Despite a public consultation and 2020 recommendation by the Law Commission that notorious s.127 of the Communications Act 2003 was be repealed, Rishi Sunak’s government has decided to keep the anti-free speech legislation on its books. The about-turn was announced November 28th, just shy of four weeks after my Appeal was due to be heard at Southwark Crown Court, but was (again, for the second time) adjourned – because, apparently, no judge was available to hear the case…
(For some reason, comments were not enabled for this post, now corrected.)
It took almost two years for police to respond, half-heartedly, to reports submitted in 2014 on advice from the Musician’s Union, for harassment of me by Ambrosine Chetrit of “Eye on Antisemitism.” As well as creating sockpuppet accounts to stalk and harass, Chetrit incited her followers to abuse me; hate mail and death threats were sent to my address; my close family members were also openly targeted.
Despite plenty of hard evidence of a vicious smear campaign and deliberate course of action intended to cause me harm, police obviously weren’t interested.
In 2015, Chetrit also colluded with Campaign Against Antisemitism “CAA” Enforcement Officer, Steve Silverman, then trolling under a vulgar nom de guerre, “Bedlam Jones”. As advised by police themselves, I kept reporting the abuse. To no avail.
Presumably, it was the over-excitement of appearing for the first time in Court to testify against me, in December 2016, that caused Silverman to commit a game-changing gaffe.
In a signed witness statement submitted to Court by CAA’s then solicitor, Stephen Gilchrist, Silverman’s comment, in brackets, — that I have “remarkably” correctly guessed the Twitter account he used, — is wholly incriminating. (The account has since been renamed to @SSilvUK.) How many times did I report this account to Derbyshire Constabulary during the previous 18 months? How many times was I told by officers that this campaign of harassment of me was “under investigation by the CPS”? — Too many to count.
As noted above, both Chetrit and Silverman (and their associates) have been reported multiple times to police, initially to Derbyshire Constabulary and more recently to the Metropolitan Police Service.
Why has no action been taken to prevent further abuse of process?
My grateful thanks to The Barnes Review for dedicating eight pages in their latest edition to an interview I gave to author Dave Gahary last year.
The magazine is the world’s leading revisionist periodical; its editorial team has staunchly resisted onslaughts by the anti free speech brigade since 1994, thanks to the philosophy of its founder and creator, the late Willis Carto.
It is an honour and privilege that my small contribution is recognised by leading revisionists.
The 22 years I spent in relative isolation in the Swiss Alps where local traditions are cherished served me well. I speak perfect French, not-so-perfect German, earned myself a music degree from Lausanne’s Haute École de Musique and became a mother as well as a competent skier. On the other hand, this chocolate-box lifestyle didn’t quite prepare me for what I would find on returning to my birthplace: a land transformed by weaponised mass immigration, a deeply divided populace ingrained with ever-increasing levels of intolerance towards one another – the products of a political and social system corrupt to the core.
Nevertheless, my musical education provided me with plenty of opportunities; performing at the Edinburgh Fringe, in local folk bands, on cruise ships and as a solo artist. Indeed, my solo Songs of the Shoah earned worldwide acclaim – as well as a conviction for malicious communications. Is there any other western artist – folk, punk, rap or even Blood and Honour – who has suffered the same level of censorship and persecution for their music? Moreover, why would any self-respecting nationalist-revisionist residing in a country with no specific law banning historical revisionism also be seeking to cut out my tongue?
Alas, we do not live in a sane world. And those within the UK nationalist community who have declared a war of strategy against me seem to have lost their moral and intellectual compasses. Still, perhaps this debacle will result in a turnaround – eventually. Those who saw fit to sign and publish a scandalously untrue and unfair version of events following the sabotage of Prof Faurisson’s final conference in Shepperton have unwittingly declared their own hand and, thankfully, there are still enough sane people around able to recognise that there is something deeply amiss in the accusations laid against me.
One such decent person called round for a visit earlier. Perhaps unintentionally he provided what might be the very final piece of the Shepperton puzzle: a murder mystery now finally solved? Although I didn’t realise at the time, the actual puzzle piece had already been published in yesterday’s article: three photos (see below) from Hope Not Hate’s (HnH) most recent magazine. Publication of the magazine was delayed, as confirmed by the article mentioning me on page 38. I realised only after my friend had left and after publishing yesterday’s post that this HnH article might well be the key to the entire mystery.
