Reasons for the enemy wanting ever stricter bail conditions became clearer last Wednesday. First imposed December 2016 by Friend of Israel DJ Emma Arbuthnot (recused), I have now been on bail for 15 months. Last autumn’s Freedom of Information request provides ample confirmation of Crown witness and CAA Enforcer Steve Silverman‘s determined efforts to have me locked up for breach of bail, thus obtaining a police interview which could be used against me in court. Much of the questioning in fact centred on my answers to Sgt Jon Lloyd regards my song Too Extreme For The BNP for which no charges have been brought. I think on the whole press coverage was pretty fair: selective in parts, for sure, but Jenni Frazer actually manages to call me a performer – a giant step forward. Hurrah!
Above: Barrister Adrian Davies and Alison Chabloz leaving court. Photo Colin Bex.
The BBC’s Martin Bashir takes a similar angle. Note the use of ‘Jewish people’ in the title. Have the Beeb’s headline writers been issued with an order not to use ‘Jews’? Do other BBC headlines speak of Muslim or Christian or atheist people?
The prize for the most misleading headline goes unsurprisingly to the Mail which still hasn’t corrected the header following my Racism Trail [sic] on January 10th – and which inspired the following rhyme:
The racism trail
Begins in Israel
Where stone-throwing kids
Are flung in jail
Not of Khazar descent
May be neutered
Then home to Africa sent
Last but not least, the Blackpool Gazette used the PA‘s report. Would the fact that my IP address is now blocked by the Gazette have anything to do with my previous satirical blogpost which features the seaside town? Was someone offended?
Other articles have been released in the alternative media. As many of these link to my videos and several have reproduced my song lyrics, I am unable to share for fear of hurting someone’s feelings and once again finding myself behind bars. Ditto regards my appearances on three alternative radio podcasts, The Daily Nationalist, Down The Rabbit Hole and The Graham Hart Show. For those with time and inclination to listen, any search engine is your friend.
Many thanks to all those supporters who turned up last Wednesday. Apologies to those of you who sent messages and who have not yet received any reply. After being filleted and grilled by the opposition in a public court, my energy levels are somewhat depleted: in the days leading up to my court appearance, media hounding of my immediate family as well as criticism within revisionist ranks from ‘supporters’ resulted in an emotional battering from which I am only just recovering. For the record, Dr Fredrick Töben has published a full account in the latest edition of his Adelaide Institute newsletter. Again, a search engine will do the necessary for those interested.
Special gratitude to three genuine supporters who made notes from the public gallery last Wednesday. Below, you will find Robert Henderson’s review. Once I have managed to collect my thoughts more fully and deal with the tsunami of mail in my inbox, I shall write more, specifically on the use of musical satire as way to lighten our load and deliver the revisionist message in a way that is accessible, entertaining and informative. As one friend noted after listening to Monday night’s Graham Hart Show:
“Alison, you make many good points, in particular: blatantly anti-Christian songs are completely allowed, while you are merely trying to help people realize how we’ve been lied to about a historical event involving this powerful sect who has basically controlled the narrative.
“Also, the revisionists who think it’s unwise to use music to help people understand what really happened maybe don’t want people to really know. Maybe it’s just a hobby for them, instead of really caring that people find out how we’ve been lied to all of our lives.”
Finally, a HUGE thank you to JQ Rowling on Gab who has created the most wonderful meme. As with alternative media articles and podcasts, I am unable to share here on my blog. Only those receiving this missive via email may rejoice in its fabulousness!
Kindest regards to all,
The trial of Alison Chabloz day 2 – March 7 2018
By Robert Henderson
Presiding: District Judge John Zani sitting without a jury
Karen Robinson – Prosecuting counsel
Adrian Davies – Defence counsel
Witnesses for the defence – Alison Chabloz
Background to the prosecution
Ms Chabloz denies three charges of sending obscene material by public communication networks and two alternative charges of causing obscene material to be sent. The case involves three songs which the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) claim are anti-Semitic: Survivors, Nemo’s Anti-Semitic Universe and I Like The Story As It Is.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused to prosecute the case originally but after the CAA started a private prosecution and threatened a judicial review of the CPS’ refusal to prosecute, the CPS agreed to reverse their original decision and take over the private prosecution.
The events of the day
Despite having a whole day for the case we are not yet not at the end of the defence case. Ms Chabloz gave evidence but the second witness for the defence Peter Rushton never entered the witness box.
Ms Chabloz did well in the witness box. Being under cross examination is very tiring because apart from the natural nervous tension – everyone is nervous when they first experience being in the witness box – and the need to concentrate intensely is draining. Moreover, Ms Chabloz was in the witness box for the better part of two hours. Not only did she not wilt, towards the end of her testimony she had prosecuting counsel a little rattled. (Karen Robinson made the mistake of getting into a verbal cul-d-sac when she kept repeating the same question over and over instead of trying to get at the answer she wanted by asking the question in different ways.)
Ms Robinson began her cross examination by concentrating on the songs which are the subject of the charges Ms Chabloz faces. Then she swerved into raising questions about a song which was not part of the charges and tried to make a case for Ms Chabloz being a racist generally.
Ms Chabloz picked up very quickly on the fact that Robinson had gone off piste and protested that the questioning was irrelevant, but Robinson was allowed to proceed with the line of questioning. Eventually defence counsel Adrian Davies objected that the line of questioning was not relevant to the charges but Zani still allowed Robinson to pursue the line of questioning.
I suspect that Adrian Davies allowed Robinson to continue without objection by him for as long as she did to provide the basis for Mr Rushton’s evidence to be accepted. However, it is worth noting that Ms Robinson’s attempt to broaden the argument against Ms Chabloz to a general charge of racism is of a different nature to Mr Rushton’s research which is, as far as it could be judged by what was said in court, simply concerned with validating Ms Chabloz’s claims.
At the end of Ms Chabloz’s cross-examination Adrian Davies’ second witness Peter Rushton was expected to testify. Mr Rushton has been down at the British Library ferreting out evidence which objectively supported the claims made in Ms Chabloz’s songs. However, his evidence was deemed to be of a nature which did not require him to go into the witness box provided the prosecution accepted that his research could be entered as evidence. This Ms Robinson agreed to and obviated the need for Mr Rushton to go into the witness box.
The court then turned to the question of whether written not oral arguments speaking to Mr Rushton’s research should be made The prosecution wanted only written arguments . (I suspect that the prosecution were nervous about having seriously non-pc statements read out in court in whole or part). Adrian Davies wanted to make oral arguments. judge Zani ruled that oral arguments could be made as well as the written ones and booked another hearing which he thought should last for around an hour.
This is unsatisfactory because it means that the prosecution’s attempt to present to present Ms Chabloz as a general racist was made in open court, while Mr Rushton’s evidence supporting Ms Chabloz will not, at least in its entirety, be presented in open court. (Some of Mr Rushton’s evidence will presumably become clear during the oral submissions on his evidence).
The upshot of all this activity is:
1. Written arguments on Mr Rushton’s evidence must be submitted by Friday 16th March
2. Oral arguments will be made on Monday 14th May
3. Judge Zani will reserve his judgement.
4. A further hearing will be held on 25th May at which Zani will give his verdict and the reasons for it.
There were around 20 supporters of Ms Chabloz. There were a number of interruptions from the public gallery in support of Ms Chabloz . These annoyed the judge enough to make him threaten to clear the public gallery.
Compared with the first day’s hearing on 10 January there was little media interest, although Martin Bashir sat in the press section. During one of several adjournments he engaged in an extended conversation with prosecuting counsel Karen Robinson.