My appeal against the National Probation Service takes place this Friday, January 10th 2019, 10.30 am, at Derby Combined Court Centre, Morledge, Derby DE1 2XE.
This post could be the last one for a while, as I expect to be sent back behind bars for three weeks. If further conditions are imposed, these may well include an outright ban from publishing on the Internet, including here on my own website. My enemies – the enemies of freedom of expression – wish to see me silenced for good. They, along with the other usual suspects, are still falsely claiming that I was convicted for ‘holocaust’ denial. The aim is to mislead people into believing that questioning or, in my case, mocking the dubiousness of orthodox ‘holocaust’ history, would be a criminal offence. Bring it on, I say: such legislation, as already exists in many European countries, only makes people more curious as to why it is unlawful to question a historical event.
Season’s greetings to all. Here is a brief review of 2019 that, in the end, turned out to be not so brief. The new year is fraught with the prospect of yet another upcoming spell behind bars, for singing songs. More on that later…
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.
Commitment and sacrifice are the same thing. Committing oneself to the revisionist cause is perforce a self-sacrificial act, especially in countries where expression of doubt or non-belief of proven lies is unlawful. In the UK, however, revisionism is not unlawful, despite wishful thinking on the part of many of my accusers.
To recapitulate: militant Zionist NGO, Campaign Against Antisemitism, CAA, brought a private prosecution against me for a video I had originally uploaded outside English jurisdiction. After taking over and discontinuing CAA’s private prosecution, the Crown Prosecution Service, CPS, then brought two pairs of charges against me for a video containing two of my songs, (((Survivors))) and Nemo’s Antisemitic Universe in a video of a live performance of my show, Tell Me More Lies, originally uploaded to the London Forum YouTube channel, September 2016. A third charge was added for a third song, I Like the Story as it is – SATIRE, in 2017.
My unexpected release from HMP New Hall on unconditional bail last week appears to have somewhat dampened my detractors’ celebratory mood, in particular for the start of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah. Following vituperative pleas that I be shiv’d inside prison (= stabbed ), post-release whining has reverted to the usual calls for censorship and that I would do well to hang myself. Such nice people. Why they still think it’s a wise move to grant me further publicity is, frankly, unfathomable.
This latest round of persecution has led to my profile being raised further, with messages of love and support flooding in from near and far. Many thanks to everyone for their kind encouragements. Those of you frustrated in your attempts to donate (my latest donation pages at Patreon and Ko-Fi having been suspended with funds sequestered!) can find more information on how to help by clicking here.
Musical extracts ~ me playing keys over backing tracks of jazz standards, Taking a chance… and Gee, baby…
Please find links to my donation pages on the right hand side bar. Thanks to everyone for your ongoing support and encouragement.
Unfortunately, owing to tech issues, I am unable to upload the documents cited but will keep trying and update as necessary.
Alison. X x
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.