Let me again cite the relevant passage from the article:
“Edmonds and Chabloz marching alongside each other was made the more interesting as he was at the time party to a soon to be released denouncement of Chabloz, decrying her a “traitor and saboteur.”
After my friend had gone home, I remembered that the only time I had seen this same incongruous assertion – that Richard Edmonds already knew before the NF Remembrance Day parade I was to be denounced – was in an email sent by Edmonds November 26th. This email was then forwarded to me by one of his correspondents December 2nd. The email begins :
“[…] Dear All,
Yes, a calamity and a very unpleasant business. Yes, I was proud to stand at the Cenotaph and Yes, I did know most of the facts which have now been revealed on the H.& D. web-site, but Remembrance Day is not the occasion to raise such matters. There has to be a proper time and a place for such.”
The forwarded version sent to me on December 2nd did not include Edmonds’ cc list. In order to narrow down the possibilities of how HnH came about this information, I needed this list. When it arrived, I was surprised to see only a dozen email addresses. One name in particular stood out. In the words of Kate Bush: I raise my hat to the strange phenomena.
In Matthew Collins’ HnH online article dated November 26th – the day after the H&D Shepperton sabotage statement – he claims that a female “reporter” travelled by train with a group of attendees from Waterloo to the conference venue. The segment also mentions Derek Beackon who was indeed part of that group, as was Edmonds along with several other male patriots. However, there was no pre-journey meet-up at any Waterloo pub and Beackon confirmed yesterday that neither Collins nor HnH were discussed at any point during the entire journey. As related in the first post of this series, HnH’s informant must have been an insider, with all trails leading back either to the organisers, to one of the guests, or to a combination of both.
Collins gives us a clue to the identity of his informant: the number of women present at the conference can be counted on the fingers of one hand. We also learn that the female informant must have a strong dislike for Derek Beackon. As well, the alleged caller to HnH passing herself off as “Sophie” can realistically only be a woman – most likely the same person who also provided HnH with a photo of the venue and cars parked outside.
Whilst waiting for Edmonds’ cc list, I tried to find information on Twitter that might indicate when exactly the HnH magazine was published. There is no mention prior to December 19th. However, on Collins’ timeline, I came across the following tweet:
Now off to meet by bezzie for wine and gossip. She’s a Sloane. A lightweight and a Sloane. Most of her gossip is usually about me but I let it slide..
Now, I am not suggesting that Collins’ “bezzie – a lightweight and a Sloane” – is the same person whose name jumped out at me on Edmonds’ cc list, but coincidence is indeed a Strange Phenomenon: Collins’ physical and sociological descriptions fit Melinda Cordwell (aka Melissa Caldwell)to a tee; and Cordwell just happens to be one of the handful of women who attended the Shepperton conference. Cordwell and HnH are fully aware of the ongoing spat between Michele Renouf, Peter Rushton and myself. Mostly likely they also knew or at least suspected that I was banned from attending the conference.
As well as a marked lack of enthusiasm for WW2 historical revisionism, Cordwell is another woman who dislikes me intensely, even more than she dislikes Renouf. There’s also evidence to suggest that she is not particularly fond of either Derek Beackon or Richard Edmonds. In one group email forwarded to me by Fredrick Töben dated March 2018, Cordwell counter-attacks complaints made against David Irving whilst lobbying to have Renouf and I evicted from revisionist ranks. A further digital trail consisting of posts on VNN UK forum leaves little room for doubt: here is a woman scorned, intent on stirring up tensions between revisionists and above all determined to manoeuvre herself into a sphere of influence.
Like Renouf and Cordwell, Julie Lake is no fan of mine either. Lake’s long-winded, non-factual emails likewise testify to her desire to see me excluded from nationalist platforms. Along with Cordwell, both Renouf and Lake are included in Edmond’s cc list whereas, perhaps surprisingly, Rushton is not. Cordwell didn’t add her signature to the H&D statement. Neither did Lake. Maybe they were never asked, but it would be no surprise if they both endorsed and even encouraged publication from behind the scenes.
