Egregious political chancer George Galloway saying that he is not “antisemitic” because, inter alia, when he was working undercover as a pro-ANC agent in South Africa in the 1980s, Jews were those who provided him with cars, overnight accommodation (and cash?) etc.
At that time, Galloway was General Secretary of War on Want, a supposed charity partly funded (then, though not now, I think) by the British taxpayer. It gets EU monies as well.
Galloway got into trouble over his expenses. He was cleared of actually stealing (embezzling), apparently, but all the same had to repay nearly £2,000 (worth maybe £10,000-£20,000 now). He never sued over allegations in the Daily Mirror that he had been enjoying “a life of luxury” at the expense of War on Want’s donors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#War_on_Want.
The point Nick Griffin is making, and justly so, is that Jews are always behind any attacks on white Northern European culture and politics. There they were in South Africa, the Jews, making money, living in large numbers in the most expensive parts of Cape Town and Johannesburg (to the extent that white people in Africa used to call “Jo’burg”, “Jewburg“!), yet at the same time undermining the whole foundation of that society.
Now look at the UK, France, Germany, Scandinavia, USA, Canada, Australia etc…
As for Galloway, how pathetic is it that he, and many like him who are self-describing “Left” or “socialist” types, oppose Jewish hegemony and supremacism in Palestine, yet pay lip-service to Jews and the Jewish “community” in the UK, France etc? Truly pathetic.
On the pseudo-nationalist side of UK politics (as in the USA) you get people, especially those trying to make a living out of their activities, who loudly proclaim their (usually unwanted) allegiance to the Jews and Israel: Katie Hopkins, Breitbart, “Prison Planet” Watson, “Tommy Robinson” (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), Anne Marie Waters, Jayda Fransen, “Sargon of Akkad” (Carl Benjamin) and others.
Politically-speaking, and in fact usually in general, foolish people. They are political nullities, dependent for their income —and such prominence as they have— on their social media profile. If that is taken away, they have nothing left.
More tweets seen
Before the political midgets currently “ruling” the UK “defy” China in the South China Sea, they should take a look (Wikipedia has overviews) at the relative strengths of the Royal Navy of the UK, as against the Chinese navy. Britain has about 2 or 3 dozen large ships and submarines, and about 170 naval aircraft. The Chinese have some 600 ships and a similar number of naval aircraft. I suppose the idea is that the UK will be a poodle for American power, again…
The absurd irony is that, while Britain is undertaking gestures of the above sort, Chine people are flooding into the UK. Take a look at any British city. Boris-idiot has also invited up to 6 MILLION Hong Kong Chinese to live here.
Yes, they may be, some of them, anti-Peking. Don’t place too much reliance on that. Anyway, the numbers are huge, and will change our whole society.
Law Commission report on proposed changes to the law on communications offences
“The new “harm-based” communications offence 1.33 The offence that we recommend should replace section 127(1) of the CA 2003 and the MCA 1988 is an offence based on a communication’s potential for harm rather than on its content fitting within a proscribed category (such as “grossly offensive” or “indecent” content). Specifically, we recommend that it should be an offence for a person to send or post a communication (letter, electronic communication, or “article”, in the sense of “object”) that is likely to cause harm to a likely audience, intending that harm be caused to that likely audience. “Harm” for this purpose is defined as psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress.
1.34 This moves the focus away from broad categories of wrongful content, as we see in the current offences, to a more context-specific analysis: given those who were likely to see the communication, was harm likely or not likely? This formulation therefore ensures that, first, communications that are genuinely harmful do not escape criminal sanction merely because they cannot fit within one of the proscribed categories. Secondly, communications that lack the potential for harm are not criminalised merely because they might be described as grossly offensive or indecent etc.
1.36 The fault element for our recommended offence is set at a higher level of culpability than is the case under the current law: the defendant must intend to cause serious distress. Under section 127(1) CA 2003, the defendant need only have intended to have sent the communication of the proscribed character (ie they need not have intended any particular result). The MCA 1988 offence requires proof that the defendant intended to cause alarm or distress, which is the same fault element as harassment (but, notably, harassment requires a course of conduct, whereas the communications offence is complete at the point of sending a single communication). Our threshold is higher; it requires proof that the defendant intended to cause psychological harm amounting at least to serious distress.” [Law Commission report]
I have not yet read the full report, but what I have read so far seems to be (and could hardly not be) an improvement on the existing Communications Act 2003, s.127, which has been abused for years by Jew-Zionist cabals. notably the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” (fake charity) crowd.
