquires, “So how did Johnson’s Dido get the job? When you know her background there is little real mystery. Silver spoons and mouths come into her early story. She is the daughter of the late John Charles Harding, 2nd Baron Harding of Petherton, an army officer and hereditary peer. She went to a private school and Oxford, where one of her friends was David Cameron. A Harvard MBA followed. Always keen on horses down on the pig farm, she became a successful jockey. She worked in a series of jobs until in 2010, for no clear reason, she was appointed as CEO of mobile phone giant TalkTalk. With Dido at the helm, TalkTalk, in October 2015, lost the personal and banking details of about four million of its customers. Harding was severely criticised for her ignorance about hacking and her incompetent response to this disaster. The Information Commissioner’s Office imposed a record fine of £400,000. TalkTalk lost £42 million and over 100,000 customers. Amazingly, CEO Harding kept her job.”

Frost explains how, “Rich Tories, like Dido Harding are rarely content with one job. Certainly she started to collect a few additional large pay packets. In 2014 she became a non-executive director of the Bank of England’s court of directors. At the bank she chairs the committee that decides our nationalised bankers’ pay. Her usual recommendation is ‘shitloads’.” But that’s not all, Frost says, “Ex-jockey Harding also became a director of the Jockey Club, which runs British horseracing.” This was to have special Covid 19 significance with regard to the timing and regulations applied during lockdown. More privilege was bestowed on Dido Harding as Frost reports that, “By now her old pal Cameron had elevated her to the House of Lords. He needed people who, like her, thought that maternity leave is too generous and held a bunch of other equally reactionary opinions. She became Baroness Harding of Winscombe in September 2014. She, of course, took the Tory whip. After all, since 1995 she had been married to a Tory MP.”

Frost says, “By May 2017 Harding had finally left her job at TalkTalk.” The company had earned an atrocious reputation for the worst Customer Service in the industry during her tenure. Frost reports that, “Five months later, despite her disastrous track record, she emerged, after a supposedly open recruitment process, as the minister’s choice for the new post of chair of the board of NHS Improvement. Pay £62,000 for two to three days a week. That would pay for a good few care home workers, many of whom have laid down their lives fighting the virus. Even the House of Commons select committee on health commented on her complete lack of experience of the health world. It also recommended that Harding should give up the Conservative whip in the House of Lords. Did she give it up? Not on your Nelly. It’s a bit unfair to suggest Harding knows nothing about dealing with the coronavirus pandemic.” Frost was about to elaborate on another on her deadly intervention.

Frost revealed the Tory dilemma, “For two weeks in March, Johnson’s government couldn’t make up its mind about the need for a lockdown. The virus rampaged through the country. The decision to allow mass gatherings certainly helped to spread coronavirus faster. The largest of these was the Cheltenham Horseracing Festival, which attracted over a quarter of a million people in March. The Jockey Club’s selfish and disastrous decision not to cancel the festival will rank as one of the worst examples of putting profits ahead of people’s health. Nearly 200 people died of coronavirus in local hospitals after the event, which is also generally believed to have sent hundreds of infected racing fans back to Ireland. Harding was a director of the Jockey Club and racecourse committee director at Cheltenham when the festival went ahead. We know the Jockey Club board lobbied the government to allow the festival to proceed but Harding has refused to talk about her role in this.” That warped health and safety decision increased the death toll!

Frost is sceptical, “Whether Harding will make a success of her current job is open to question. The associated app, trialled on the Isle of Wight, has disappeared without trace. Early reports suggest that Serco’s practical arrangements for recruiting and training trackers are chaotic.” Reports say those employed in contact tracing are given few leads to contact. He says, “No surprise, really. Our Tory masters have dozens of examples of giving failed firms like Serco and G4S plum public contracts loaded with bonuses. Nurses and other healthcare workers of course get public applause in lieu of decent wages. The NHS’s proven management could do the job cheaper and better than Serco but if we give it to the public health professionals there will no shareholder payouts, which are the guiding measure of Tory success. Add to this the fact that over the years the Tory cuts in public spending and reduced funding for local authorities have deliberately weakened the ability of local government to operate public health schemes.”

Frost criticized, “Even when she fails, Harding will simply be given another position in the Tory old boys’ (even if they are girls) network. Today in Britain it is still the same old story. Top jobs come not from ability but from the private education and social connections your parents have bought you. Even in 2020 we have a Cabinet made up in the main of Eton-educated men.” With this Tory Government there is no accountability, as Johnson clings to those who support him and his corrupt cabal. Despite multiple failures, the PM tried to reward ‘failing Grayling’ with another critical position of influence, but his inappropriate appointment was foiled. We were shocked Gavin Williamson even bothered to apologise for his exam grade debacle. We cannot stop demanding the removal of these incompetents, miscreants like Cummings and an unidentified accused Tory rapist. We must continue to demand a full Investigation into the Covert 2019 Rigged Election; one out is not enough, we want this entire Tory Government out of office. DO NOT MOVE ON!

[Clark]

Kim,

I share the frustration you feel. Politics is broken, the ‘news’ media is dominated by propaganda. And I noted this from you elsewhere:

– “My protest outside the High Court in London demonstrates the impression a lone protester cam make with a shit-load of signage. I rarely want to include a photo, but this one tells a thousand words if I only knew how to embed it. The Birdcage protest got press attention; we need to get creative to combat the right-wing media.”

Exactly. Extinction Rebellion (XR) are heading back into London to blockade Parliament starting Tuesday, 1 September. You and XR are ideally suited to each other; please come and join us:

https://extinctionrebellion.uk/uk-rebellion-2020/

If you wish you can contact me; clark at killick1 dot plus dot com, or on oh seven eight nine oh, four five one four eight four.

Love and Rage.

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

Clark – I am really grateful for the support that I feel from other contributors here and it was refreshing to be in direct contact with you the other day. You highlight, “My protest outside the High Court in London demonstrates the impression a lone protester cam make with a shit-load of signage.” Although we should be judicious about inserting photos, this one picture demonstrates the need to think outside the box and become more creative in our protests just as Vivian Westward excelled in her ‘canary in a birdcage’ protest outside the Old Bailey. The biased BBC and rightwing press wanted to ignore the Assange trial, but they couldn’t resist the ‘hook’ of that bizarre front page worthy image as it was just too tempting. We must rise to this challenge to secure media attention against the odds. I don’t go out that much now due to the current limitations, but my greatest contribution remain accessible in my slogans and protest ideas available for adoption by any and all progressive groups as the desire to ramp-up protests accelerates.

Last Monday we discovered that if the public protest loud and long enough this Tory Government, with its worrying fake majority in Parliament, can be forced into making a significant U-Turn to correct damaging policy decisions. Last time it was a plucky young football hero who embarrassed them into shifting track; this time it was thousands of irate young people protesting the injustice of downgrades that could have wrecked their future. I doubt it was due to consideration of how this angry response might affect the future voting intentions of this growing cohort as they have been relentlessly exploited for the last decade and if we fail to protest, Investigate and overturn the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, industrial scale voting fraud will be so well established in the next few years that elections will become irrelevant to the Johnson/Cummings Dictatorship. We must take heed of successful tactics in the long battle ahead because sadly we can no longer rely on the progressive Left Labour opposition we had under Jeremy Corbyn.

I am still trying to fathom how those who religiously cling to the total con trick of so called ‘borrowed votes,’ as perpetrated by the Tory propaganda mill with relentless repetition by an alt-right Media machine, can explain the selection of Keir Starmer as the new Labour Leader? Starmer was the MP who insisted on Labour support for a confirmatory Brexit vote that was supposedly the main driving force that resulted in Labour members ‘lending’ Boris Johnson their vote, so there is absolutely no logical reason why he shouldn’t have been blamed for the election failure instead of being rewarded. This is just one of the square pegs that refuses to be rammed into a round hole as the public are told nothing but a pack of lies in order to maintain the fake legitimacy of the ‘landslide victory’ that never really happened. Now the deceitful ‘levelling up’ lie has been exposed as just Tory PR spin to cover the usual malevolent callous Conservative exploitation and neglect of ‘Decimating Down,’ it’s time to change the narrative on voter fraud too.

But the British people no longer have a trusted Labour Leader dedicated to equality and ready to fight against injustice as Jeremy Corbyn did. A treacherous Trojan horse has taken charge, to gut the Labour Party with divide and rule tactics designed to bury the progressive Left agenda for the foreseeable future. Despite promises to unify and retain the popular policies that swelled the ranks with enthused supporters after winning the top spot Starmer can now ditch the pretence that gained him votes and drag the Labour Party to the jingoistic, Zionist, elitist right and political oblivion. His weak performances at PMQs and his determination to support the shambolic Tory handling of the Covid 19 crisis have alarmed us all. But, worst of all his total subservience to the demands of the Zionists in the BoD, sacking Long-Bailey on a pretext and then offering a grovelling apology and massive payout in capitulation to John Ware’s ‘Poison Dart Blowers’ over the Panorama hatchet job, which will now open the Party up to countless lawsuits.

This would have been a disgraceful performance for a leader without any legal training, but in Starmer’s case his flawed decisions reek of deliberate sabotage since this disastrous, destructive miscalculation was the work of a seasoned Lawyer with much touted ‘forensic’ legal analytical skills. Why was Starmer able to go against the advice of the Legal team handling the case in Court, who assured him that Labour would win? Starmer should have immediately recognized the Ware lawsuit as a classic SLAPP case that they would not dare bring to Court. How could Starmer not have anticipated that this unjust settlement would generate a rush to cash in on the unsupported admission of guilt over the anti-Semitism smear campaign? In a 7th of August article that appeared on the World Socialist Web Site, Thomas Scripps provided critical background information on Starmer that should really have served as a warning to members of the Labour Party when he asked, “Who is the new UK Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer?”

Telling it like it is, in the article Scripps says that, “the election of Sir Keir Starmer marks the return to a business-as-usual Blairism shorn of any socialist pretensions. Starmer’s campaign sought to trade heavily on his early career as a Doughty Street lawyer, defending human rights and trade union cases—the aim being to spin out of these efforts to hold capitalism to its own laws a radical persona.” How many were so easily fooled by Starmer’s fake façade of Socialism into voting for him to lead the Labour Party, despite a chequered career and a centrist voting history? According to Scripps, “The real measure of Starmer’s politics is the fact that this youthful flirtation with the pseudo-left was no obstacle to his acceptance by the security services into the highest echelons of the British state, becoming Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in 2008. Once appointed, this millionaire ‘radical lawyer’ fitted seamlessly into the state apparatus and the defence of its crimes.” In reality he hasn’t budged an inch since then!

Scripps highlights the appalling injustice of Keir Starmer’s legal decisions in the past, recalling how, “Three years earlier, on July 22, 2005, the Metropolitan police had killed electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent man, with seven shots to the head in an underground train carriage. He had been misidentified as a terrorist in the aftermath of the July 7 London bombings. In 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), under the leadership of DPP Sir Ken MacDonald, refused to prosecute any officer involved. After the police’s account of what happened on the day was comprehensively demolished, a 2008 inquest jury into Menezes’s killing returned an open verdict, refusing to rule that the police acted lawfully. They had been barred by the coroner from reaching a verdict of unlawful killing. Starmer, as the new DPP, nonetheless approved the decision not to prosecute any of the police officers involved.” So it’s little wonder that Starmer wants to downplay and insultingly marginalize the current Black Lives Matter protests!

But Scripps reveals more saying of Starmer that, “He tried to do the same in 2011 in the case of Ian Tomlinson, a father of nine who was brutally attacked by police officer Simon Harwood in 2009. Harwood hit Tomlinson, who was walking with his hands in his pockets in the other direction, across the back of the legs with a baton. Tomlinson was unable to break his fall, causing fatal internal bleeding to his liver shortly afterwards. Fifteen months later, Starmer announced that Harwood would not be prosecuted. The CPS was forced to proceed a few months later when an inquest jury found that Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed.” There are similar disturbing revelations about the newly selected Democratic choice for Vice President in the US. Kamala Harris had a damaging track record of prosecutions that targeted wrongly convicted offenders and punished minorities and the working poor by ruthlessly prosecuting parents for the truancy of their children proving that ‘tough on crime’ has always been a great electioneering sales pitch.

