The latest legal battle in the long-running R vs. Chabloz landmark case took the form of a full retrail, last month, at Southwark Crown Court in London. This time, my musical offence related to posting, on Telegram, a video of a parody of Lionel Bart’s Pick A Pocket Or Two from the much loved musical Oliver!
From the Daily Mail report of the first day’s hearing:
Ms Chetrit told the hearing today she ‘burst out crying’ when she heard the Oliver Twist song.
She said: ‘Using terms such as ‘shekels’, such as ‘Jew’, referring to the grifting of money which is a well-known trope about Jewish people.
‘Knowing the song was written by Lionel Bart [who is Jewish] and changing the lyrics for a horrendous attack on Jewish people is just unimaginable’
‘I have had constant harassment from Ms Chabloz for nearly ten years.
‘This video made me feel upset not just for myself, but for how the Jewish community would feel, with this song out in the public arena having been viewed by around 600 people at the time.
‘It was laughing at Jewish people being grifters wanting shekels. I can’t put into words how it made me feel.’
‘It was absolutely horrific. I knew immediately it was of an anti-semitic nature.’
Asked about the Oliver Twist song Chabloz told her appeal hearing: ‘I am playing the role of Tommy Robinson who is channelling the role of Fagin.
Judge Tony Baumgartner (sitting with two Magistrates) did not believe that my Fagin parody was about Tommy Robinson and therefore upheld the 22 week prison sentence imposed in April 2022 by DJ Nina Tempia. A further fine was added to the bill, bringing the total to somewhere in the region of £3,360.
Finally, last week, I was able to recover the greater part of my equipment seized by police in May 2020. Still, too late for me to be able to provide essential evidence to the Court. And how I am expected to pay when my ability to work (perform as a professional musician) is systematically suppressed by individuals intent on silencing me for good? How am I expected to recover the losses effectively incurred, in particular over the past three years, with all my work devices confiscated and retained by police, on instruction from the Prosecutor? – Phones, a whole library of screenshot evidence detailing the harassment, trolling, bullying and stalking I have suffered at the hands of pro-Israel lobbyists for more than a decade, as well as laptops containing work that I have been unable to complete since then.
Concerning the retrial (appeal of conviction and sentence) both Court and Prosecution had known for months about a proposed Defence Section 9 Witness statement, signed by one of my co-authors for the Fagin song – a former serving police officer now living in Denmark. At the last minute, the Court refused to hear evidence from Denmark via video link, with the judge saying that it would not be in the interests of justice. This statement, however, clearly confirms my evidence that the song is directed at Tommy and his associates and that several other co-authors and producers were involved in the project at the time. None of those based in the UK who were part of the production team had the courage to give evidence in Court.
Whilst my own witness’s evidence via video link was refused, the Court did however grant permission for the Crown’s key witness and original complainant (see Mail extract above) to appear not only via video link, but from a completely different Court, reportedly just down the road from the witness’s home in Hendon (at what cost?).
(Over the past almost seven years, initially from High Peak, I have been dragged through the Courts of Westminster, Chesterfield and Derby. As well, during this period, endless bail conditions together with three short jail terms and, still today, Licence restrictions, all have affected and continue to affect my freedoms immeasurably.)
In Court, via video link (and therefore definitely recorded), among other outright falsehoods, the complainant stated that she has never been an associate or supporter of Tommy Robinson. Yet everyone familiar with Eye On Antisemitism’s antics over the past decade know that this is a lie – including Robinson himself. More on that in an upcoming post.
When, under cross examination, I pointed out that the complainant herself had posted the video on Twitter and elsewhere without my permission, HHJ Baumgartner cut me short, telling me to ‘answer the question’, rather than ‘invent a folly’ of my own.
What kind of ‘democracy’ is this? Zionist organisers of political smear campaigns can post my songs online but I cannot. If I do I get sent to prison. Eye On Antisemitism’s tweet of my parody song is still live, approaching 2,000 views – 1,400 more than the Telegram version complained about in Court. Reports to Twitter at the time that the video was ‘grossly offensive’ were not upheld. And all this happened before the takeover by Elon Musk.