I contributed (as a member of the public) to that report. What effect (if any) my contribution had, I have no idea. No matter. “The stars in their courses fight on the side of the just” [Chinese proverb].
I have noticed the same phenomena, more or less, at the Waitrose (the only fairly close local supermarket), a mile or two from my home. I was there yesterday. No-one wearing latex gloves, but 90% or more masked, and I even saw one idiot wearing a helmet with a visor, as though Ebola virus was about, rather than Covid-19 (which has killed about one in every thousand people in the UK, and a far smaller proportion where I live). Different ages, but the vast majority at least of retirement age, reflecting the age-demographic locally (and especially true of local Waitrose shoppers).
Introduce that tyrant to Madame Guillotine.
The history of the middle and late 20thC would have been very different had that come to pass.
I wonder how true that is. If it is basically correct, then those social-national-sympathizing police should not be wasting their time issuing puerile death threats against stray nuisances, and making online comments, but should be keeping their powder dry, recruiting more people, and organizing quietly and secretly for when the right time may come.
Tweets seen this morning
Yes. My (small, pleasant) nearest hospital (semi-rural coastal Hampshire) had, at one time three (yes, 3) patients with “the virus” and, more recently, about two weeks ago, seven (7). That’s out of a total district council area population of 180,000 spread over 291 square miles. 95% of the population is “white British” (and nearly 3% “white Other”). As against that, the age demographic is quite high.
True, there are other, larger, hospitals not very far away (Bournemouth and Southampton, both within 25 miles distance) but even so it is clear that few people in the wider area are infected or at least symptomatic to the extent that they need hospitalization.
Much of the Western world has gone crazy and I do not believe that the public health issue is the main reason for that. Think “Great Reset”. Think 2022, and the 33-year cycle.
I interpret that as I have been suggesting for some time: the Conservative Party is winning, just about, by default. The Jewish mass media have stopped attacking Labour (because the Zionists achieved their objective of recapturing Labour and dumping Corbyn), but that alone is not enough to put Labour into the lead.
In a sense, remarkable, when you look at the sleaze and incompetence of the Boris-idiot government of fools.
Labour is not really being an Opposition. All it is doing is saying “we want stricter lockdown, more facemask nonsense, blah blah”.
There is no legitimate Government, and no real Opposition.
I first encountered “Happy Holidays” when I first lived in the USA, in the winter of 1989-1990. Basically a Jewish idea, i.e. to give “Hannukka” the same billing as Christmas on the public stage. Also thrown in as makeweight was the ludicrous invented “celebration” called Kwanza [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa].
When logic and fact meet fear and a brainwashed mind, logic and factual reality have no chance…
Don’t agree that the Western world should cease to exist or function because 1 out of 1,500 or 2,000 people are dying with “the virus”? Then you are callous, stupid, ignorant, and/or even a murderer. Or something…
Speaking of reality v. unreality, I heard a truly absurd piece on the BBC World Service a few days ago. Some black preacher expressing the view that Jesus Christ was a black African or at least “black”, whose parents came to Palestine “as refugees from North Africa“! As said on many previous occasions, the whole UK msm, and especially the BBC, needs a real cultural purge.
Here (below) is a supposedly Welsh tweeter, tweeting under the name “Sion Gruffudd”, and who seems to be a complete doormat for the Jewish lobby (or maybe is a Jew, tweeting under “Welsh” cover; I don’t know):
If you said that you wanted to feed Jews to the dogs, or any named Jew, the police would probably be at your door, and/or you might end up on trial (like Alison Chabloz) under the notorious Communications Act 2003, s.127. Will that happen to “Sion Gruffudd”? I doubt it…
Virtually all the tweets of “Sion Gruffudd” are about Jews and Israel. No need to bother more with it…
“.…Professor of History Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) of Harvard, Princeton and Georgetown Universities in America…wrote a book entitled The Tragedy and Hope (1966) which discloses an international bankers’ plan to control the world from behind the political and financial scenes. Quigley claimed that the planning by billionaires to establish a dictatorship of the super-rich disguised as workers and socially concerned democracies was already well-advanced even by the middle 1960s. Something that would be dismissed today as a “conspiracy theory” by the university departments sponsored by the likes of Facebook, Google, YouTube and Soros; beholden as they are to an elitist cadre of alumni who fund their research, and who are monitored by the Stasi-like Equality & Diversity units who enforce ‘right-think’ with an enthusiasm that matches Mao’s Red Guard during the Cultural Revolution in China.”
