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.
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.
For the fifth time in 12 months, I walked free from court again yesterday – this time in a breach trial brought against me by the National Probation Service (NPS) for refusing to comply with the slave labour part of my Suspended Sentence Order.
First off, a brief explanation is necessary regards the difference between a Community Order (CO) and a Suspended Sentence Order (SSO). As one District Judge commented in a research paper published in 2008:
‘Well, prison is an ever-present part of one isn’t it [the SSO], but not of the other, and that’s the difference in a nutshell. There’s a real threat. As I see it, a Community Order is – look, we’re trying to help you – and anything to do with imprisonment is – look, we’re trying to threaten you.’
Mainstream coverage of social media “offences” is highly dependent on who is the “offender” and who is the “victim”. Certain “racially-motivated” offences are hardly mentioned, whereas others earn swathes of column space and even prime-time TV coverage. Councillors and even members of the aristocracy are not spared the glare of negative publicity and my own case has generated plenty of interest. But for some reason, yesterday’s announcement by the Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority that media lawyer Mark Lewis is to be prosecuted in a disciplinary court has not been mentioned by any mainstream sources at all. *
In a statement made following yesterday’s news, Lewis said:
It is a matter of great principle that one can respond robustly to intimidating racist death threats.
After briefly following me ca. 2011/2012 on Twitter, Lewis then blocked me; thereafter unblocking me to engage in what can only be described as abusive (on his part) spats.
Lewis’ robust responses culminated in his presence in court, seated next to my CAA accusers last June for sentencing, no doubt in the hope that I would be led down to the cells and then to prison.
So, let’s take a look at some of the history which led to this week’s turning of the tables.
Suzanne she goes down
Once more to Ealing cop shop
She makes an umpteenth statement
Falsely claiming she’s a victim
And we know that she’s half crazy
That her strings are pulled in Barnet
And the lies are fed from Finchley
Oh but she’s too blind to see it
Yet Suzanne does her duty
Carries out her orders
Just keeps on spreading nonsense
In the hope somebody answers
With angry words and menace
And again she runs for cover
Begging Mr Plod to nick me
But he only shakes his helmet
As she stands there
Playing victim with her lies…
(Sincere apologies to fans of Leonard Cohen – RIP).