[Disclaimer: the link to the quoted replies to the witness’s tweet of the Fagin parody is posted here, not to cause any offence, but to prove that I was telling the truth whilst giving evidence under oath. https://twitter.com/QuotedReplies/status/1252132262218473478]
Despite feeling disturbed by the misogynistic tone advanced towards myself (also towards the complainant?) from the Bench, at least this time I was not forced to sit in the Dock. Everyone else was polite and respectful. Both magistrates – one a Labour life peer, Lord Ponsonby, – sat silent, rather resembling a pair of Wise Old Owl bookends. Even Crown expert, all the way from Canada, Dr Molas, politely said ‘Hi’ during one of the breaks. Perhaps she had appreciated my rendition of the International Brigade’s Peat Bog Soldiers?
The Peat Bog Soldiers video was one of two extra videos used as ‘further evidence’ against me in Court. But this video was a different version than the one played last April at Westminster Magistrates. This latest video — in fact the genuine original — featured none of the links to my sites, as displayed in the fake version broadcast last year at Westminster Magistrates Court. As well, a second clip featured part of an interview with YouTuber Jakes & Latte, contrary to the Prosecution’s claim that the interviewer was activist James Goddard.)
Rather than stating, as she did last April, that ‘Dear Old Glen’ is a retired boxer and former bodyguard for Tommy, this time Chetrit agreed with Dr Molas’ evidence that ‘Glen’ was somebody few people seem to have even heard of. Under cross examination by my barrister, the young ‘expert’ conceded that a logical interpretation of the song might possibly persuade some listeners that the voice and characters concern Tommy Robinson and his associates. Which they obviously do.
Ten years down the line, the longstanding refrain that I harass Jews still fails to convince Prosecutors.
As well as misleading that she has been the victim of ‘continual harassment’, serial complainant Chetrit continues to lie on social media about my conviction, maliciously claiming I was found guilty of harassment and malicious communications towards her. But my bail conditions over the past three years have clearly stated that there must be no contact. No complaints from the Bench about this and other defamatory inventions from the Crown key witness.
Two trials, two convictions for satire, spread out over a period of almost seven years. All for two ‘paltry’ summary convictions for causing gross offense, by posting my own satirical parody songs online, that no one was forced to watch; not forgetting all that public money, seemingly to appease the Zionist lobby, up to and including Team Tommy.
In brief, this whole exercise exposes a Justice System creaking at the hinges, harangued by political lobbyists into finding ways to best silence and punish an artist for singing satirical songs.
As for the parade of various officials: magistrates, judges, detectives, lawyers, etc., – some evidently afraid of becoming themselves victims of Cancel Culture (or worse, disbarred or prosecuted), it would seem that defending Zionist hegemonic interests is the only available career choice – if you want to ‘win’ or judge cases, that is. Defending freedoms supposedly fought for and won during two world wars is no longer acceptable, at least not in the case of Chabloz’ parody songs.
Many thanks nevertheless to barrister Adrian Davies for a valliant effort to persuade the Bench that the inherent problems of Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 cannot be resolved whilst Article 10 rights apply to Subsection 2 (see R vs Scottow) but not to Subsection 1. Of course, as HHJ Baumgartner pointed out, if my Article 10 rights apply for this one song, then they would have to apply for ‘all the rest’ as well…
The Mail didn’t bother reporting on the outcome. Only The (decrepit) Star and Campaign Against Antisemitism took the time to publish articles, with CAA predictably taking credit whilst failing to mention the complainant’s name, much to her chagrin. Nothing from either piece is worth citing here.
The incoherence and unfairness of the case against me will be laid bare in an upcoming book. Sincere thanks to all those who have lent their support and who continue to do so.
Wishing everyone a pleasant weekend.
You must be logged in to post a comment.