“This is a situation that can no longer go unchallenged by those who truly advocate for diversity of thought and intellectual rigour based on the right to open and unrestricted debate within our education system.”
Alternatively, the Spanish authorities can, though not immediately, build up the ports of Bilbao and Santander. At present (or until recently) there was only one ro-ro ferry per week from Santander to Plymouth. I believe one per week Bilbao-Portsmouth too. If that were changed to 5 per day from each port, France could be sidelined. It takes longer to get to the UK from Spain, naturally, but taking the road trip Spain-Channel ports into account, not much longer.
Of course, were cruel kosher/kashrut and halal slaughter to be banned in the UK, quite a few Muslims and Jews might feel impelled to leave the UK. “Oh dear, what a pity, never mind”…
I see that “the virus” has even made its way to Antarctica (a Chilean base there). Hopefully the one person who (last year, I think) accessed my blog from Antarctica will not be hit by it (I am presuming that he —or she?— is an English speaker, but could still be Chilean, of course).
Frankly, I think that Hitchens is too kind to “Boris”. Don Corleone at least had a sense of strategy, a sense of loyalty and, in his own way, a sense of honour. I see none of that in the unpleasant clown posing presently as Prime Minister.
Still this “angels on a pinhead” “Right” and “Left” stuff…Who is “Right” or “far Right”, and who is “Left”? What a dull exercise! Concentrate on policy and intention. Leave that fruitless exercise and deal with realities.
The above photo shows a police officer, I think a “Special” (volunteer part-time “officer”), looking at her hat, with its chequered line. Presumably a lesbian. Now, there are several points about that photo: first and perhaps most important, who in authority, or should I say “leading beyond authority”?…
Reverting to the photo at top, can the public have trust in such partisan police personnel? I think not.
This goes beyond the personal proclivities of the individuals. It is a question of the police, both institutionally, and as individual officers, espousing, publicly, controversial socio-political positions. Also, the police operating in a biased manner.
Many of those on the social-national side of UK radical politics have, in recent years, been subjected to the results of this kind of one-way-street policing, policing which is in other words biased, politically biased. I myself have had a couple of instructive encounters of the sort.
Zionist pressure groups
In early 2017, the Jew-Zionist fanatic Stephen Silverman, who styles himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement” at the small but (((well-connected))) “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [“CAA”] pressure group, complained about me (on behalf of that group or cabal), to the police at Grays, in estuarial South Essex, and not far from where he lives.
[below, Grays Police Station, surely one of the ugliest buildings in England].
My experience there was the subject of a blog post a couple of years ago:
Silverman himself was unwittingly exposed as a serial troll by the CAA’s own lawyer in a preliminary hearing of the Alison Chabloz case. It turned out that Silverman had been trolling people on social media —mostly women— for years, using a number of pseudonymous Twitter and other social media accounts. “Gloating sadism” was his overall persona. He and a group of other Jews, together with a couple of part-Jew doormats, all in or connected with the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [CAA] pressure group, joined in that campaign of online and offline bullying.
That group loved to make malicious and false accusations to Twitter, Facebook etc, as well as to the police and to professional organizations. Their posts frequently predicted (((with typical sadism))), that numerous anti-Zionist people would be arrested, charged, convicted, imprisoned. The bullying campaign started around 2012 and built up to a crescendo, though as they were one by one identified, they (((typically))) backpedalled and tried to play the “victim”…
Meanwhile, now-disgraced Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis gave an interview to the Jewish Press in which he openly admitted that his intention was to “take homes away from” those he called “Nazis”, by means of “lawfare” (abuse of the laws of England for Zionist political purposes).
One person, David Carter, of Cardiff, a former executive with decades of experience working for transnational companies, and an unblemished record (i.e. no police record) was actually arrested and his home searched by duped or colluding police. He was later released “on police bail” (where he stayed for months, which was still lawful then though not now, the law on “police bail” having since been changed); his computers, used for consultancy work, were not returned for further months. He never was charged with anything.
Others were subjected to “voluntary” interviews, which in fact are scarcely voluntary at all (belatedly, and in fact fairly recently, Silverman himself was eventually asked to submit to such an interview, and agreed, but at very short notice got CAA lawyers to write to Essex Police declining; seems that he got away with it, so far).
