During my three-day appeal last February, the prosecution’s main argument regards the facts – i.e are my songs “grossly offensive” under S. 127 of the 2003 Communications Act – relied on Judge Charles Gray’s 2000 ruling in the Irving vs Lipstadt case. According to both James Mulholland QC and Judge Chris Hehir, Judge Gray’s ruling provided the appropriate benchmark by which to (a) define “Holocaust denial” and (b) prove that the Holocaust happened according to the standard narrative (six million Jews killed mostly in gas chambers as part of a pre-planned mass-extermination of Jews by the Nazis).
In response to the court’s decision to uphold my appeal, I wish to cite a passage from the end of Thomas Dalton’s Debating the Holocaust – A New Look At Both Sides that deals with Cambridge historian Richard Evans’s 2001 book Lying About Hitler. Evans acted as Lipstadt’s expert witness; his book describes his impressions of the case.
Dalton’s scathing treatment of Evans’s chapter on the Irving vs Lipstadt trial raises serious concerns not only regards Evans’s intellectual capabilities; Dalton’s appraisal also calls into question Judge Gray’s ruling and its consequences for further revisionist witch trials here in England. The passage comes at the very end of the book, in the Epilogue, on pages 293 to 294.
Dalton’s work is highly recommended reading. It can be found here where you can also download a free PDF “peek” preview. Here’s the relevant passage:
6. The anti-revisionist response is highly revealing
Since the year 2000, there have been only a few attempts by orthodox historians to respond directly to revisionist challenges. […]
This video is an experiment. I still need to improve my audio editing skills – noticeable in the rather irregular quality of the sound. Probably not a good idea to prepare for two-track recording (vocals / guitar) when most of the video is just me talking. Anyway, I did what I could and hopefully will be better next time.
As promised, references to various items cited can be found here: Right of Reply – In response to my emotionally-challenged in-house critics and their demands for my SURGICAL REMOVAL from nationalist circles.
Many thanks to Philip, Paul, Ali, Ruby, Mary and John for their recent donations. Apologies for being behind with my correspondence and personal notes of thanks. I will get round to tackling my inbox later this week.
Interested readers can now view PDF documents of both last Monday’s Preliminary Ruling (regards “sending”, etc.) and Wednesday’s Judgement.
For those less inclined to wade through pages of text and case law quotations, certain paragraphs have been selected and reproduced below, with emphasis added.
Yesterday, February 13th, was the 74th anniversary of the bombing of Dresden in which over 100,000 men, women and children were burned alive in a holocaust delivered by the British and American air forces. There were more German civilian deaths during just a few days’ bombing raids over Dresden and Frankfurt than there were British victims of German bombs throughout the entire Second World War.
They fought for our freedoms – or so we were told.
Legal arguments today went in favour of the Crown, with Judge Christopher Hehir inferring that the complex issues of law raised regards statutes of S. 127 of the Communications Act (sending / causing to be sent via a public communications network) were somewhat ‘above his paygrade’. Whatever the outcome of deliberations tomorrow and Wednesday, a further appeal on these points of law will be made to the Divisional Court.
Apologies to my supporters who were unaware of today’s proceedings. My schedule has been hectic. Two and a half years of legal hassle over a song or three takes its toll, not to mention wild allegations of sabotage and manslaughter coming from those who are supposed to be on the same side and who should know better.
Everyone is of course welcome to come along tomorrow and again watch the videos of my “grossly offensive” songs as they were originally performed. My accusers from Campaign Against Antisemitism will also be there, no doubt tightly sticking to the usual script, and I shall again be giving evidence.
As expected, the recent case of Bishop Richard Williamson losing his appeal in the ECHR has been added to the prosecution file against me. Odd perhaps that there have been no gasps of disapproval sent in the good bishop’s direction from certain quarters – those mentioned above who are supposed to be on the same side; and no frowning either regards Dieudonné vs ECHR when the French comic lost his 2015 appeal after having had the audacity to invite the late Robert Faurisson on stage to accept the Prize for Insolence and Infrequentability.
Satire must be prosecuted! We can’t be having any of it! To the gallows with these heretics!
Wednesday is reserved for summing up and the verdict. In such situations, it’s always wise to expect the worst whilst hoping for the best and in today’s climate of political correctness it would be foolish to be too optimistic. But please do try to come along and show your support for the right to freedom of speech – it really does concern every one of us.
Southwark Crown Court
1 English Grounds
(off Battlebridge Lane)
Court N° 8, 10 am. (Nearest tube London Bridge).
Featured image by Poshfruit.
A meagre yet nonetheless revealing Subject Access Request (SAR) has finally arrived from Derbyshire Constabulary. The most important revelations are as follows:
Reports against me all were made to local forces outside Derbyshire. In simple terms, therefore, I am being forced to carry out Serf Labour as “payback” to a community that has no complaint against me. Indeed, there exists (thankfully) not a single synagogue within the entire county.
The SAR confirms (finally) that I did indeed deliver more anonymous post (including another, unopened “greetings card”) to Glossop police station shortly before I was first arrested November 2016. The officer in charge at the time had expressly asked me not to open any more of these greetings cards before handing them over to police. Why wasn’t this unopened card sent for DNA testing? Why was this case only partially investigated and why was this new evidence not taken into account? Why was I suddenly informed that the investigation had been dropped a week before I was the one being arrested for alleged harassment of the suspected sender and why was this person never interviewed by local police? – The SAR states categorically that my reports concerning this particular individual span a period of over 28 months.
The SAR also contains a short report of the interview I gave to police after my first above-cited arrest. Why did the CPS Counter Terrorism Unit prosecution barrister, Karen Robinson, then claim in court March 2018 that a second interview I gave in October 2017 was the first time I had ever been interviewed by police about my songs? What happened to the process of full disclosure?
A number of reports from the usual suspects are vaguely alluded to, one of which accuses me of “selling a CD” of my songs! It appears that Derbyshire police weren’t too fond of the idea of having me re-arrested for alleged breach of my bail conditions throughout most of 2017, despite reports coming thick and fast. Perhaps that’s why the Met was sent to do the dirty work outside court, October 2017, resulting in two nights in the cells and then bizarrely, according to the SAR, two days later “all charges dropped” by my own local force?