Ethical retailer Lush launched a well publicized campaign to expose the “Spycops” scandal and a Canary Article, “a message to anyone thinking of voting for Keir Starmer in the Labour Leadership race,” exposed his involvement. Scripps says that, “In 2011, Starmer was in court to witness the collapse of a trial of environmental activists after the involvement of undercover police officer Mark Kennedy was revealed. The case began the ‘Spycops’ scandal, which has since exposed the extensive, long-term infiltration of left-wing and environmentalist groups by police agents, who grossly abused the rights of campaigners and perverted the course of justice in countless court cases. The CPS is suspected of having been closely involved. As DPP, Starmer refused to pursue the matter. Referring to an in-house CPS investigation, he accepted the manifestly untrue: ‘If Sir Christopher Rose had found systemic problems, then I would quite accept perhaps a retrospective look at all the cases.’ But he didn’t, he found individual failings.”

Scripps points out that, “Starmer was no less reliable on the crimes of British imperialism. Under his direction, the CPS refused to prosecute MI5 and MI6 personnel in 2010, 2011 and 2012. The agents were suspected of participating in CIA extraordinary rendition programmes and the torture of detainees in Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan. Most infamously, in 2013 the CPS pressured Swedish prosecutors into maintaining a fraudulent investigation into WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as a pretext for securing his arbitrary detention in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Uncovered emails show Starmer’s department writing to their Swedish counterparts, “Don’t you dare get cold feet!” Starmer’s undoubted jingoistic support for the Military Industrial Complex has earned him the trust of Tories, but the alarm of progressive Labour members who now realize that Sir Keir is a treacherous Trojan horse riding into their midst to betray and sabotage all of the achievements of the Corbyn era; Starmer’s craven capitulation to John Ware on behalf of the Zionist lobby leaves us in no doubt.

Starmer is eager to ditch Labour’s economic policies too. According to Scripps, “The new Labour leader also proved himself a pliant tool of the coalition and Tory governments during their reign of austerity. After major student demonstrations in 2010 against the planned trebling of tuition fees were met with a brutal police crackdown, Starmer implemented new guidelines to encourage the prosecution of protestors. They read: ‘Prosecutors should have particular regard to whether there is evidence that a person had come to the protest equipped with clothes or mask to prevent identification, items that could be considered body protection, or an item that can be used as a weapon…’ The terms were kept deliberately vague to allow virtually any hand-held object or face covering to be used as a pretext for an arrest. His guidelines were designed to prepare the state for the implementation of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government’s vicious spending cuts and the mass opposition they would provoke.”

Scripps reports that, “Explaining his actions, Starmer told the Guardian at the time, ‘There’s a potential for a number of protests over the coming years that may be quite large…’ Following the London riots in 2012 and the rubber-stamp sentencing of over 1,000 young people, Starmer praised the efforts to rush defendants through the courts: ‘For me it was the speed that I think may have played some small part in bringing the situation back under control.’ He visited Highbury Magistrates Court in North London in the early hours of the morning to boost the morale of the prosecutors and praise their efficiency. In 2013, after Tory Chancellor George Osborne launched a gutter-press campaign against ‘benefits cheats,’ Starmer issued guidelines for the CPS allowing those accused of improperly drawing social security to be charged under the Fraud Act. This allowed for sentences of up to 10 years. He also removed the financial threshold on sending cases to Crown Court, meaning even the smallest ‘ofences’ could be punished with long-term jail time.”

Scripps recalls how, “In 2014, Starmer was granted a knighthood for his services. A year later he was elected to the safe London Labour seat of Holborn and St Pancras. The same pro-capitalist, pro-state politics has characterised his parliamentary career. In 2015, Sir Keir abstained from the vote on the Tory Welfare Bill, which left 13 million of the most vulnerable people in society an average of £260 a year poorer. The year after, he voted for retaining the Trident nuclear weapons system, against an ‘Investigation into Contrasts Between Public Statements and Private Policy’ in the Iraq War, and for the Investigatory Powers Bill—better known as the Snoopers’ Charter. As shadow home office minister, Starmer spearheaded what he called a ‘constructive engagement’ between Labour and the Tory government to get this mass surveillance law on the books.” None of Starmer’s voting history chimes with the beliefs and sentiments of the vast majority of current Labour members, who if they knew better would label him a Tory.

Then there was the ‘Chicken Coup’ debacle in which Starmer demonstrated his dislike an opposition to Corbyn. Scripps reports that, “The same year, Starmer joined the likes of Hilary Benn in resigning from the front bench to begin a coup of Labour MPs against the newly elected leader of the party, Jeremy Corbyn. During the subsequent leadership election, Starmer backed Blairite nonentity Owen Smith. Starmer’s leadership team includes Matt Pound, the head of right-wing pressure group Labour First, born out of the witch hunt of left-wing party members in the 1980s. After the 2016 leadership challenge, Starmer made full use of Corbyn’s prostration before the right and appeals for party unity to take up the role of Shadow Brexit Secretary. He used this position to champion a policy for maintaining British capitalism’s relationship with the European Union, working in alliance with pro-EU sections of the Tory Party.” Few details of his negotiating stance were made public, but Sir Keir Starmer gained credibility and attention.

It was not long after Starmer managed to secure his place at the top that the strong signals of betrayal became evident to those who had foolishly voted for him. Scripps says, “Now Labour leader, he has signalled his readiness to join a full-blown government of national unity with the Tories, in response to the coronavirus crisis. Starmer’s shadow cabinet appointments have already won the praise of their Tory counterparts, with new Shadow Home Secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds posting on Twitter: ‘My first act as Shadow Home Secretary has been to speak to [Home Secretary Priti Patel] this evening about the public health emergency we face and the constructive dialogue that is going to be needed in the days and weeks ahead.’ Other shadow cabinet appointments include former leader Ed (‘austerity lite’, ‘controls on immigration’ mugs) Miliband and arch-Blairites Rachel Reeves and Lord Falconer.” It is obvious that the Tories approve of this lurch to the right as it is reflected in BBC and media accolades.

Scripps reports that, “Corbyn loyalists Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Barry Gardiner, Ian Lavery and Jon Trickett were removed, and Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott jumped before being pushed. The political chameleon and loyal flunkey Rebecca Long-Bailey as Shadow Education Secretary is the supposed ‘flag-bearer’ of the ‘left’.” Starmer took the earliest possible opportunity to remove this token progressive from his front bench on the flimsiest of Zionist appeasement grounds showing he is in lock-step with the BoD. He adds, “Corbyn spent the best part of five years strangling a popular movement against austerity and war, in a stated attempt to prevent the total collapse of a discredited party of third-rate, right-wing politicians. The fruit of his labour is the election of a backroom state functionary to the Labour leadership.” Saying, “Starmer will make a fitting figurehead for the party’s final descent into political oblivion.” We must all hope that he is wrong and Starmer’s poor performance will see him challenged and ousted.

By the time Labour launched their Leadership contest Keir Starmer had already gained a lot of public attention and valuable name recognition due to his role as the chief Labour representative in the negotiations over Brexit. This appointment won him credibility among a predominantly pro-remain contingent within the Labour Party, but he also gained acceptance as a tolerable ally among Tories opposed to a hard Brexit. However, it is logical to assume that Labour Leave supporting Party members would probably have felt compelled to punish Starmer in the Labour Leadership contest. Those who supposedly ‘lent’ their votes to Boris Johnson to “Get Brexit Done” in its most destructive iteration, would have taken the opportunity of retained Labour Party membership to show their disdain for the MP who was most responsible for Labour’s openness to holding a second referendum. So one of the above scenarios must be incorrect: either Starmer’s Brexit stance was immaterial to Labour voters or the “borrowed votes” spin is just a big fat lie!

If progressive politics is to have any hope of surviving this crisis we must aggressively campaign to change the false Tory narrative that the BBC and mainstream media are so eager to push. We can disarm the Tory rhetoric: when “strong and stable” became a point of public ridicule for robotic May, she dropped it like a hot potato. The fake “Borrowed Votes” are just “Stolen Votes;” “Levelling up” must become “Decimating Down” and the “Red Wall” is now the “Tory Sinkhole!” Although I am not accomplished in blurting out pithy quips on Twitter this can prove a very useful tool in the hands of someone like Rachael @Swindon, with a progressive Left following online. We still need to convince Carole Cadwalladr, or any other professional investigative Journalist, to expose the truth about Covert 2019 Rigged Election and it would really be a plus if the Led by Donkeys’ team took up our cause. Anyone who has the contacts to direct these people to this Forum or put them in touch with me will be doing us all a really great service. DO NOT MOVE ON!

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

On Monday the 17th of Aug 2020 Dr. Malcolm Segall wrote a letter addressed to Sir Keir Starmer that was printed in the Jewish Voice for Labour and is copied in its entirety here. The JVL presentation of this letter doesn’t just express the frustration of a British Jew who naively voted for Starmer in the hope of securing Labour Party unity, he is among the tens of thousands, deeply frustrated and dismayed by the subsequent actions of Keir Starmer now he is in office as Leader of the Opposition. No one feels reassure by his myopic preoccupation with an issue that has already achieved its primary goal of removing Jeremy Corbyn and crippling the progressive Labour Left. Just like playground bullies, no amount of appeasement or grovelling apologies will ever be sufficient to end the attacks. Starmer’s cowardly capitulation in the Ware Court case has presented an open invitation to liars and fraudsters to go after the weakened Labour Party in the hope of a massive payout: this is a brutally destructive storm of Starmer’s own making!

Jewish Voice for Labour introduce us to the letter’s author by saying of him, “Malcolm Segall trained as a paediatrician in UK and became Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health in the new University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. He became Fellow of the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, from where he researched health systems in low income countries, and worked with governments and international agencies to develop public health services in Africa (including newly-liberated Mozambique, newly-liberated Zimbabwe and post-apartheid South Africa) as well as in Vietnam and China. He is now retired.” This is his open letter to Keir Starmer.

“Dear Keir, I’m sorry for the delay in sending you this letter, but I have been poorly. Still belatedly I am writing because I want you to know that I, as a Jewish member of the Labour Party, characterise Israel as an expansionist, settler-colonial, ethnocratic, apartheid State, which has occupied, illegally expropriated, and may be on the point of formally annexing land belonging to the indigenous Palestinian people, who are deprived of their political rights. Do you think this characterisation of the Israeli State makes me antisemitic? I don’t. And I’d like to tell you why.

First then: what does the word antisemitism means? The Oxford English Dictionary defines antisemitism as ‘prejudice, hostility or discrimination toward Jewish people on religious, cultural or ethnic grounds.’ That sounds pretty good to me. How about you? So the reason I think my characterisation of the Israeli State is not antisemitic is because it says nothing whatsoever about the Jewishness of the State’s leadership nor of the now majority population of the country. It is based entirely on objective and observable facts of the policies and actions of the State involved. In other words, we (and I mean we) should not conflate Jewish ethnicity with the political behaviour of a foreign country.

Why am I going on about this now? Because it seems to me (and believe me to many members of our party) that this conflation must be the explanation for your extraordinary reaction to a passing comment made by Maxine Peake in a newspaper interview. This is not only important in its own right, but is the very conflation that has also mischaracterised our party as being riddled with institutional antisemitism, that has led to good party members being unjustifyingly accused, suspended or expelled, and that was so damaging to us in the recent general election. You have the deserved reputation for forensic dissection of arguments. So I’m going to a take a leaf out of your book and tease apart the different issues that are at stake here.

