Alison Chabloz

I humbly apologise to everyone for being me.

Perhaps, if I had told a joke about the Roma Holocaust — or sanctioned a millennia-old goblin-banker stereotype for Hollywood movies based on a children’s book series — things might be different: I would not again be facing jail time for causing ‘gross offence’ with another parody song.

I therefore apologise for not being Jimmy Carr, or JK Rowling. (After checking, it seems that Count Dankula is fast approaching a quarter of a million followers on Twitter, so I suppose I must apologise for not being him either.)

I am also deeply sorry that, by using the Internet, victims were presented with the choice to click play, allowing them to watch and share my videos. The deadly virus of comedy songs was thus allowed to mutate more rapidly, spreading to other online platforms faster than you can say “the Ricky Gervais variant”.

Apologies, too, that my case shone a light on the fact that protection from prosecution for speech crime, in particular under bad law Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, hangs partly on who you are and partly on what you say you believe, publicly. Or rather on what you say you don’t believe.

If, like many in academia, government and media, keeping your job means turning a blind eye to the crimes of the Israeli state, both at home and in the diaspora, then that would be your own moral choice. The same applies when paying lip-service to inaccurate accounts of what happened in the past.

I apologise for not falling into the above categories; also, for helping to enshrine within the annals of legal history the spectacle of men in horsehair wigs declaring satirical songs to be grossly offensive. Seemingly oblivious to the fact that satire is meant to be offensive, when will other humourless drones that now populate this island decide that they, too, need governement protection from ridicule and scorn?

It goes almost without saying that my songs satirising ‘Nazis’ (for want of a better word) will never be acknowledged as forming part and parcel of my repertoire, nor indeed even criticised by those usually so quick to condemn and snarl. But they only complain when it suits them.

To add to the confusion, whilst some of my detractors scream ‘neo-Nazi’, controlled opposition goons prefer to paint me as ‘a left-wing spy’ who ‘blames white child victims of Muslim grooming gangs.’ I apologise to all good-hearted patriots who, rather than see their donations put to good use, have in actual fact been conned into funding facelifts and foreign travel instead.

What differentiates normal offensiveness from something that is grossly offensive? How is Carr’s joke any less grossly offensive than my songs?

When it comes to satire and comedy today, in stark contrast to the once world-renowned British appetite for merciless lampooning of the rich and famous, UK courts have shown where the line is drawn. But only where some people are concerned. For others with far greater media influence and wealth, (indeed, also for some whose notoriety dates back far longer than most of those jailed for wrongthink), there appears to be no line at all.

With over 10,000 prosecutions for thought crime offences in the UK (mostly mean, inappropriate posts on social media, some dating back several years); with a backlog of 300,000 cases still waiting to go to trial in the wake of the plandemic, and with another 20,000 profit-making prison spaces available within the next few years, unless something is done to reverse the trend currently being implemented by this government, down in a sorry heap at the bottom of the slippery slope will be our final destination.

Last but not least, I apologise to all the tax-payers who fund prosecutions that, in the end, are intended to make them, their kids, and their grankids, all shut the f*ck up too. Hopefully, they’ll still have enough left at the end of the month and enough of a sense of humour to enjoy a Jimmy Carr gig if he’s in the area.