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.
In just nine days’ time, I will once again be in court, on this occasion for my long-awaited trial. Of course, there is no guarantee that proceedings will be over there and then: the enemies of freedom and justice have a nasty habit of trying to drag things out for as long as possible, in the hope of extracting a guilty plea from those they take sadistic pleasure in persecuting. As my father would say: they can whistle!
On the Campaign Against Antisemitism’s website, there is a fairly recent article written in typically gloating fashion concerning my prosecution (for singing songs) which states that Alison Chabloz is not ‘an important person’. Those at the CAA helm, on the other hand, clearly do consider themselves to be important, a fact outlined in numerous articles brimming with over-inflated rhetoric and self-praise. No holds barred when it comes to CAA’s own admissions to meddling with the authorities, producing yet more anti-white ‘Holocaust’ propaganda, currying favour with high-ranking government officials via social invitations and meetings during which the obvious aim is to influence chief constables, police and crime commissioners, judges and anyone else they can manipulate.