Let’s start then with the Maxine Peake incident. This has well been publicised and I need only summarise it here. Maxine made the comment that Israeli secret services have trained US police in the kneeling technique that led to the death of George Floyd and you said that this constituted an ‘antisemitic conspiracy theory’. It is widely acknowledged that Israeli forces have trained the security forces of a number of countries, including the US in, among other things, restraining techniques and it is also documented that Israeli forces have employed the kneeling technique to restrain Palestinians. What is not known is that Israeli forces taught that particular technique to US police, so Maxine’s wording was loose and she has withdrawn the comment. But the issue for us here is that, even as the comment stood, there is no way that this criticism of Israeli forces could remotely be construed as antisemitic (let alone a conspiracy theory) since there was no suggestion at all that the criticism was because the people doing the training forces were Jewish.

That comment of yours, conflating Israeli actions with Jewishness was completely illegitimate, for reasons I have pointed out above. So what were you thinking of? Was it a momentary aberration of muddled thinking or was it deliberate to send out an underlying message and, if so, to whom? You said you made the comment in order to reassure the ‘Jewish community’. What ‘Jewish community’ is that? Could it be the ‘Jewish community’ that the Board of Deputies (BoD)) of British Jews claims to represent? The deputies are elected by synagogues and other communal organisations, but some half of the roughly 300,000 British Jews do not have synagogue membership and a quarter of them self-describe as secular. So any implication that the BoD represents the collective views of Jews in Britain is far from the truth.

Could it be that you are trying to placate the BoD and related pro-Israeli lobby groups such as their affiliate, the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM)? The JLM has been affiliated also to the Labour Party for 100 years, though for most of that time it was known as – what it actually is – as Poale Zion (Labour Zionist Movement). Its remit includes the promotion of self-determination of the Jewish people within the State of Israel and promotion of the centrality of Israel in Jewish life. These and related groups ran a relentless campaign, ably supported by the right wing press, of disinformation and lies about Jeremy’ Corbyn’s alleged tolerance of antisemitism in the Labour Party and even his being guilty of antisemitic acts himself. So is it that you are trying to earn relief from such relentless pressure?

The problem is that if you give into playground bullies, they only bully you more. There’s no better example than the BoD’s demand that the then Labour leadership contenders must sign up to its 10 pledges, which include (I paraphrase): that Labour should only relate to the ‘Jewish community’ though its ‘main representatives’ (meaning principally themselves), that these representatives should have effective supervision of the handling of complaints of antisemitism, and that JLM should be engaged to teach party members what antisemitism means – can you imagine what their curriculum will be?! Well, the answer to that rhetorical question is to be found in Pledge 6. I quote this in full because it is central to the purpose of this letter: “The IHRA definition of antisemitism, with all its examples and clauses, and without any caveats, will be fully adopted by the party and used as the basis for considering antisemitism disciplinary cases.” What an absolute chutzpah this all is! Is the Labour Party to become a vassal of a self-interested pressure groups? And what is worse is that you signed up to this.

So we’d better examine what exactly is this IHRA document defining antisemitism? I’m sure you studied this in forensic detail before you signed up to it but, if I may, I’ll just refresh your memory. The document has quite a long history. Essentially the same text was considered as long ago as 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and later inherited by the Centre’s successor, the Fundamental Rights Agency, but no decision was ever made to adopt it. It was then finally adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. So what is the IHRA? It is effectively an intergovernmental task force, with at the time just 33 participating governments. The antisemitism document produced by the task force was actually adopted by only 8 of the 33 participating governments and 2 of 9 observer governments – which is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

What of the IHRA document itself? It comprises a definition of antisemitism and 11 illustrative examples. The definition is described as a “working definition” which is “non-legally binding” and the examples could be considered antisemitic but only in certain contexts, which are unspecified. It certainly reads like a working document because a lot of the writing is unclear and confusing, leaving much room for interpretation. But despite the apparently unfinalised nature of the document, it has been seized upon cynically by people wishing to extend the definition of antisemitism to include anything other t¬¬han trivial criticism of Israel. Let’s see that now.

The preoccupation of the IHRA document with Israel is shown by the fact that 7 of the 11 examples relate to the State of Israel. The most contentious of the examples is that it would be antisemitic to claim that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour. This example was resisted initially by the Labour Party, which finally caved in to persistent bullying. The wording “a State of Israel” in the example is very strange. It might have made some sense before 1948 as a kind of exercise of hypothetical model building. But now there is only one State of Israel. So is it racist? Ask the Palestinians.

Twenty percent of the population of Israel proper are Palestinian citizens. Putting aside for this purpose the situation of the occupied territories (including the siege of Gaza and the illegal expansions in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights), since 1948 Israeli Palestinians have been subject to the political control of the Jewish majority. This de facto control changed to de jure in July 2018 when the Knesset passed the Nation State Law, which embedded Jewish hegemony structurally into the constitution of the country. The law established officially that Israel is the Nation State of the Jewish people and the Jewish people alone. This meant that, while Palestinian citizens have equal individual civil and human rights, they have no political rights as a people.

Any state which defines political rights on the basis of ethnicity, as distinct from citizenship, is – in and of itself – racist. This is not a matter of opinion. The Nation State Law applies not only to Jews in Israel. Jews worldwide have the ‘right of return’ to Israel and the right to gain citizenship, while no such rights are afforded to the 700,000 Palestinian refugees (and their descendants) who fled or were expelled from the country in 1948, leaving behind their land and possessions. So, Keir, are you really going along with such a distorted, politically tendentious ‘definition’ of antisemitism. If so, you will be selling the Palestinian people down the river. What happened to Robin Cook’s ethical foreign policy?

Now finally, what about your peremptory sacking of Rebecca from the opposition front bench for not instantly withdrawing her tweet of her constituent Maxine’s published interview and before she had a chance to speak to you? To draw on Shakespeare’s Mark Anthony: Oh, what a fall was there, my fellow party members! Rebecca was a first class Shadow Business Secretary with her Green New Deal. She gave a very creditable speech in Parliament as your Shadow Education Secretary laying out what needed to be done for schools to reopen safely. Don’t you see your sacking Rebecca on such flimsy grounds has driven a coach and horses through your claim to want to unite the party? Or is it that you actually just don’t care? Keir, I voted for you in the recent leadership election. So, please, now be a mensch, do the right thing: reconsider your current acceptance of conflation of antisemitism with any telling criticism of Israel, and reinstate Rebecca to a role on the front bench.” The letter is signed “In solidarity Malcolm.”

The boy who cried wolf was ultimately devoured by that hungry wolf predator when, due to his prior deception, his cries were no longer heeded. False protestations of anti-Semitism do absolutely nothing to protect members of the Jewish community from any genuine threats of anti-Semitism or ethnic targeting and they might be making this community a lot more vulnerable to attack. In reality people with unsavoury views might have gained the false impression that they were welcome to become members of the Labour Party while the management team have been forced to battle against a fake enemy detracting from more important goals. As one observer cynically remarked that, within an allegedly institutionally racist party declared systemically anti-Semitic, it was not exactly a resounding policy success to have been compelled, in the previous Labour Party Leadership contest, to choose between two of the Jewish sons of Jewish immigrants who fled the holocaust!

Malcolm Segall’s heartfelt letter to Keir Starmer is far more than just a simple request to reinstate the Labour Shadow Education Secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, as it so accurately dissects the ludicrous premise under which so many loyal Labour Party members have been falsely demonized none more so than former Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. Starmer has embraced the ultra-extremist Israeli lobby Zionist cause with avengeance; ramping-up the fabricated anti-Semitism witch-hunt with the fervour of a truly obsessed zealot. With his ruthless ‘my way or the highway’ attitude there is now an attempt to shut down debate over this ongoing controversy in Constituency Labour Party meetings, but this effort to gag party members is destined to fail because there is strong support for the plight of Palestinians. Starmer cannot claim to be eliminated racism within the Labour Party while actively promoting the BoD’s agenda that wholeheartedly endorses state subjugation and persecution of 20% of Israel’s citizens on ethnic grounds.

In the Open Democracy Article entitled, “Labour should ditch the IHRA working definition of antisemitism altogether,” Anthony Lerman discusses, “We need to understand the history of this attempt to define antisemitism.” He elaborates that , “In politics, neutralising a toxic controversy and moving on by taking a strategic decision to retreat, withdraw or compromise, may be a prudent course of action. But if this is what members of Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC) are planning to do today by ditching the amendments it made to some examples of antisemitism in the guidance notes of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) ‘working definition’ of antisemitism, and embracing the entire text lock, stock and barrel, they would be party to a travesty of justice.” In his opinion, “The more the definition is held up to the light and subject to public scrutiny, the more we see holes and cracks in its flimsy fabric.”

Furthermore Lerman claims that, “Not only is there now overwhelming evidence that it’s not fit for purpose, but it also has the effect of making Jews more vulnerable to antisemitism, not less, and exacerbating the bitter arguments Jews have been having over the nature of contemporary antisemitism for the last 20 to 25 years. Arguments that are inextricably linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict and generated by two questions: Are there forms of criticism of Israel which equate to antisemitism? If so, where is the line between ‘legitimate’ criticism and criticism that spills over into antisemitic hate speech? We should no longer be quibbling over the dodgy nature of some of the examples in the counterproductive explanatory text that follows the IHRA definition, in a futile attempt to reconcile adoption of the definition with protecting the last vestiges of freedom of speech about Israel-Palestine.”

Lerman says, “We should rather be telling the unvarnished truth: no definition ever saved a Jew from experiencing antisemitism. It’s time to abandon this tainted and deeply flawed text and instead seek to codify and implement far more widely, commensurate with the danger racism poses today, the tried and tested methods of combating racism developed by anti-racist groups on the front lines of this struggle. And yet, a misguided or misapplied prudence looks certain to hold sway. Relentless pressure from inside and outside the party to get the NEC to abandon its amendments to the examples, coupled with a constant stream of attacks on Jeremy Corbyn for allegedly associating with antisemites and even allegedly being an antisemite himself, are now paying off. It’s widely expected, that today, the NEC will reverse its decision, making the entire, un-amended IHRA definition and examples an integral part of its code of conduct on antisemitism.”

Lerman reports that, “A barrage of criticism greeted the NEC’s announcement on 5 July that it had agreed on those amendments. It stood accused of legitimising antisemitic hate-speech within the party and not allowing Jews to determine for themselves what antisemitism is. No matter that the code formally embraced the 38-word IHRA ‘working definition’ of antisemitism as well as all but 4 of the 11 examples of discourse that ‘could’ be considered antisemitic, added 2 more and, in discussing the 4 that were omitted, endorsed their content and strengthened their language with the aim of protecting freedom of speech on Israel-Palestine and simplifying the process for Labour officials conducting disciplinary hearings reaching judgements as to whether or not the code had been breached.” Lerman references a earlier Open Democracy Article where he says, “This was convincingly argued by Dr Brian Klug.”

In the Open Democracy Article entitled, “The Code of Conduct for Antisemitism: a tale of two texts,” Klug remarks that, “Ironically, it is the drafters of the Labour party’s NEC Code, not their critics, who have grasped the meaning of ‘working definition’.” In it Klug reports: “I have not yet come across a critic of the NEC Code – I mean a critic who places a premium on combating antisemitism – who acknowledges [the points that significantly enhance the IHRA text], let alone welcomes them as the enhancements that they are. They are passed over in silence, as if the IHRA document were a sacred text whose words may not be tampered with – not even if the text can be improved.” Lerman says that, “Having followed a very great deal of the subsequent comment on IHRA, the Labour party and Jeremy Corbyn, I would say that Klug’s observation still applies.” These articles contain vital insight and an interesting timeline explaining the evolution of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism and its progression to a point where this shaky guidance appears written in stone.