A lady called Jo Stowell, a professional photographer from Clifton, Bristol, was not only trolled online by the same group of Jews, but was sent unwanted goods etc from sale or return operations, and was subjected to other offline bullying. She too was “asked” to attend a “voluntary” interview with the police by reason of malicious complaint(s). She agreed, attending with her solicitor. No charge was ever made. The Jewish-Zionists did manage to ruin her previously successful photography business though.
The experiences of Alison Chabloz, persecuted singer-songwriter and satirist, have been well-documented both in these blog pages and elsewhere, indeed in the national and international Press (and on TV and radio). I commend her own blog:
My own 2017 experience with the Essex Police is linked above, near top; I was also bothered, though much later, in 2018, by telephone calls from a P.C. Plod (his real name was something else…I think!) from the police of one of the most (((occupied))) parts of London. It appears that I was “accused” of having reposted, in fact completely lawfully, on the GAB social media site responses also completely lawful in themselves, posted by the owner of GAB, Andrew Torba, to a malicious Jewish woman “activist” in North London.
That Jewish woman had, laughably, attempted to intimidate Torba, a U.S. citizen whose GAB site operates from the USA and Eastern Caribbean, by threatening Torba, who is resident in the USA, with Scotland Yard! Torba’s responses started off polite and then went downhill as the woman persisted (((typically))), culminating with Torba’s suggestion that she “fuck off” or some such. She did (she had no choice!), but then tried to find scapegoats in the UK from those many who had reposted Torba’s posts (finding them funny; the tweets also rather well illustrated Hitler’s obiter dicta about the Jews being, despite what they and others often say, a very stupid people).
P.C. Plod had obviously been “got at” in some way. In fact, after having been harassed by him, I had to write to his own Borough Commander and to Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, detailing both why nothing that I had done constituted anything unlawful under English law, and as to why the complainant herself was (in relation to me) certainly wasting police time (quite deliberately); a crime, albeit minor, and possibly coming close at times (in her complaints against others) to attempting to pervert the course of justice, a far more serious crime.
Even after that, Plod still had the cheek to email me (again)! Eventually, I gave him a face-saving way out, which he took. The experience was however unsettling beyond my personal inconvenience and anger. It showed that the police in the UK now have little understanding of either the boundaries of their powers or the limits to the authorized discretion customarily granted to the police. It showed that a UK citizen not doing anything unlawful could nonetheless have his private life and rights of expression interfered with by the police— the police at the lowest level of rank, at that.
The police equation for idiots seems to go something like: “Racism” is bad, so anything we are told is “racist” should not be allowed, so alleged “racism” is to be at once treated as “hate crime” or “hate speech”, so use of the word “Jew” is probably wrong or unlawful (if used by a non-Jew or someone who is anti-Zionist), so the police should assume that any online post (by someone not Jewish) and using the word “Jew” is both racist and unlawful, so the police should immediately take action of behalf of a complainant (if Jewish) against the alleged “racist” (if not Jewish) and this gives the police the right and power to censor anything they like, whether actually lawful or not…It’s mad.
More than that. The said Plod was unwilling to accept that I (a practising barrister at one time) knew more about the relevant law than he did (I did) but I still had to detail it in my letter to his superiors in case even they were unwilling to accept that the law is what it is and is not a “leading beyond authority” instrument of flexible socio-political repression, “useful” for repressing the entirely lawful views of those whom the police institutionally, or the personal acquaintances of police individually, may wish to hit out at. I might add that P.C. Plod’s manner was impertinent and smug, as well as rather aggressive.
This tendency, of the police to go well beyond their actual powers as authorized by or under law, has started to spread in recent years. In 2013, a police sergeant in Hampshire actually tried to strongarm a local newspaper after it printed material critical of a councillor!
“Padraig Reidy, of the freedom of speech campaign group Index on Censorship, said: ‘It’s not the sort of thing that should happen in any democratic country. It’s political policing.’ Mr Satchwell added: ‘Hopefully, before it’s too late, people at the top of politics and policing will wake up to what is happening in what is supposed to be one of the most revered democratic countries in the world.’” [Daily Mail]
In respect of the malice of the Zionist CAA cabal, relatively unknown people such as me have been attacked, but so have those far better known, such as Al-Jazeera TV, Gilad Atzmon (the Jewish but anti-Zionist jazz musician) and David Icke (who scarcely needs introduction, at least in the UK).
