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…
Back in court
I’m back in court
Twixt Brexit Day and Halloween
My case will likely go unseen
Back in court
For crime of thought
It’s Halloween, it’s Brexit Day
Good time to throw free speech away..?
Tomorrow’s appeal hearing for my main case will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, Holborn, London WC2A 2LL, Court 1, at 10.30 am. The nearest tube stations are Temple and Holborn.
The two presiding judges are Mr Justice Coulson and Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE.
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. […]
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).
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?
At Monday’s Southwark Crown Court hearing for mention and fix for my Appeal, the listing clerk apologetically explained that she had requested the presence of two magistrates for the scheduled December dates as early as September 30th. She was notified only late afternoon Friday that none were available.
The Court eventually did however manage to find enough jurors for the Legal Argument part of my Appeal to go ahead by having surplus jurors sent over from the Old Bailey. Mid-morning, I was contacted by my barrister who said that the Legal Arguments might proceed if I was still able to attend.
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 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of “anti-Semitism” isn’t working. Firstly, the term “anti-Semitism” is a misnomer: “Semitic” defines a group of Middle Eastern languages including Arabic and Hebrew. Jewishness is neither an ethnicity, nor a religion. It is simply a mindset. Those whose mindset betrays adherence to the cult of Jewishness i.e. those Jews and non-Jews who consider “Jews” to be a race, are often the ones crying wolf when it comes to allegations of “anti-Semitism”.
Twitter Support has now come up with a THIRD different reason for my suspension.
Firstly, they claimed I was guilty of posting a ‘violent threat’.
Secondly, they claimed I was guilty of creating multiple accounts with overlapping purposes.
Now, they claim my account was suspended for ‘multiple breaches of Twitter rules’.
None of these reasons has any validity, clearly confirmed by the fact that Support has now given three, separate reasons for a suspension which was originally the result of malicious, mass reporting by users who are themselves in breach of Twitter rules!
I shall keep appealing.
Regulars here on my blog will remember my suspension from Twitter last October, followed by Derbsyhire police closing their investigation into the harassment and malicious communications of which I am victim, and then my arrest by the same police force two weeks later.
I would say Twitter Support played an important part of responsibility in this farce. Just as a reminder, here’s the tweet which sparked my suspension:
As you can see, there are two police forces tagged into my offending tweet. Previously, during the targeting of my gigs, venues, my Edinburgh Fringe show and the general trolling and harassment of me by this same troll and others, @Sicaro72’s tweets had been sent to police on their request. Back then, although I knew of Sicaro’s other identities, including those mentioned in my above reply AND the infamous @NemoNemo50 – still no official charges! – I still had no idea who he was in real life.
My offending tweet can hardly be described as a violent threat. I’ve received far worse on Twitter myself yet Support hasn’t suspended these accounts:
Maybe because the threat was separated over two tweets (the order is reversed in the image above) Twitter doesn’t consider it a threat? And what about CAA (Campaign Against Antisemitism) associate Mark Lewis’ replies to me?
Whereas I tweeted once only about wanting to see a rope around an anonymous serial troll’s neck, foul Lewis is able to get away with tweet-murder, and his only sentence is to remove his crass outbursts. How does Twitter Support reconcile such blatant double standards?
As for the poor, strangled troll, Sicaro aka Nemo, I made an Excel spreadsheet of the 540 tweets he’d sent me over a period of six months and sent this to Twitter Support who, after this grand effort on my part, finally suspended him. Why my prior, endless reports didn’t have the same effect is a mystery. Regards Sicaro’s 540 tweets, my own suspension and Lewis’ non-suspension, I appealed to Support again and, suddenly, rather than citing a ‘violent threat’, the reason given for my suspension was now the ‘creation of multiple accounts with overlapping purposes’.
To no avail… The new excuse lasted a couple of appeals and then reverted back to the ‘violent threat’ yarn. I tried opening a new account @ajchabloz last week and was not able to send one single tweet before being suspended for ‘multiple breaches of Twitter rules’.
It’s so absurd, that it’s laughable. Banned for a ‘violent threat’ – simply words in a tweet – whereas my abusers are given free reign to troll, harass, threaten and stalk with impunity, mostly using anonymous accounts. Twitter clearly uses one set of rules for a certain section of the Twitter community – those associated with ‘anti-racism’ [sic] organisations – and another for the rest of us.
Sicaro aka Sicko aka Nemo is back up to his usual tricks as mark00427586, tweeting about George Galloway and grassing up anyone he dislikes to CST and CAA: ‘I don’t work for any charities’, come the habitual, Talmudic lies. He can’t be too vocal, though, and he knows why.
It was only after my first court appearance on December 15 that I came to the realisation that the two men – CAA Chairman and Director of Enforcement – sitting next the prosecution lawyers were none other than my two most prolific trolls, Nemo and Bedlam. There was no need for any confirmation from me: their solicitor managed this, dragging my barrister and I back across the UK a week later when Goldberg QC lied in order to have me gagged by fellow Friend of Israel, the now-recused Chief Magistrate, Emma Baroness Arbuthnot.
There are enough screenshots of the two CAA director-trolls hosted on this very blog and included in attachments to police emails without it being necessary to recover the library of screenshots on my computer – the same computer held for five months without a charger and which has still not been returned to me, despite all police charges being dropped. The only two or three charges left are for my songs, and I’ve not yet been served with those either.
No wonder the CPS asked for an adjournment and no wonder CAA have stopped mentioning my name – the first time in what was a daily occurrence for over 18 months. The CAA is, however, still targeting others. One latest victim is Welsh Labour hopeful Mike Sivier, rightfully angry after he suffered defeat at last week’s local elections following a typically rampant CAA smear campaign. Unable to crucify Sivier properly on their own blog, CAA paid a useful hasbara and one of Sivier’s Tory rivals to seal his fate by associating him with yours truly. I shall write more on this in another blog post.
Suffice it to say that we ethnic Brits are being silenced, as well as professionally and socially demonised in our own country. Not all the culprits are of foreign heritage, some are as British as Sivier and I – and they’re the worst traitors of all, along with our corrupt political leaders who have enabled this and allowed it to happen beneath their very eyes. This isn’t what our fathers and forefathers fought for. Time to wake up!
Yes, regarding the CAA and my other accusers I will be making a counter-claim and, depending on the result, I will also be making a claim against Twitter. In light of the above evidence, it’s difficult to see how they would have a twig a tweet on. I will publish a copy of Twitter’s response to my appeal below.