The Lerman article was published in September 2018 and like a prophesy of worse to come the relentless accusations of anti-Semitism were weaponized to strengthen the targeted assaults on Corbyn seeking his removal. The entire progressive socialist project was sabotaged from within the Labour Party, but I doubt it was sufficient to account for the fake Tory ‘landslide victory’ of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. The Tory Party use of state funds to generate fake news targeting Corbyn was an egregious abuse of power and its illegality will be exposed when legal arguments blow the whole anti-Semitism scam wide open in Court. Corbyn’s defence unexpectedly well funded with £332,000 raised he must be persuaded to countersue if Ware backs down; Chris Williamson has raised £24,000 is determined to take EHRC to Court and Ware v French is already scheduled. We’re on the brink of exposing the truth that will justify a full Investigation as well as the removal of this corrupt Tory Government from office. DO NOT MOVE ON!

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

I must admit that despite the recent hopeful sign of a serious fight-back against the fabricated and grossly exaggerated allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party one rather crucial piece of evidence had slipped my mind: the Aljazeera undercover expose of Israeli influence in UK politics. The recent Russia Report was so myopically focused on wild speculations over on where, when and by how much Russia might have interfered with our democratic electoral process that they ignored one of the most serious, well funded and toxic political influences of unchecked interference by a foreign power. While I have no doubt that the wealthy elite here in the UK have and still remain equally guilty of using their wealth to manipulate the public with fear-mongering and rampant propaganda to vote against their own best interests, both US Corporate interests and the state of Israel have more contacts as well as the means and the motive to pose a greater threat than Russia.

The Israelis were caught red handed on tape in the Aljazeera documentary; the fact that this evidence has been virtually ignored thus far demonstrates that their actions are tolerated precisely because the damage this malign interference causes has targeted the opposition and favours keeping the Tories in power. In the Electronic Intifada Article entitled, “This is the bogus anti-Semitism report that sank Jeremy Corbyn” Asa Winstanley exposes information that builds on the evidence gleaned by Aljazeera, claiming that, “The road to Jeremy Corbyn’s political downfall began at Oxford University Labour Club in February 2016. A rogue inquiry by a Labour staffer with close ties to the Israeli embassy included fabricated allegations of anti-Semitism. It destroyed the lives of several pro-Corbyn students sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. It also triggered Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism crisis’ in earnest.”

“The manufactured crisis continues today, even with Corbyn now marginalized,” Winstanley reports that, “After an internal Labour disciplinary investigation, some of the accused were cleared of anti-Semitism the following year. But by that time the damage had been done. After a four-year investigation, The Electronic Intifada has obtained the full Rubin report, which has never been published. Michael Rubin, who wrote it, was chair of the right-wing group Labour Students. But the ‘inquiry’ was his own initiative and had not been mandated by either Labour’s leader or its ruling National Executive Committee. Rubin was also collaborating with Shai Masot, an Israeli ‘diplomat’ who would be kicked out of the UK the following year.” The fact that Rubin’s report wasn’t an authorized investigation, but a personal fishing expedition he carried out on behalf of a foreign government, to meet covert special interests of the Israeli Government in deflecting external criticism of their racist policies, totally delegitimizes this as fake news propaganda.

Rubin’s involvement with Labour Friends of Israel, a seriously dubious faction of right-wing Zionist sympathizers within the Labour Party, put him right in the vortex of this storm in a teacup, able to engineer the scandal that has caused so much damage to the credibility of the Labour Party as a whole while relentlessly attacking Jeremy Corbyn. Winstanley reveals that, “Soon after writing the report, Rubin was hired by Labour Friends of Israel, a group which secretly coordinates with the Israeli embassy in London. Masot was caught in undercover footage recruiting to the Israeli front group. After years working for them, Rubin was promoted in July this year to director of Labour Friends of Israel. He also met with Corbyn’s right-wing successor, Keir Starmer, to discuss their opposition to the party’s policy of sanctions against Israel. The inquiry conducted by Rubin directly influenced the far better known Royall and Chakrabarti inquiries into alleged Labour anti-Semitism.” This should significantly increase Labour member’s suspicion of Keir Starmer’s true priorities!

The Electronic Intifada say they, “protected some names in the report so as not to further Rubin’s disinformation campaign.” They have included a couple of redacted extracts within the article which demonstrate the main point they are making, that, “The document shows how vague or fabricated allegations of anti-Semitism against left-wing supporters of Corbyn were laundered into serious accusations. It states that Rubin reported to Labour staff six Oxford University Labour Club students he claimed were guilty of ‘repeated and potentially criminal anti-Semitism over a sustained period of time’.” They point out that, “the document fails to support this allegation. Rubin’s ‘evidence’ is at best tenuous. But it also includes outright falsehoods. The timing is also notable: The club had just voted to endorse Israeli Apartheid Week, an annual fixture in the Palestine solidarity movement’s calendar.”

Winstanley states that, “One former student attacked in the report, who asked not to be named, told The Electronic intifada that the document had misattributed an anti-Semitic quote to them. According to the student, someone had falsely inserted the word ‘Jewish’ into a statement the student had made about the influence of the wealthy over elections. ‘As I recall, what I actually said was that there is ‘influence wielded over elections by high net-worth individuals.’ I would never blame this on Jewish people,’ the former student said. ‘The sections of the report on me are false. Labour Students never even contacted me to get my side of the story’.” If the accused student was never contacted to give an account of what was said then their case was not properly handled as they were not afforded due process.

It is worth accessing the full report to see further examples but the ones included in the article cannot be considered as evidence; the ill defined subjective feelings of a desperately insecure student should not warrant discipline! Winstanley reveals that, “In other examples, one of the six allegedly ‘rolled [their] eyes’ when a Jewish student spoke. On another occasion, the same accused individual supposedly ‘jeered’ when the name of a former Israeli prime minister was mentioned. One anonymous Jewish student alleged only that they were sent ‘a message that was aggressive and delegitimized the feeling I had.’ But astonishingly, Rubin concluded that all four of these allegations constituted ‘sufficient evidence’ of anti-Semitism to report to Labour’s disciplinary staff.” This making a mountain out of a molehill approach characterises the vast majority of the anti-Semitism claims against Labour members who are typically targeted for supporting the Palestinian cause.

According to Winstanley, “The document also inadvertently proves that Rubin’s ‘witnesses’ were often only relating hearsay and gossip. One anonymous student said they ‘heard from other students’ that one of the accused ‘engaged in songs which glorify rocket attacks against Tel Aviv’ but admitted that they hadn’t actually seen this. No one seems to be able to explain what this song supposedly was, how its lyrics went, or to have heard it sung. Rarely in the Rubin report are there any specific or dated incidents, or any direct claim to have actually witnessed anti-Semitism. Yet in such cases, Rubin often still claimed there was ‘sufficient evidence’ to report individuals for disciplinary action.” Subjective accounts and this style of unverified hearsay will be ripped to shreds in a Court of law just as the so called ‘Whistleblowers’ filmed by Ware in his Panorama hatchet job will be exposed lying; that is why it is so vital that Ware isn’t allowed to just drop the case because only in Court will he be held accountable.

According to Winstanley, “The full document also suggests Rubin covered up allegations of racism by right-wingers in the Labour club – even alleged anti-Semitism. It records several such allegations against right-wingers, but they were either ignored or marked ‘not sufficient evidence’.” In stark contrast to the vague subjective feelings that Rubin judged as requiring discipline Winstanley reveals that, “One anonymous student quoted in the document states that during the club’s debate over Israeli Apartheid Week, a Palestinian student was ‘shouted down by the chair of the meeting, Alex Chalmers, called a terrorist sympathizer and subject to particularly aggressive questioning and speeches,’ especially by David Klemperer, another right-winger. A Jewish campaigner for Palestinian rights reported being on the receiving end of hostility from Chalmers: ‘Alex wanted to make me feel I was a traitor’ and ‘a self-hating Jew,’ the individual said.” How might they try to describe a ‘self-hating Jew’ when questioned under oath in Court?

Winstanley reports that, “Chalmers’ main right-wing accomplice, former club co-chair Klemperer, was accused of anti-Semitism too. According to an anonymous student quoted in the report, Klemperer allegedly said: ‘You’re exactly the sort who should’ve died in the Holocaust’.” Now that really is serious hate speech but, “Rubin recommended no disciplinary action against either of the two, claiming there was ‘not sufficient evidence.’ Chalmers quit Labour and Klemperer was kicked out after they supported Liberal Democratic candidates in local elections. But Klemperer now appears to be back in the party.” Electronic Intifada report that, “Chalmers did not reply to a request for comment. Klemperer set both of his Twitter accounts to private soon after The Electronic Intifada emailed him a request for comment, but did not otherwise respond.”

According to Asa Winstanley, “Chalmers’ false allegations of anti-Semitism against the Oxford University Labour Club made international headlines after his resignation as co-chair on the night of the vote for Palestinian rights on 15 February 2016. The Israeli embassy accused Oxford students of ‘disgraceful activity.’ Former Labour leader Ed Miliband cancelled a speaking event there and the government’s minister for universities Jo Johnson demanded Oxford investigate Chalmers’ allegations – despite how blatantly false they appeared even at the time. As The Electronic Intifada revealed soon after, Chalmers had also worked for BICOM, a pro-Israel advocacy organization. The ‘Labour anti-Semitism’ controversy rages on to this day. Some Israel lobbyists are even calling for Corbyn to be kicked out of Labour.” What if they did oust Corbyn, but instead of going independent, he became a Green MP; other progressive Labour MPs might follow his lead, along with like-minded Labour members and possible even Union funding seeking to support a true Socialist agenda!

Winstanley surmises that, “It has for years been reported that two of the main targets of the Rubin report’s false accusations were James Elliott and Max Shanly – then leading pro-Corbyn activists in Labour’s youth wing. Shanly was a left-wing member of Young Labour’s national committee and a supporter of Corbyn. Elliott had advised Corbyn on youth policy during his 2015 leadership campaign. Elliott was also standing for election to a seat on Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee. Rubin’s ‘inquiry’ was wrapped up in about a week. Details from the report were then almost immediately leaked to the right-wing press – days before the NEC election. After the press smears about the pair, combined with a whispering campaign organized by Elliott’s right-wing rival, Elliott lost the seat by a single vote. In 2018, on his podcast All the Best, Shanly opened up about the effects of what he called a smear campaign against the pair.”

Winstanley relays haw in the podcast Shanly, “revealed he had been suffering from serious depression for the previous two years, from ‘February 2016 when all the [Oxford University Labour Club] stuff kicked off.’ ‘I had my mental health destroyed entirely,’ he said. Shanly explained that in the years he was under investigation, the Labour Party refused to hear his side of the story – even Janet Royall when she did her investigation into Oxford. He said that Labour Students also never bothered to speak to him. ‘The allegations that were made against me were all false,” he said. “There was no evidence. It was all ‘I heard of.’ It all comes down to Michael Rubin’s report.’ ‘The reason I ended up getting so depressed is that no one wants to employ someone’ at the heart of an internationally reported, alleged anti-Semitism scandal, he said. That same year, Shanly was hospitalized after a severe mental health crisis. All that summer, Labour’s civil war over allegations of anti-Semitism had been raging.”

Electronic Intifada said that, “Michael Rubin and Labour Friends of Israel did not reply to requests for comment for this article. In 2016, The Electronic Intifada asked Rubin in person if he regretted his part in the smear campaign against left-wing students at Oxford. ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about,’ he said, before rushing away. But he has admitted to conducting the investigation, in undercover footage released in 2017. The document itself confirms this in its metadata. Rubin had been close with Israeli embassy agent Shai Masot even before he started working for Labour Friends of Israel in May 2016. In the undercover footage Rubin admitted: ‘I knew Shai in my role at Labour Students, we did a couple of things together’.”