However, as far as I know, they have not been harassed by the police. I suppose that it would backfire on the police themselves to harass those who are too famous.
The Blair-Brown governments were those that brought in the obsessive “anti-racism” which is now so pervasive. It is why we now have incidents such as the schoolgirl disqualified from an exam by an exam board because she wrote a few things about cruel “halal” slaughter of animals, which comments might be thought critical of Islam or Muslims!
and note that OCR (the exam board) weaselled thus:
“OCR said in a statement: “OCR takes all incidence of suspected offensive material against a religious group in exams very seriously and must apply rules which are set out for all exam boards in such cases.
“We accept that initially we did not reach the right conclusion and were too harsh.”
In other words, there is no freedom to say what you wish against any religion (or ethnic group) now, no matter what its adherents or members might do or how they might behave, but “we were too harsh” (in the way in which censorship of students was actually carried out…). Even the girl’s mother, while angry at what happened, blamed “an over-zealous, over-righteous examiner“, rather than the prevailing miasma of politically-correct and grey-area semi-legal repression.
We should remind ourselves that many of the greatest minds, saints and heroes of Western Civilization would probably have their words censored now in the UK. They would probably have some policeman improperly telephoning them and annoying them!
It is the web of bad law that has been the acid corroding our liberty in the UK. The Communications Act 2003, s.127 has been the facilitator for much of the repression online. It has strengthened the petty denouncers, the complainers to the police, those for whom Twitter is their little world, to be patrolled and “monitored” and from which any dissenting voices (particularly the defenders of European race and culture, and freedom) are to be removed. You can now add to Twitter the other main platforms: Facebook, YouTube etc.
When the police are not impartial arbiters, to whom can we turn? Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
In the United States, it is often said that the bedrock of civil liberty is the famous Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”, alongside the First Amendment (freedom of religion, Press, speech, expression, assembly).
I have always been sceptical of the quasi-holy U.S. Constitution, that is, the way in which this man-made document, cobbled together in a tavern by a bunch of freemasons nearly 250 years ago, is regarded as Holy Writ by the Americans of today. Its “rights” have always seemed to me more apparent than real. For example, you (an American in the USA) have the right to free speech. Very true. So try exercizing it…
If you try to say something negative in the USA about the lobby of the Jews, or about their hugely disproportionate power or influence in the USA or the wider world, or about the “holocaust” hoaxes and fakery, you will almost certainly not face (direct) action from the local or state police, or from the FBI. In that respect, the USA is better than the UK and much of Europe. You may well, however, lose your job, face professional difficulties and, consequent upon those, even lose your home by reason of financial problems as the Jews and doormats thereof gang up against you, so your “freedom” is, in real terms, very constrained indeed. America, “land of freedom”?…
Likewise, yes, a United States citizen or resident may, with variations depending on what state or city he/she lives in (eg New York City as compared with most of the rest of New York state) “keep and bear [some] arms”, but your pistol or revolver, shotgun or rifle, though it may protect you against (some) criminals (ordinary or political) in your home or car (always assuming that you can both handle the weapon and deploy it in time), will certainly not protect you against the state (meaning here not the individual state but mainly the Federal Government).
If the Federal Government of the United States wants to move against an individual or a group, that person or group has no chance. SWAT squads, helicopters, even armoured cars! And that is before the main US military machine is even involved! Your pistol will not help you much under those circumstances. That is why I have only limited faith in weapons.
When the NSDAP started to gain a little local (in Munich) traction in 1920 and 1921, its meetings were routinely broken up with great violence by “Red Front” (Communist/pro-Communist) thugs, the sort that (though in rather farcical reincarnation) might be called “antifa” today. That is when the nascent NSDAP formed the SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Detachment), though at first informally:
“The precursor to the Sturmabteilung had acted informally and on an ad hoc basis for some time before this. Hitler, with an eye always to helping the party to grow through propaganda, convinced the leadership committee to invest in an advertisement in the Münchener Beobachter (later renamed the Völkischer Beobachter) for a mass meeting in the Hofbräuhaus, to be held on 16 October 1919. Some 70 people attended, and a second such meeting was advertised for 13 November in the Eberl-Bräu beer hall. About 130 people attended; there were hecklers, but Hitler’s military friends promptly ejected them by force, and the agitators “flew down the stairs with gashed heads”. The next year, on 24 February, he announced the party’s Twenty-Five Point program at a mass meeting of some 2,000 people at the Hofbräuhaus. Protesters tried to shout Hitler down, but his former army companions, armed with rubber truncheons, ejected the dissenters. The basis for the SA had been formed.” [Wikipedia, though note the (((influence))) in Wikipedia: Communist thugs are “hecklers”! The same is true of most of what you now read or hear about Mosley’s BUF rallies of the 1930s].