Despite emails and forum posts bitterly criticising Renouf, Edmonds, Beackon and yours truly, Cordwell’s attitude regards my detractors changed dramatically within just a couple of months. Following Jez Turner’s final court appearance, a few supporters gathered at a local Weatherspoons. Two distinct groups formed. No prizes for guessing where Cordwell chose to position herself. All past animosity was suddenly swept aside and from then on it was all smiles and compliments. Cordwell now best pals with Renouf, Edmonds, et al., – after lamenting having been treated so badly in the past by these same people..? It just doesn’t add up, unless perhaps sums of money were involved – or because Cordwell was persuaded of an opportunity to become part of the “inner circle” at long last?
Cordwell was contacted prior to publication of this article and asked if she was in any way involved with HnH. I also asked her if she owned a VNN Forum account and whether she still stood by her wish to “purge the egotists” from the UK revisionist “closed shop”. Cordwell did not respond.
[Update: events over the past twelve months since this article was first published would tend to confirm that the Hope Not Hate spy in Shepperton that day was in fact Julie Lake.]
One person I have never heard Rushton, Edmonds, Renouf, Lake, Cordwell, et al., complain about is Jez Turner. The world of the UK alt-right elite stopped turning when he was sent to prison and now, under strict licence conditions, he is unlikely – incapable even – to be able to smooth over what has become a gaping abyss within British nationalism-revisionism. But as far as I’m concerned and notwithstanding Turner’s imposed absence, the Judgment Day is nigh for those determined to discredit me (and who now seemingly want to see me sectioned for having the audacity to appeal my conviction and sentence).
Above: Jez Turner was sent to prison a week before I received my suspended sentence. Turner’s decision not to appeal was met with consternation from certain UK Revisionists. After organising a fundraiser in his honour from which I was excluded, these same individuals then ganged together to accuse me of sabotage, manslaughter and, when these allegations fell on deaf ears, they then tried to shame me into abandoning my own appeal.
To be fair, no one could have imagined that Prof Faurisson would succumb to a heart attack the next day. Despite the organisers’ wish to discredit me, it also seems highly unlikely that they would risk endangering their guests and the 89-year old Professor – not to mention their own (ahem) reputations – by organising the sabotage of their own meeting. Nevertheless, by way of their all-encompassing desire to see me banished from nationalist circles, my detractors usurped the name of Robert Faurisson in the most shameful and disgraceful manner in order to accuse me of working for the enemy and hold me responsible for the professor’s death. The bigger question, of course, is whether or not such machinations were also implemented in order to discredit and undermine the revisionist cause itself.
Are these self-proclaimed proponents of historical exactitude and free speech willing to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions and face up to the fact that the abyss they themselves created has now become deeper and wider than ever?
Sadly, this damage is unlikely to be repaired any time soon; perhaps also partly due to sloppy inertia on the part of understandably disillusioned male patriots? Having seen very little achievement in practical terms over the course of their political lives and having witnessed never-ending infighting within nationalist ranks, many of them no longer have the will or desire to fight and instead simply prefer to be entertained whilst supping ale.
If I had not spent a substantial slice of life in Switzerland, then perhaps I too would have been subdued into inertia as a result of ever-increasing oppression imposed by successive UK governments. Perhaps the Alpine air and traditional lifestyle help to preserve authenticity and spirit – transient qualities so easily trampled under the jackboots of authoritarian police states.
It’s been an interesting winter so far and I am honoured to have received two New Year Awards from associations dedicated to defending freedom of speech, including the Hutten Award (Adelaide Institute). I am of course also immensely grateful to all those who continue to support me by way of donations and kind messages.
Finally, after this marathon writing session of 5,000 words and endless editing, methinks it will soon be the right time to start singing again. Meanwhile, all patriots, including those still bearing grudges, are welcome to come along and support my appeal which begins at Southwark Crown Court, February 11th, 10 am.
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.
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.
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.
A reliable source informs me that last Monday’s LBC radio phone-in with Muslim Zionist, Maajid Nawaz, featured a call from a disillusioned serving police officer who stated that his force had been obliged to arrest someone for singing a song. Who could that be, I wonder?
November 2016, bare-faced liar and useful idiot for the Israel lobby, Suzanne Fernandes, managed to have an officer from Derbyshire Constabulary arrest me – the officer told me he was acting on behalf of Essex Police – for alleged harassment. Fernandes falsely accused me of targeting her and her children on Twitter. I was never asked to answer bail and the charges against me were dropped. Indeed, Fernandes regularly posts photos of her young children online – most recently as her Twitter header. One may be forgiven for concluding that professional victims like Fernandes use their own kids as bait. She’s certainly not the only one.
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.