Electronic Intifada have included the incriminating film saying, “You can watch him make this admission in this Aljazeera video;” I have embedded the Video Link. Winstanley reports that, “The footage was filmed by Al Jazeera for its investigative series The Lobby. Masot was expelled from the UK after it hit headlines in January 2017. The footage shows Rubin admitting to an undercover reporter that Labour Friends of Israel was essentially a front for the Israelis, but that ‘publicly we just try to keep the LFI as a separate identity to the embassy.’ It also revealed that the embassy finances Labour Friends of Israel’s activities. Rubin discussed launching a youth wing with events funded by the Israelis: ‘the Israeli embassy are able to get a bit of money.’ Masot apparently told Rubin he would ‘help fund a couple of events.’ ‘I don’t think money should be a problem,’ Rubin told Al Jazeera’s undercover reporter, who had been posing as a pro-Israel Labour activist.” You just don’t hear about this now so it had slipped my mind too.

Winstanley revealed that, “After Al Jazeera’s film was broadcast, Boris Johnson – then foreign minister – said in Parliament that Masot’s ‘cover’ had been ‘well and truly blown.’ Posing as a ‘senior political officer’ at the London embassy, Masot was according to all indications an agent for Israel’s secretive Ministry of Strategic Affairs, which is staffed by former officers from Israel’s spy agencies. Since 2015, the ministry has been Israel’s semi-covert dirty tricks agency dedicated to fighting a war against BDS, Palestine’s boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.” For Boris Johnson to have known all of the details of this serious foreign interference in UK politics and not considered these facts significant enough to require a full scale investigation to eliminate all future meddling demonstrates that the Israeli meddling was beneficial to the Tory Party. Possibly of equal importance to the dodgy donations from Russian oligarchs in the Russia Report that was kept under wraps until after the Covert 2019 Rigged Election.

The information in this article and the Aljazeera documentary offer solid proof that bogus anti-Semitism charges were weaponized to deliberately sabotage Corbyn and the progressive socialist agenda from within the Labour Party. Tory approved state funding of the integrity Initiative to magnify the anti-Semitism propaganda to lend legitimacy to a fake ‘landslide victory’ in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. These acts were criminal and fraudulent enough to remove this Tory government from power even without further Investigation into the Postal Votes. The legal suits threatened by Ware will backfire if he is forced into Court to present evidence under oath; solid legal arguments will blow the whole anti-Semitism scam wide open in Court. Corbyn’s defence is well funded with £332,000; Chris Williamson will take EHRC to Court and Ware v French is on schedule. Smoke and mirrors don’t hold up in Court so we’re on the brink of exposing the whole truth of this scandal and documenting irrefutable facts that could destroy the Tories. DO NOT MOVE ON!

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

Distraction usually works for the king of clowns so there was Boris on TV in a hardhat, defending outdated imperialist songs about the glory of empire and British rule – “Britannia rules the waves” with the British Navy ready to turn back and harass helpless refugees in the English Channel. “England never, never, never, shall be slaves:” tell that to a zero hours contract worker who’s paid below the paltry ‘living wage’ due to their youth! “Land of hope and glory” or ‘Land is for the Tory;’ Johnson’s Tory Party are far too busy enriching the wealthy elite to protect the impoverished masses from the harsh consequences of their rule. In reality the working poor and minorities feel eternally enslaved as they take to the streets in Black Lives Matter protests to fight prejudice and injustice. This PM who has made England a total global laughing stock with crash-out Brexit and his shambolic handling of the Pandemic crisis, the ‘Emperor with no clothes’ charlatan ‘leader’ who’s an embarrassment to us all, starts banging on about how our “British heritage is nothing to be ashamed of!” Boris Johnson is what we are ashamed of!

Civil Servants advise and Ministers decide so when mistakes are made our deeply insecure narcissist PM scrambles to hang on to his compliant Ministers despite their serious gaffes and flaws; zero scrutiny, abandon accountability, just follow the direction of the Dom on his crusade to jettison expendable Civil Servants. In a cabinet where loyalty is more important than talent there are bound to be mistakes, hence all the screeching U-turns of this disastrous Tory Government, but there are rumours of disquiet among the ranks, but although not all Tory MP’s approve of the Cummings driven decimation of the Civil Service few have the spine to rebel. Johnson stumbles on distracting the public with a constant stream of changing restrictions often following the lead of Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon in a belated damage control mode with vague instructions in a way that does not inspire public confidence.

A similar tactic of selecting factionalist loyalty over talent was adopted by Keir Starmer who is failing to unify the Labour Party while creating a weak and ineffectual opposition meekly signalling approval of Johnson’s shambolic handling of the Covid 19 crisis and most policy decisions. Rather that representing a strong resistance and demanding critical U-turns Starmer just follows Johnson’s chaotic lead. Skwawkbox report that “after weeks of insisting masks aren’t needed in schools, Starmer and co copy Tory u-turn” They say, “For God’s sake, lead! For weeks now, Keir Starmer’s tactic of agreeing with the Tories wherever possible has led to Labour insisting that masks are not necessary in schools – in spite of the objections of unions seeking the safety of their members and the children they teach and in spite of the recommendations of the World Health Organisation. And now that the Tories have humiliatingly u-turned and said that masks are necessary, Starmer’s Shadow Health Secretary Kate Green has u-turned too.”

With his shockingly blasé, “do as I say, not as I do” photo –op in the classroom Skwawkbox point out that Boris Johnson, wasn’t bothering to wear a mask or talk about the need for social distancing, when he set a poor example in a surprise classroom visit. You really would have thought that his PR team would have made sure the classroom chosen for the PM’s visit was fully compliant and properly prepared to meet the new guidelines, but amazingly the children were not appropriately separated. It was as bad as Boris’s ‘how not to wash your hands’ photo-op; in that it set another poor example. According to the Skwawkbox, “Reckless Boris Johnson visited a school today to tell pupils they’ve got nothing to worry about from the coronavirus.” He, “didn’t even tell them to be careful but not anxious – instead, telling them ‘schools are safe’.” Every message Johnson delivers appears engineered to provide a false sense of security so that the population is continuously at risk; the mixed messaging on masks is a typical example.

In early video footage it looks like the PM is “a lot closer than 2 Metres from the pupils, he didn’t even stay ‘1m plus’ – a minimum of a metre plus some additional form of protection.” Skwawkbox say Johnson was, “aerosolising over two unfortunate children as one appears to try to mask her mouth and nose.” They remind us that even, “if anyone thinks ‘Oh, he had the virus so he’s safe’, how can anyone be confident he was really infected after his faked camping trip?” Although they don’t elaborate on a reason why the PM would have faked his Scottish Highlands camping getaway, another Skwawkbox Article provides a credible allegation that the trip was staged with his tent poorly erected on a slope and an obviously photo-shopped campfire. Boris takes us all for fools. Was the PM’s Covid infection just at attention seeking hoax? They say, “even if he was, scientists now say it’s possible to be reinfected with different strains of the virus. Johnson’s recklessness is unforgivable, putting at risk both children and their families.”

According to the latest Skwawkbox Article, “If the Tories try to fine anyone for keeping their kids from school, they can just claim the Cummings defence.” They say that, “It might be technically illegal, but Johnson’s ‘did what any parent would’ excuse for Cummings would surely open the door for group legal action if Tories try to pursue parents for keeping their kids safe from unsafe school environment. The Tories are threatening parents with a £120 fine if they keep their children home out of fear for their safety while the coronavirus is still a threat.” They point out that, “But Boris Johnson’s decision to excuse Dominic Cummings’s complete disregard for the law in driving to Durham – and at least once, probably twice, to Barnard Castle – during lockdown by claiming Cummings only did what any responsible parent would do in the circumstances means that any pursuit of parents, for doing what they think the circumstances require, is intrinsically unjust and unsafe.”

Skwawkbox remind the public that, “Parents have more than justifiable cause for concern,” and they outline a list of reasons.
• “almost 40 schools already in the midst of outbreaks before the general return to school next month
• scientists warning of the ease of transmission among and by children and studies showing how fast a school outbreak can spread
• the government’s own scientists admitting the school return will drive the ‘R’ rate of infection up – yet insisting there is no evidence for even the use of masks in school while still mandating masks in high-incidence areas
• the clear danger to older family members if a child becomes infected
• doctors calling on the government to abandon fines for missing school because of the dangers to the mental health of both parents and children”
• I would add to that list the totally inadequate Track and Trace system that was supposed to be up and running months ago!”

The Skwawkbox explain that, “Any parents penalised for keeping their children home would surely have a clear basis for a class-action style legal case against the government for acting against them and against the Cummings precedent – and Johnson would be committing political self-immolation if he fought it.” They suggest that you should, “Do what you think is right for your child and your family. What ‘any responsible parent would’.” Ultimately, the interpretation of British laws is governed by precedent and cannot se selectively or arbitrarily applied. The Government cannot selectively choose to prosecute parents for acting in the best interests of their children’s safety without explaining why it was acceptable for Dominic Cummings to do so. Just recently, further witlessness have come forward claiming to have spotted Cummings on a second visit to Durham during lockdown and one couple are determined to put pressure on the police to fully investigate, forcing Cummings to prove that he had remained in London.

This comes at a sensitive time when news is being leaked of Cummings strong connections to the exam grade fiasco that has caused so much distress to students. Both Cummings and his wife do themselves no favours with their writing. Cummings’s wife Mary Wakefield wrote an article about emerging from their lockdown experience as if they had never left London; it failed to hide the truth and demonstrated her deliberate attempt to deceive the public. Cummings is even more brazen with his blog diatribe on controversial subjects like eugenics that makes for a revealing, if painfully laborious, read. He had to go back and edit out earlier posts on ‘Herd Immunity,’ when the whole idea went pear shaped. Embarrassingly for him, he was not fast enough to avoid his ramblings being captured for posterity and ‘rewriting history’ is never a good look. His personal sentiments on making higher education exclusively for the elite, due to his belief in their inherited superior intelligence, could also use a rewrite, but dare he try?

Just when Johnson was hoping that the Cummings scandal was blowing over, another of his hastily applied threats, levelled as per usual at ordinary citizens, is due to come unstuck, exposing the PM to yet another chorus of loud calls for him to fire his slippery Chief Adviser. Although he might be desperately in need of a hasty escape, the PM has only just returned from his ‘get me out’a here’ experience camping in the Scottish Highlands to ride out his last two screeching U-turn crisis decisions. But was this healthy adventuresome break just a ‘Boris-Shit’ hoax? The pictures of his alleged campsite look fabricated, but maybe he was up in Scotland on a ‘leadership course’ learning ‘how to run a country?’ Our part-time Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, should seek a longer lasting hide than a fake camping getaway or just darting into a fridge to dodge the press. Perhaps the PM could be cryogenically preserved until the rest of humanity has become extinct; then he could emerge to realize his ultimate dream of becoming ‘World King!’

The whole back to schools issue isn’t being pushed by Boris Johnson out of his deep concern over the damaging impact that a prolonged gap in education might have on children, especially those from deprived backgrounds who were promised a computer to keep up with their schoolwork. The learning laptop deal was another ‘Boris-Shit’ lie as most have not received this enticing tool, but this fake promise was a great PR stunt at the time. The real push is to force as many people back to work as possible; home schooling cannot be allowed as an option despite valid lingering concerns. In an earlier Skwawkbox Article they elaborate on how, “Johnson responds to removal of opposition in education by announcing parents will be fined for not sending kids back to school in September – safe or not.” The Captain of capitulation was already persuaded. They say, “Starmer has backed rapid schools return, while sacked Rebecca Long-Bailey sided with unions in their concern about explosion of coronavirus outbreaks in schools.”

