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.
No idea why YouTube sent me notification of the video captioned below. Tommy’s dual-citizen Zionist
handlers fans might ask themselves if they’re now having to reap what they’ve sown over the past decade and more…
Above: Brian of London reaps what he sows…
It’s at times like these that one gets to know who one’s true friends are. Huge thanks for all the kind and supportive messages received over the past few days. I am still waiting for proof – one SINGLE proof – of allegations made against me. So far, nada.
There was, however, enough proof to find lawyer Mark Lewis guilty of bringing his profession into disrepute. In a report published yesterday, the Jewish Chronicle predictably claimed I was one of his “attackers”. Poor man. In the warped minds of certain hacks, being asked questions in a civil manner equates to being “attacked”? Twice in the space of less than a week, this same publication has also stated that I was given a “two-year suspended sentence”. As one good friend notes: would that be illiteracy, ignorance, or a wish to mislead? Oh well, at least the JC can be said to act in the tribal interests of its readership.
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…
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.
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.