Before detailing my recent experience of Jewish Chronicle (JC) editor Stephen Pollard’s refusal to grant my Subject Access Request (SAR), I would briefly like to return to last June and the day of my sentencing at Westminster Magistrates Court.
When I was called once more to the dock, I immediately recognised solicitor Mark Lewis, seated next to both my accusers from Campaign Against Antisemitism. I was able to quickly alert my barrister, Adrian Davies, that Lewis had sent me several death threats on Twitter, a fact which Mr Davies revealed during mitigation that same day.
During my second visit with the Probation Service in August, I produced screenshots of Lewis’ tweets along with several other examples of abuse sent to me on Twitter, abuse that is still ongoing today despite the obvious fact that I am unable to respond directly owing to my 12-month ban from social media. Shortly after my meeting with probation, Lewis’ prosecution by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority was quietly announced by the media.
Upcoming court dates for my Appeal against conviction and sentencing are scheduled for three days starting December 10th at Southwark Crown Court in central London. My solicitor informs of the possibility that the court may have other urgent business and therefore might have to postpone. I shall keep you updated.
In other news, I was honoured to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in London last Sunday November 11 in remembrance of the 784 members of the British Armed Forces who lost their lives during the peacekeeping mission to Palestine 1945-1948. Click here to see photos and a short video of the speeches given by Richard Edmonds, Tony Martin, Jordan Pont and myself at the rally afterwards. Many thanks to National Front Chairman and Deputy Chairman for organising the traditional Remembrance Day parade and allowing me to participate.
The Subject Access Request dealt with by Edinburgh Fringe was the first and, to date, the most helpful of all SARs submitted. The 2016 EdFringe SAR contains much the same sort of complaints made against me as in 2015. Revealingly, even EdFringe staff admit that one particular Twitter account, RTingBot, is focused on me and is attempting to get me prosecuted.
With dates of my appeal against conviction and sentence fast approaching, I have recently submitted several Subject Access Requests (SAR) in accordance with the new GDPR and Data Protection Act. Results so far have been revealing. Let’s start with my SAR to the Edinburgh Fringe. The screenshots below are selected from an 89-page SAR concerning my 2015 EdFringe show Autumn’s Here. My annotations in red:
Of the many moving tributes following the recent death of Robert Faurisson, the video below is one of the most pertinent I have seen so far. Using today’s technology – featuring a mise en scène and dresscode worthy of note and which would certainly have met with Robert Faurisson’s approval – Alain Soral regales viewers with his in-a-nutshell analysis of the crucial importance of historical revisionism and the inestimable contribution made by Robert Faurisson.
Alain Soral is the founder of Égalité et Réconciliation, the leading dissident publication in France with seven million monthly clicks. He is also head of the publishing house Kontre Kulture. Mr Soral kindly granted me permission to translate his incisive impromptu text and redistribute the video below with voiceover in English. You can find the original here.
Many thanks to all who continue to support the revisionist cause.
The passing of Robert Faurisson almost immediately after his final speech to an audience of Revisionist enthusiasts brings to mind other prominent figures who made similarly spectacular exits from this worldly stage. In 1673, French playwright Molière collapsed whilst performing the lead role in his comedy Le malade imaginaire (The Hypochondriac). More recently in 1984, British humourist Tommy Cooper suffered a heart attack whilst performing at the Royal Variety Show in London.
According to the British Sentencing Council’s definitive guidelines on the imposition of custodial sentences:
• A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless the offence or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.
Furthermore, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, part 12, chapter 3, para. 9 (5), states:
Before making a suspended sentence order imposing two or more different requirements falling within subsection (1) [mine has no less that five], the court must consider whether, in the circumstances of the case, the requirements are compatible with each other.
And again quoting from the above guidelines:
• A suspended sentence MUST NOT be imposed as a more severe form of community order. A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence. Sentencers should be clear that they would impose an immediate custodial sentence if the power to suspend were not available. If not, a non-custodial sentence should be imposed.
At my conviction last May, District Judge John Zani was fairly precise in his indication that my offences were serious enough to warrant custody. My musical malice had “on the face of it”, passed the custody threshold and therefore I was facing a spell behind bars or – as it turned out – a custodial punishment in the form of a Suspended Sentence Order including slave labour plus four other requirements.
Are these requirements compatible? Not really. Forced labour plus a 12-month social media ban plus a fine prevent me from earning a crust. The strangest part of my order is the 20-day “Rehabilitation Requirement Activity” (RAR). Let me explain.