The Skwawkbox report that, “Boris Johnson has wasted no time in exploiting the removal of any opposition to his rush to re-open schools. Labour leader Keir Starmer sacked Rebecca Long-Bailey – in spite of the prevailing cover story – because she refused to stop backing the National Education Union (NEU), Unite and other unions in their insistence that children and teachers must only go back into the classroom when it is safe to do so. The doubling of coronavirus outbreaks in schools over the last few days shows that the UK is a long way from such safety – yet Starmer has continued to support an early return – and a string of so-called ‘centrists’ undermined Long-Bailey even when she was in post, appearing in radio, TV and print interviews to agree with their boss’s accommodation of Johnson’s wishes.” Starmer may soon regret ignoring Union advice as Union Leaders have threatened voting to withdraw their funding and new Union leadership will favour left leaning candidates determined to protect workers’ rights.

According to the Skwawkbox, “with opposition removed from the Shadow Education brief, Johnson has immediately announced that children will be forced back to school in September – come what may – and that parents will be fined if they try to protect their kids by refusing to comply.” They say that, “Johnson told an interviewer: ‘I want all children back in school in September.’ Asked whether it would be compulsory, he responded: ‘Yes, it’s the law.’ It’s worth noting that Johnson is not demanding that all MPs return to the Commons chamber.” Even back then the warned, “How the Tories will enforce any prosecution if parents claim the ‘Cummings defence’ of following “the instincts of every father and every parent” is unclear. The UK epidemic has already seen at least 148 teachers die – and doctors are still trying to understand a new inflammatory disease in children following coronavirus infection. But with the opposition away, the man responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people from the virus can play.”

The call for Boris Johnson to get rid of his Machiavellian unelected puppet master has continued unabated and from all quarters. Three months ago the Skwawkbox Article highlighted how, “Senior clergy come out in numbers to condemn Johnson’s double-standard and threat to public health.” They reported that, “A string of senior Anglican clergy have made public statements calling Boris Johnson a liar or lacking integrity – and calling for the sacking of Johnson’s chief aide Dominic Cummings.” This followed the revelation that, “Cummings has admitted one 260-plus mile journey from London to Durham during the lock-down and while infected with the coronavirus – and is accused both of at least one more journey to the same destination and of a 30-mile trip from Durham to Barnard Castle after he recovered from the virus – yet Johnson yesterday feebly absolved his aide of any wrongdoing.”

Saying, “The Church of England bishops were unequivocal in their condemnation,” The Skwawkbox Article posted a Video, and remarked on their utter surprise that, “even more remarkably, the BBC News channel covered their comments. At least six bishops condemned Johnson on social media, while the Bishop of Liverpool appeared on the BBC in person to agree with his colleagues. The Skwawkbox reported that at that time, “Senior Tory MPs have also called for Cummings’s removal – and even members of Johnson’s behavioural science advisory group have accused him of ‘trashing’ their work in bringing the public on board with the anti-coronavirus measures and of not being willing to listen to science – while police arrived at the Cummings’ home in London yesterday. Cummings must go – and the longer Johnson delays, the weaker and more abject he looks.” But several months later Cummings is still clinging on like the toughest barnacle to scrape off the bottom of the boat: we need to deep six the Dom!

The sheer arrogance of protecting the incompetent, glossing over their blunders and finding scapegoats to blame for the chaos they are causing in Government is not going unnoticed in the media despite their overall support for the Tories. The stalled Brexit negotiation are creeping back into the news as the public are being prepared for the inevitable self-harm of crash-out Brexit. We do not need to settle for bad Governance, the reckless incompetence of a roller-coaster of last ditch U-turns and sham negotiations to deliver an even worse recession than Covid alone will inflict. People need to put this Tory Government under intense pressure with protests and strikes, because the ‘levelling up’ lie is heading for a ‘decimating down’ winter of desperation, soaring unemployment and a Tory enabled resurgence of the Covid ‘Slaughter of the Sheeple!’ We must restore accountability, demand an Investigation into the Covert 2019 Rigged Election to get this Tory Government out, but Cummings is the grenade, oust him and you pull the pin! DO NOT MOVE ON!

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

On the anti-slap.org Website, “The Public Participation Project,” an organization dedicated to, “Fighting for Free Speech,” Bruce Brown, Executive Director, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press writes, “Anti-SLAPP statutes are an effective way to terminate meritless lawsuits, thus reducing burdens on the courts, and at the same time promoting the exercise of speech rights.” This organization is making some progress in the US in getting anti-SLAPP laws in place one state at a time, but these vexatious lawsuits are still running rampant in the UK. Our whole Judicial system has been set back months with Court closures due to Covid 19, so it will be hard enough to get caught up without tying up the Courts with frivolous suits designed to weaponize our Judicial system for malicious intent. A couple of high profile people like John Ware and TV personality Rachel Riley are trying to game the system with faux outrage over anti-Semitism and they need to be stopped in their tracks for British justice to prevail.

Government corruption exposed by the horrific murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, an investigative journalist in Malta, made the EU take note of the growing menace of SLAPPs and the need for urgent collective EU legislation to end this grotesque perversion of the justice system. In the Columbia Journalism Review, Elaine Allaby recalls how Galizia, “was on her way to the bank when she was killed by a car bomb outside her house in October 2017. For months her assets had been frozen by a precautionary warrant issued in conjunction with four libel suits brought by Malta’s economy minister and his aide, and she was trying to get her account unblocked. The cases were among 42 civil libel suits open against her at the time of her death, most of them brought by Maltese politicians and their business associates. The people who ordered her assassination, which is linked to her excoriating, reporting on corruption and organized crime in Malta, have still not been identified.” Will the Labour Party now face multiple SLAPP lawsuits?

Do we want similar injustice here in the UK? Allaby reports that, “Following Caruana Galizia’s murder, the suits all passed on to her family. Daphne’s husband, Peter Caruana Galizia, is a lawyer. Since his wife’s death, he has appeared in court twice a week to fight the cases. So far, 13 have either been withdrawn by the claimant or thrown out because they failed to appear in court; the Caruana Galizia family expects the same to happen to the remainder. Daphne Caruana Galizia was used to being sued in defamation cases, many of which ultimately fizzled out. ‘It’s just a form of harassment to eat up your time, eat up your money,’ Daphne’s son, Matthew, who is also a journalist, says. ‘It costs very little to file a libel suit in Malta… there’s almost no risk to the plaintiff. And the defendant has to pay to respond, otherwise they lose by default’.” In the UK those filing SLAPP lawsuits do so on a ‘no win no fee’ basis with backup insurance to reduce their financial liability to almost zero while crippling the targeted defendant!

The UK is not alone in experiencing this same type of what is now being dubbed ‘Lawfare’ as epitomized by the recent bogus anti-Semitism cases. Allaby reveals that, “Journalists in other European countries say they’ve experienced similar harassment through what are called SLAPPs—Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” These have been widely used in the US to shut down environmental protests from well known organizations like Greenpeace, but they are now being used to target Journalists and silence free speech. Allaby says that, “The purpose of a SLAPP is to intimidate a journalist or news outlet into removing critical coverage or into self-censoring reports by repeatedly taking them to court in order to exhaust their time and resources. Matthew Caruana Galizia says there was a spike in SLAPPs brought against his mother in the year leading up to her murder. ‘The last year of her life was basically horrible,’ he says. ‘She was in court almost every single day’.” No one should face that level of intimidation.

Elaine Allaby reports that, “earlier this year, the Croatian Journalists’ Association (HND) led a march through Zagreb to protest the 1,100 libel cases open against journalists and news outlets at the time, brought on vague grounds including ‘mental anguish’ or ‘tarnished reputation.’ The HND says they are part of an attempt to suppress free speech. Claudio Cordova, who edits the Italian news site Il Dispaccio, says he spends an average of three months out of every twelve defending against libel suits. He has never lost a case, but it doesn’t exactly feel like he’s winning, either. ‘You’re not convicted, but you don’t have any way to recoup your losses, and no one will ever give you back the time you lost attending the hearings’,” he tells CJR. Sadly Starmer’s capitulation will put the fabricated anti-Semitism SLAPP suits into overdrive as his cowardly admission of guilt provides substance that does not actually exist in reality. The financial burden could bankrupt the Labour Party and effectively cripple the main political opposition.

Allaby says that, “Anti-SLAPP legislation exists in much of the world, including in 28 US states and parts of Canada and Australia. But in Europe judges are often unfamiliar with the phenomenon of SLAPPs, and lack understanding that libel suits are being used by plaintiffs in this way. The EU currently has no anti-SLAPP laws. We don’t want to ban politicians from filing lawsuits, but we need to find ways to discourage politicians and powerful corporations from filing vexatious lawsuits against journalists and the media.” Have Tories and the wealthy elite been using the threat of a SLAPP to manipulate our media outlets and simply shut down negative reporting of their worst acts of corruption? With the current Tory stranglehold on power freedom of the press is vital to our dwindling democracy. How much control have the Tories already wielded over the compliant BBC and elite owned Media in the UK? We have gained a sorry reputation for one of the most biased Media in Europe and it is only likely to get a lot worse.

In the CJR Article Allaby reports that now, “campaigners are working to change that. After Daphne’s murder, the Maltese European Parliamentary Member David Casa led a call for the introduction of an anti-SLAPP directive in the EU.” A good reason not to Brexit! “A coalition of NGOs including the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), the Committee to Protect Journalists, PEN International, Article 19, and Reporters Without Borders have begun conducting research into how such a directive might work. Their research is still in the early stages, but proposed measures include shifting the burden of proof from the defendant onto the claimant in libel cases involving freedom of expression, and speeding up procedures to enable judges to dismiss meritless cases prima facie. Their plan is to provide the European Commission with preliminary research that will enable the Commission to develop its own anti-SLAPP legislation, which will most likely draw on the Fundamental Charter of Human Rights as its legal basis.”

CJR claim, “‘We don’t want to ban politicians from filing lawsuits, but we need to find ways to discourage politicians and powerful corporations from filing vexatious lawsuits against journalists and the media,’ Flutura Kusari, a legal advisor with ECPMF, says. ‘We also want to make judges across the European Union and beyond aware of the basic phenomenon of SLAPPs.’ Before an EU anti-SLAPP directive is drafted, however, there need to be changes to existing EU laws, says Dr. Justin Borg-Barthet, a senior lecturer at the University of Aberdeen, whom the coalition has commissioned to conduct research into EU libel law reform. In particular, Borg-Barthet advocates for reforming the Brussels I Regulation and the Rome II Regulation, which in their current forms allow plaintiffs to bring defamation suits in multiple jurisdictions of their choice (rather than being restricted to the state in which the dispute arose), and make it unclear which laws can be applied in a given suit, raising costs and increasing uncertainty for defendant journalists.”

It’s known that, “Before her death, Daphne Caruana Galizia was repeatedly threatened with costly libel suits abroad, including a lawsuit filed in the US courts by the Malta-based Pilatus Bank, which she had accused of money laundering. (The bank was shut down in November 2018 after its owner was charged in the US with money laundering and fraud.) In the days after Caruana Galizia’s murder, members of Borg-Barthet’s network noticed that Maltese publications including Malta Today, the Times of Malta, and The Independent had begun quietly deleting their own stories about Pilatus Bank. When confronted, the publications’ editors acknowledged the deletions, saying that they had also been threatened with costly libel suits.” If they had not bothered to inquire this stealth removal of incriminating critical reporting would have gone unnoticed. If we don’t want corruption to reach such deadly extremes here in the UK we need to

Elaine Allaby reports that, “The political blogger Manuel Delia wrote a post denouncing Pilatus’s tactics. ‘In every case they said we’re deleting these stories because it’s too expensive to litigate—so they stood by these stories,’ Borg-Barthet says. ‘It was very much 1984: ‘The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.’” That sounds like the UK, right her, right now! However, Borg-Barthel proclaimed, “One small victory is we’re now hopeful that the erasure won’t be forgotten.” The fight-back requires those under attack to double-down on their efforts with regard to investigative reporting. After experiencing SLAPP suits intended to sabotage their protest efforts Greenpeace offer the following advice on their Website: “When you’re SLAPPED, stand FIRM.” As Lawfare targeting of their organization them ramped-up they, “created this easy acronym to remember what to do if you or your organization faces a SLAPP, or you want to stand up and support Greenpeace. Stand FIRM.”

