Why the entire System is unfit for office

Junior fellow at SLGO (Smirk Like Gideon Osborne) and local Conservative candidate in the upcoming UK General Election, Robert Largan can smell blood. To start off the week, Largan posted the following about his rival, Labour’s Ruth George, on his campaign Facebook page:

Largan

The post reads as follows, see Largan’s final sentence:

Ruth George is still trying to claim that well known racist Kasey Carver has “no role to play” in her campaign despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Remember, Kasey Carver has made a number of anti-Jewish racist posts including:

-Sharing a post about the “so called Holocaust”
-Advancing a racist conspiracy theory about Israel supporting ISIS
-Making racist comments about the “Zionist influence of the BBC”
-Was a long time friend of Alison Chabloz, a racist Holocaust denier, so notorious that she is banned from entering France.

No sooner had I politely responded to the call to war, Largan then dutifully moved the battle location over to Twitter – from where I am banned and therefore unable to reply directly. Was Largan hoping to attract an army of virtue-signallers complete with pitchforks? Sadly for him, only a couple of accounts with visible links to Campaign Against Antisemitism, CAA, entered the one-sided fray. Rattusbaum aka Nemo predictably came out to bat for Israel, squeaking plaintively. Amusingly, le gros porc was quickly out for a duck after being bowled over by another song.

Let me make it clear that I am not in favour of any of the main parties. True, there are entries on this very site, published not all that long ago, that are supportive of Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Zionism. Now, however, the anti anti-Semitism lobby seems to be promoting me as one of the main reasons not to vote Labour. Quite a compliment, I’d say!

Continue reading

My strategy: carry on singing!

Peter Coulson, presiding judge at yesterday’s High Court hearing, when relying on the Crown’s citation of authorities from the 2012 Twitter joke trial (R vs Chambers), stated wrongly that, unlike YouTube videos that are available for to everyone to see, it was necessary to be registered with Twitter to see tweets. The ruling also states, also wrongly in my view, that – as with a tweet – my videos were “immediately streamed” as a result of anyone accessing them.

Also sitting, Bobbie Cheema-Grubb, admonished my barrister, Adrian Davies, for his analogy – coherent in my view – that the ‘sending’ of a message to an inanimate object, as in to a server in California, fails to come under the legislation of S. 127.

Whilst Cheema-Chubb noted that it was unhelpful to compare old forms of communication with the Internet, she appeared not to take into consideration the fact that legislation contained within S. 127 has a history dating back decades, first for ‘offensive, menacing or threatening’ letters and then for similarly abusive phone calls.

Final business of the day was an agreement between both sides, in court, that my costs were to be covered by the tax payer: a pretty clear admission that this entire farce has been a huge waste of precious court time and of public resources.

Continue reading