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.
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.
Over the past week we have learned from a study carried out by an Israeli think tank that Zionist leaders lie most of the time. Surely not?! Some would go even further, stating that Zionists in general lie most of the time. Despite Zionism’s original tenet of emancipation from religious Judaism by way of creating a homeland for Jews (Zionism = Jewish nationalism), the ideology of Zionism now relies heavily on the secular religious dogma of the ‘Holocaust’.
As well as being the principle reason behind the foundation of the state of Israel, the ‘Holocaust’ is now also the main identifier of Jewish-ness and, as most Jews are Zionists by default and seeing as our institutions are dominated by Zionists, Holocaustianity has become the main religion not only of Israel but of the western world in general. Zionists therefore have a quasi religious duty to lie, even to themselves.
Also over the past week or two, I have received numerous emails from The Jewish Chronicle (JC), partly explained in my recent posts. 90% of these emails are from editor, Stephen Pollard, whose role apparently also includes that of Data Protection Officer(!). In short, Mr Pollard refuses to comply with my Subject Access Request on the grounds that he is entitled to demand verified identification, in this case a ‘certified’ copy of my passport. More on this in my next post.
Other recent emails from the JC include one from the Head of News as well as several from reporter Ben Weich who has been following my case since earlier this year. Tuesday, Mr Weich asked for a statement explaining why I laid a wreath in honour of the 784 British soldiers killed during the Palestine Campaign at the Remembrance Day Parade organised by the National Front (NF). I duly complied and my statement is properly mentioned in an article in the online edition. Before publication late on Wednesday afternoon, Mr Weich asked if I would also like to respond to two comments made by the Community Security Trust (CST) and Hope Not Hate’s Jemma Levene. To paraphrase the angle taken by both organisations: Chabloz’ appearance alongside the ‘neo-fascist’ NF to lay a wreath in honour of British soldiers who served in Palestine must mean she’s an anti-Semite.
Better suited to my own website, here is my response…
Ben Weich in this week’s edition of the Jewish Chronicle confirms the gist of my previous post: police have received yet another vexatious complaint from the usual suspects and are therefore obliged to fulfil their duty and investigate my heretical comments regards Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah. On and on it goes…
Today, I would like to comment on the atrocious double standards being applied by the English court system when it comes to so-called ‘hate crime’. I will return to foreign justice systems in a future article, specifically dealing with the current plights of Ursula Haverbeck and the Schaefer siblings in Germany (not forgetting Horst Mahler and Gerhard Ittner), as well as that of Canadian free speech advocate, Arthur Topham.
Over the past few days, seven opinion pieces have been published by lamestream media. With the possible exception of Spiked’s Fraser Myers, all are penned by Jews, with two written by Gideon Falter, chairman of Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), the man who originally brought the private criminal prosecution against me which led to last week’s guilty verdict for causing offence by uploading songs to my Tell Me More Lies blog and to YouTube.