• “Fight back: SLAPPs don’t stand up to scrutiny and it’s important to explore your legal options and build a strong legal defence.
• Investigate: continue to examine and expose the practices of the corporation suing you– they wouldn’t resort to these tactics if they didn’t have something to hide.
• Rally. Bring together your free speech allies to help support the cause and amplify your message.
• Make some noise. Refuse to be silent. Don’t give up your free speech.
For more information on fighting SLAPPs, check out Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Public Participation Project’s campaign for public laws to limit repressive SLAPP suits.” Identifying their principal adversary, ‘Resolute,’ Greenpeace request that, “Most of all, don’t let Resolute silence you! Take action now!”

Many Labour Party members are angered by the incessant lies over anti-Semitism; when people say “no smoke without fire” I hit back hard with the documented evidence and a scenario that puts this issue into a truly realistic context. Imagine you have a family member or very close friend who has had a traumatic, serious battle fighting cancer. They appear to be in remission and return to their Doctor to find out where they now stand. Their doctor tells them “congratulations, you are 99.9% cancer free!” But instead of relaying the good news they tell you they are absolutely “riddled with cancer.” Among those in the Labour Party, anti-Semitism cases account for 0.01% of the 500,000 strong membership; that makes Labour well over 99.9% anti-Semitism free! Not perfect, but certainly not “systemically racist” or an “existential threat to the Jewish community” or any of the other alarming descriptions applied by those trying to tear the Labour Party apart just to remove Jeremy Corbyn and purge the party of the progressive left.

The stats supporting this evidence were well established and clearly documented in a Labour Briefing in March of 2019, so why were Labour MPs constantly confirming the existence of a massive problem that simply did not exist? The single most serious complicating factor was that this disinformation was being driven by hostile elements within the Labour Party itself with the fatal collusion of the BBC and alt-right media lending them a megaphone. When Chris Williamson dared to challenge the fabricated seriousness of the anti-Semitism issue he was denounced for contributing to anti-Semitism. This groundless charge had the same effect as a SLAPP lawsuit because it served as a warning to others that the fake news was set in stone and those who challenged this warped narrative would be extricated from the Labour Party in disgrace. The most crucial opportunity to fight back before the Covert 2019 Rigged Election was lost when Jeremy Corbyn failed to discipline Margaret Hodge for her vile insult in the Commons.

The EU could potentially put new anti-SLAPP laws in place at some point and their ideas are workable. Currently the burden of proof in a defamation case falls on the defendant, but the suggestion that this should change to placing the burden of proof on the Litigant would see vexatious cases thrown out at a much earlier stage. As a person who took a genuine case of career sabotaging defamation to the High Court in London I can say that this would not prevent such seriously impactful cases being heard in Court. I would have considered this requirement of proof fair and just as it was a burden I was fully prepared to meet in Court if my case had not been rejected on the grossly unfair technicality of ‘Absolute Privilege’ that protected my University from facing justice. That any proposed EU anti-SLAPP laws will not be in place for a while yet is not our major concern here in the UK as we will be forced to not only crash out of the EU, but this rogue Tory Government want to strip away the protection of the Charter of Human Rights!

This makes the determination to fight the threatened SLAPP cases over fake anti-Semitism even more vital to salvaging our embattled democracy. Crowdfunding has opened up the potential to fight-back and we must continue to support these efforts in the hope of restoring justice. In Jeremy Corbyn’s case with a Fund of £332,000 he is in a strong position to countersue and he should prioritize this option before Ware has a chance to back away from the fray now that a settlement will not be forthcoming. This is important for two reasons. Firstly the burden of proof will shift from Corbyn trying to disprove a negative to Ware being forced to produce evidence in defence of his false assertions. Secondly, once his case is unwinnable a “no win no fee” legal defence is harder to secure and insurance to cover his loss will become prohibitive. This is precisely the type of proactive and decisive action that must be consistently taken to make these vexatious SLAPP lawsuits financially untenable in our Courts.

As an accomplished lawyer Sir Keir Starmer was acutely aware of the fact that the Labour Party had more than enough evidence to fight the Ware SLAPP case in Court even without the supporting advice of Labour’s Legal team telling him not to settle. Solid evidence of the anti-Semitism hoax would have emerged had the case gone to Court, but it would have exposed the internal efforts of numerous centrist Labour MPs who were working against the best interests of the Labour Party to oust Jeremy Corbyn. His cowardly capitulation was intended to keep the disgraceful truth hidden with his own interests in retaining leadership a principal motivation at the expense of the Labour membership. However, his dishonourable conduct will now encourage numerous other SLAPP lawsuits cantered on his cowardly false admission of guilt and data issues from the leaked Labour Report that he is trying equally hard to keep under wraps. That will mean more settlements and the possibility that Labour Unions decide to block Union member funding of the Labour Party.

The case Chris Williamson is bringing against the EHRC is for Judicial Review; the burden of proof is his and the case can only proceed if he presents credible evidence that there is an injustice that requires correction. Williamson’s Lawyers must be feeling really confident in the available evidence as this is not a SLAPP and he fully intends to go to present that evidence in Court. There is no way for EHRC to offer a settlement that would make this go away; they are a public body answerable to the British people with regard to adhering to their remit and investigating fairly. Although the leaked Labour Review was conducted precisely to rebut the allegations of mishandling anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, despite Starmer’s refusal to submit it to EHRC an unredacted copy was provided to them by Craig Murray which EHRC were obligated to consider. The threat of this legal action in response to the draft Williamson received should make them reconsider their final judgement, but we must continue to support his legal fund.

The case Ware has brought against Paddy French at Press Gang is all part of the same massively corrupt false allegations that Ware is trying to cash in on using SLAPP cases and he needs our funding support too. Another case has been dragging on for nearly two years and is similarly interconnected with the fake anti-Semitism witch-hunt. Using the same disreputable lawyer, Mark Lewis, in a ‘no win no fee’ suit with backup insurance to cover costs despite her personal wealth TV personalities Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman brought a SLAPP against Mike Sivier. He wrote an article about Ms Riley and Ms Oberman’s bullying of a teenage girl, so they threatened to sue him for libel, claiming that they didn’t behave inappropriately, but he has crowdfunded over £92,000 to Fight Back and you can help out. Mike Sivier is a news reporter with more than 25 years’ experience who currently runs the influential Vox Political website and is also a full-time carer for his disabled partner; Rachel Riley is a serial SLAPPER!

Solid proof that bogus anti-Semitism charges were and still are being weaponized, to demonize Corbyn and deliberately sabotage the progressive socialist agenda of the Labour Party, will soon be exposed if and when these SLAPP cases make it to Court. Tory approved state funding of the integrity Initiative to magnify the anti-Semitism propaganda was concocted and widely disseminated in the media to lend legitimacy to a fake ‘landslide victory’ in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. These acts alone were criminal and fraudulent enough to remove this Tory Government from power even without further Investigation into the Postal Votes. Those who brought SLAPP suits hoping for a rapid payout that would avoid the troubling necessity of proving a case in Court will be starting to panic due to the huge level of grassroots support for those prepared to fight back. Smoke and mirrors will not hold up in Court so we’re on the brink of exposing the whole truth of this scandal and documenting irrefutable facts to oust this Tory Government. DO NOT MOVE ON! https://tinyurl.com/w4u9dwm

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

The other day I briefly featured the Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman SLAPP lawsuit targeting Mike Sivier for defending a vulnerable teen and I think this disgusting example is worth highlighting here. In an age where so many young people engage frequently on the internet parents want to know that their children can be kept as safe as possible from online bullying that in the past has driven young people to the brink of suicide. It is especially important that those in the public eye don’t use their influence to endanger the most innocent young members of society at a point where they are just starting to gain confidence in themselves. On his Crowdfunding Page Sivier identifies two women who seriously crossed the line, writing, “Most people who know of Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman will consider them to be minor television personalities, known for Countdown and EastEnders respectively. But I know them as a pair of Twitter bullies who harassed and intimidated a teenage girl who suffers extreme anxiety.”

Who is Mike Sivier? He introduces himself as, “a news reporter of 25 years’ experience, currently running a political news and opinion website (Vox) after giving up my day job to become a full-time carer for my disabled partner.” He explains the focus of his most well known reporting work, “exposing the thousands of unexplained deaths of people who claimed sickness benefits but were denied them after taking the Conservative government’s punitive work capability assessment.” He then admits that, “More recently I have met criticism over my interest in the misuse of accusations of anti-Semitism for political purposes. My research and articles on this matter attracted libellous articles about me in the national newspapers in early 2018. I took all of the newspapers involved to the press regulator IPSO, and all have been forced to publish articles correcting their false claims.” So far this sounds like a really resounding victory for freedom of speech and the progressive press, but he has now run into a major problem.

Sivier describes what happened in response to a critical article that he wrote entitled, “Serial abuser Rachel Riley to receive ‘extra protection’ – on grounds that she is receiving abuse.” Sivier says, “When I wrote an article about their Ms Riley and Ms Oberman’s bullying of a teenage girl, they threatened to sue me for libel, claiming that they did not behave in the ways I stated and that I had caused serious damage to their reputations.” He posts Links to the article in question and says, “The Guardian is reporting that Rachel Riley is to receive ‘extra security’ at recordings of Countdown after receiving online abuse. Ms Riley ‘said she had been targeted by Labour supporters on Twitter for her criticisms of the party and its leader, Jeremy Corbyn’, over alleged anti-Semitism.”

Sivier reports that, “The paper stated: ‘She has already spoken about being trolled online, but said the problem had worsened and included physical threats… ‘The more I speak, the more abuse I get, and the more abuse I get, the more I speak. It’s got to the point where I can’t look at my Twitter feed any more … it’s just a constant stream.’ ‘I’ve been attacked by people on the left and the best way to not have me talk about antisemitism on the left is not to be antisemitic.’ I find myself in a unique position to comment on this as a person who has been falsely accused of anti-Semitism – by some of the people with whom Ms Riley has allied herself – and been shown to be demonstrably innocent. Considering the quality of the debate, I wonder if I’ll be accused again as a result of this article” Well of course he was and the matter escalated to legal threats.

Sivier states very clearly that, “It is absolutely right that abuse should not be tolerated, and anybody abusing or threatening another person – over any issue – needs to be tackled over it.” But he insists, “that includes Ms Riley – because she is, herself a serial abuser. She tells us she became involved in the debate on anti-Semitism in March last year, after seeing a news report on a demonstration outside Parliament. That’s when she began writing, speaking and tweeting about it. Nobody, at that time, had sent her any anti-Semitic abuse or even engaged her in healthy debate about her point of view. She has managed to provoke any adverse reactions herself (and bear in mind that I have already stated I do not support any abuse. I make this clear because experience shows that points like this need to be hammered home).” Like so many others who started ranting about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party Riley did not bother to search for actual evidence or fact check the statistics before she fired off her insults.

Sivier Lists a few, “Examples of her contributions to the debate on anti-Semitism include:
• Praising an organisation whose members publicly harass and abuse peaceful pro-Palestinian protestors, and even issue death threats.
• Making anti-Semitism accusations against people who criticised Lord Sugar’s claim that he’d leave the country if Jeremy Corbyn became prime minister (most people didn’t even know he is Jewish at the time). Sugar himself has had to apologise for at least one public display of racism.
• Supporting the anti-Semite Mark Meechan (aka ‘Count Dankula’) who taught his dog to perform Nazi salutes when he said ‘Gas the Jews!’ and ‘Sieg heil!’
• Vilifying the great Jewish intellectual Noam Chomsky as an anti-Semite.
• Cold-shouldering a 16-year-old girl with anxiety problems who had pointed out that Ms Riley has adopted questionable allies, in such a way that her (Ms Riley’s) supporters subjected her to an appalling amount of abuse (known as dogpiling).
• Doubling-down on this behaviour by including a tweet from the same teenager as an example of anti-Semitism.
• Comparing this teenager’s attempt to point out the inconsistencies in her own behaviour with ‘the spread of Antisemitism’.”

Sivier also lists, “The consequences of Riley and Oberman’s obscene conduct have been as follows:
1. Rosie’s Twitter account has been hacked several times, by people trying to delete screenshots. Now why might that be…?
2. People have tried to track down her family’s address and her devastated mother’s Facebook page.
3. Someone eavesdropped on Rosie in class and tried to sell the story to The Sun. Which in keeping with its reputation of being lower than vermin, printed something… before deleting it hours later.
4. She has people in college believing she’s an anti-Semite.
5. She, a 16-year-old child, has received death threats.”

Sivier is quick to point out that he is, “not saying Ms Riley intentionally tried to get her followers to threaten this girl with death. But nobody can deny that her irresponsibility has encouraged others to do so, and that she has been reckless as to the consequences of her behaviour. So now we see that a person who has complained to the newspapers about ‘extra security’ on the TV show she co-presents – because of death threats – has herself provoked death threats against a teenage girl. And you can be sure this girl won’t be getting ‘extra security’ – or, indeed, any security at all.”

In a lengthy Medium Article, written by Shaun Lawson, entitled, “Beneath Contempt: How Tracy Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley harassed, dogpiled and slandered a 16-year-old child and her father” that has further information about the shocking incident. As you can see, both pieces are based on actions that are directly attributable to these people. My piece on the intimidation of the teenager provoked a huge attempt at bullying on Twitter – known as a ‘dogpile’. Lawson provides a lot of very illuminating graphs full of data that debunk all of the vile garbage being hurled at Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party over anti-Semitism. He is himself Jewish with family members killed in the Holocaust so if anyone should feel very strongly about this issue he certainly has a right to. However, he fits the profile of so many who are now being targeted as “the wrong sort of Jew” or “self-hating Jews.”

Further down in his extensive article Lawson focuses on the abuse and harassment of Rosie that was to prove so distressing and abhorrent. He says that, “Other than one tweet she deleted within seconds of issuing it, the tweets below were the only time she wrote to Oberman throughout this sorry saga. Rosie writes, ‘You have no idea the distress having a huge pile on has caused. I spoke about my anxiety way before this but it’s me that is the bad person. You ask anyone who knows me and they will tell you how upset I have been about this, the abuse reduced me to tears. – I am absolutely sickened that you have used me to make me out as an attention seeker. This whole time i have been debating politely but I was forced to block people after I was piled on and abused. I have never been racist once in this whole thing, just simply trying to make – My voice heard too, as a Labour member who’s sick of the idea that condemning the actions of Israel means someone is antisemetic’.”

Lawson concedes that, “It is absolutely plausible (indeed, highly likely) that Oberman had been referring to someone else in her tweet. But that would be her only point of defence in all that would follow. Rosie had warned Oberman about pile-ons and her anxiety. Yet the latter suddenly started tweeting to her, and about her. First she tried to introduce Rosie to another young woman, Charley: a completely innocent bystander throughout what followed, to whom absolutely zero blame is attached. Then Oberman got a rather strange idea in her head.” The tweets Lawson screen-grabbed illustrate just how strange as Oberman repeatedly requests that they should meet up. Oberman tweets, “But, I’d love to meet you Rosie. When you are next in London let’s go for coffee. Maybe @charley_yorks could meet us too. It would be great to connect young people who could maybe open a dialog.”

Lawson reports that, “Rosie, a 16-year-old child with anxiety, which she had already informed Oberman about, had been tagged into all three tweets. Oberman’s offer was pleasant enough; but any right-thinking adult would have left it at that. Unfortunately, Tracy Ann Oberman is no such adult.” Oberman continues to send a barrage of tweets. Lawson says, “At this point, a friend of Rosie’s stepped in and told Oberman what should have been blindingly obvious.” Oberman was seriously creeping Rosie out and they pointed out that Rosie’s parents would not want her going to London on her own. If Oberman was an adult male making similar suggestions online it would be flagged up as ‘grooming,’ but her invitation is just as inappropriate given Rosie’s age; have the BBC learned nothing since the Savel scandal. But does Oberman cease and desist? No the tweets get worse.

Lawson reports that Oberman suggests, “Maybe we could come and meet Rosie?” Lawson is shocked writing, “Tracy: wake up and smell the restraining order!” He says, “It’s exactly that which, by now, would have been scaring the heck out of Rosie or anyone else, for that matter.” After a deluge of online abuse Rosie had the common sense to refuse face to face confrontation with people who shared the views and sympathies of those who had been so disgustingly abusive online. In the tweets that followed Oberman said Rosie’s parents could join them and it would be her treat. At what point was she going to accept that no, means no and leave the poor child in peace? Oberman is a 51-year-old woman. This complete stranger had now issued her invitation to a 16-year-old child with anxiety, who’d been bullied constantly over the previous few weeks, not once, not twice… but on SIXTEEN separate occasions. Goodness only knows what was in her mind.” That constitutes very serious abuse.

Lawson says, “Think that was it? Think again. Incomprehensibly, Oberman continued to tweet to Rosie, talk about her in public, or copy her in to virtually every tweet she made.” Lawson printed a large selection saying, “This followed the sole tweet which a now terrified Rosie had sent Oberman, then deleted within seconds. By now, more and more people were stepping in on this petrified child’s behalf. How did Oberman respond?” She blocking the person trying to defend Rosie and “accused her of being part of a ‘smear campaign’. No Tracy: you’d been publicly smearing yourself for hours. Quite how Oberman had convinced herself that as this was all happening in public, and she’d been ‘open and welcoming’, it somehow wasn’t the textbook definition of harassment, I have no idea. Her world-beating levels of self-delusion would cause her to bury herself deeper and deeper over the hours ahead.”

Lawson reported that, “Throughout this whole time, Rosie had not responded, while friends of hers had demanded Oberman stop. Yet had the latter now convinced herself they were friends or something?! Appallingly, for the crime of trying to protect a terrified child she was harassing non-stop, Oberman also instantly smeared others. Yes, you read that right. When informed that this 16-year-old girl was sitting in class out of her mind in panic at what was going on, Oberman described it as a ‘politically motivated smear… politically and race motivated’. By now, her behaviour should’ve had her ushered away from her computer screen by the men in the white coats. Yet still, she would not shut up. Unbelievably, she even retweeted this outrageous pile of nonsense sent to, of all people, Rosie’s father.”

Lawson claims, “Tracy was harassing her in plain sight; and none of her allies, including other public figures, had done anything to stop it. Not one. Including Riley, who’d also been copied into many of the tweets. As, on a significant number of occasions, had Al Murray, Frances Barber and JK Rowling. As if to confirm that irony had just died, the woman who’d been publicly harassing a child for hours on end now accused someone else of bullying her. What had that someone else done? Only try to stop this completely out of control harassment. Oberman continued to double down (by now, it was more like sextuple down) on anyone calling her out. By this point, Oberman had sent an unsolicited invitation to Rosie 16 times, sent her direct tweets a further nine times, copied her into her tweets another 17 times, mentioned her a further 11 times… and smeared various people who’d desperately tried to stop what was going on.” Lawson has posted screen-shots of dozens of tweets that could be used in evidence to prosecute Oberman!

Lawson continued saying that, “One of Oberman’s followers, Rachel Bridge, had also seen fit to accuse Labour Left Voice of… ‘grooming Rosie’?! Believe it or not, we still hadn’t reached the worst of it yet. First, Oberman went into yet further denial. ‘Smear nonsense’? 63 tweets was awfully close to the truth. He says, then she moved on to something truly wicked. ‘Used’? By whom? Did she ask you to send her nigh on 60 tweets in 7 hours while she was in college? …At length, the absolute lowest of the low. When a 16-year-old child has spent the entire day being harassed, in public, by a celebrity, there’s only one thing that’s going to make her feel even worse. When her father is attacked too. Yet that’s what Oberman did. All Rosie’s Dad had done was try to protect his daughter from this utterly revolting madness.” Right blame the dad! Rosie’s father had had quite enough of this horrific behaviour;” he tweeted his response that should have shaken some sense into a normal humane individual, “But not our Tracy.”

Lawson said, “Then, for some unfathomable reason, Oberman started referring to her prey as an ‘18-year-old’. And it wasn’t a typo, because she did it not once, not twice, but three times: and once more defamed Rosie’s father in so doing.” He says, “Oberman wasn’t done. She committed another grotesque slander against Rosie’s father. And then, the lies began. In polite English, this is what’s known as ‘frantic arse covering’. She is 16. How dare you suggest otherwise? Still, never mind: up popped Riley to lend her support to someone who had relentlessly harassed a child and abused her father for good measure.” “…the lies, the dissembling, the nauseating self-regard, the astounding levels of conceit continued:” Celebrity abusers slung painful insults at the terrified teen; in her defence Lawson says, “Education’? Rosie is an extremely well educated, gifted young woman, with a massive future ahead of her. Do you think she needs reprogramming or something? Is this something out of Orwell? Who do you think you are?”

I don’t recognize the famous names mentioned here, but Lawson says that, “just to remind us how stupid so much of Britain’s glitterati is, Emma Kennedy had her entirely ill-informed say as well. Memo to Emma: chatting openly to a 16-year-old child on a public forum is one thing. Sending this child 16 unsolicited invitations to meet a complete stranger, around 60 unsolicited tweets in total, slandering anyone trying to protect her and even defaming her Dad is quite another.” Lawson points out that “on the subject of libel: telling the truth is an absolute defence. But hey ho, who cares about any of that? It’s only harassment of a terrified child by someone more than three times her age, after all. Harassment, I might add, which didn’t just occur at Oberman’s hands. When public figures behave like this, there are horrible consequences for the victim.” Lawson reports that, “the police have certainly been contacted… They’re currently investigating.”

Sivier poses a question regarding his lawsuit, “Why is this important?” He explains, “Perhaps worst of all is the fact that Ms Riley and Ms Oberman justify their behaviour by saying it is part of the fight against anti-Semitism. It is nothing of the sort. It is vital that this cynical manipulation of the debate on anti-Semitism should be fought. Bullying a school-age young person under the pretence of fighting anti-Semitism may lead to genuine hatred of Jews – on the grounds that they are using their ethnicity to seek unfair advantage over others.” Referring to Riley and Oberman Sivier then says, “if they get away with this, who else are they likely to victimise? Already we have seen multiple political attacks on the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, with accusations of anti-Semitism that have been proved false. Ms Riley is a part of that.” While the public remain myopically focused on one particular ethnic minority they are oblivious to the increasing problem of Islamophobia and the fact the Tories have pledged to target Gypsies!

The Media including the BBC have driven this faux outrage and not it is not just targeting adults it is persecuting young people as well. For me this incident crossed the line and was serious enough that Riley and Oberman should be dropped from all BBC programming with immediate effect, because to support their conduct sends a very dangerous message. These were two TV celebrities with a lot of powerful supporters, but the BBC must demonstrate zero tolerance towards those who bully and harass children. It is worth wading through Lawson’s lengthy article as it also contains important stats on anti-Semitism that represent evidence that cannot simply be ignored by EKRC. This crucial evidence strongly supports the Williamson Case against EHRC, the case targeting Corbyn and the Press Bang SLAPP as well. We are right on the brink of exposing all the lies that were used to legitimize the Covert 2019 Rigged Election. One more massive heave and the Tories will be out, Investigation or not, but we cannot give up the fight; : it’s not won yet! DO NOT MOVE ON!

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

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!

[Kim Sanders-Fisher]

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!

[Author]

Posts