Also, note that Hitler’s first attempt at a “mass meeting” attracted an audience of only 70! When I gave a talk to the London Forum in 2017, there were about 100 or so there. Maybe there is hope…
“A permanent group of party members who would serve as the Saalschutzabteilung (meeting hall protection detachment) for the DAP gathered around Emil Maurice after the February 1920 incident at the Hofbräuhaus. There was little organization or structure to this group.” [Wikipedia]
“The future SA developed by organizing and formalizing the groups of ex-soldiers and beer hall brawlers who were to protect gatherings of the Nazi Party from disruptions from Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD) and to disrupt meetings of the other political parties. By September 1921 the name Sturmabteilung (SA) was being used informally for the group.” [Wikipedia]
Interesting too that even Wikipedia recognizes that the purpose of the SA was the protection of meetings, and not the breaking-up of the meetings of opponents.
“The Nazi Party held a large public meeting in the Munich Hofbräuhaus on 4 November 1921, which also attracted many Communists and other enemies of the Nazis. After Hitler had spoken for some time, the meeting erupted into a mêlée in which a small company of SA thrashed the opposition. The Nazis called this event the Saalschlacht (“meeting hall battle”), and it assumed legendary proportions in SA lore with the passage of time. Thereafter, the group was officially known as the Sturmabteilung.” [Wikipedia]
The SS [Schutzstaffel, or Protection Squad] was formed in 1925, with a similar defensive or protective function:
“In 1925, Hitler ordered Schreck to organize a new bodyguard unit, the Schutzkommando (Protection Command). It was tasked with providing personal protection for Hitler at NSDAP functions and events. That same year, the Schutzkommando was expanded to a national organization and renamed successively the Sturmstaffel (Storm Squadron), and finally the Schutzstaffel (Protection Squad; SS). Officially, the SS marked its foundation on 9 November 1925 (the second anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch). The new SS was to provide protection for NSDAP leaders throughout Germany.” [Wikipedia]
One can well imagine that any such bodies as the SA or SS formed in the Britain of 2019, even if not uniformed, would soon be banned and their members subject to show trials.
In fact, we have seen the like, in the past couple of years, especially in relation to “a certain group of young people” the name of which I do not think that I shall use here, which young people have been put on trial for allegedly belonging to such a group. Oh yes, teenagers and other young people put on trial, and not in the local magistrates’ courts but at the Old Bailey and elsewhere! The “evidence” of their supposed organization, or at least political allegiance? Such items as cookie-cutters shaped like Swastikas, pillowcases with slogans on them etc, even the Christian name given by the parents to a baby! It seems that the ethos of Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder-General in the 17th Century, is not dead and indeed has found a home in the British police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)!
Thankfully, the (usually) good sense of the British jury has meant that most such defendants have been acquitted so far; perhaps that is why some politicians, notably Rosie Cooper MP [Lab., West Lancashire] have called for the use of “Diplock courts” (i.e. trials without juries) in political cases. If that happened, that type of court would be the first such court authorized in England itself in hundreds of years (though the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a typical piece of Tony Blair repressive legislation, does open the door to such trials). A Star Chamber for our times…
In a situation where self-defence, whether organized or individual, is criminalized by a hostile and partisan state, the only solution for social-national people is to cluster in “safe zones”, as I have blogged in the past: see https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/category/safe-zones/
In the UK, where even personal self-defence weaponry is generally unavailable, and where the police are rapidly becoming the strong-arm section of the multikulti “diverse” (non-white non-diverse) society, the formation of a germinal ethnostate is the only way forward.
Many reading this will have heard of Alison Chabloz, the satirist and singer-songwriter, who has been persecuted by a Jew-Zionist pack for years.
I daresay that many readers will also know that, having been privately prosecuted by the gang known as the “Campaign Against Anti-semitism” [CAA] under the notorious “bad law” of the Communications Act 2003, s.127, Alison’s prosecution was taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS]. She was finally convicted in June 2018 and was sentenced to 20 weeks (on one reading, 12 weeks) of imprisonment suspended for 2 years, a financial penalty amounting to £700, days of “rehabilitation”, 120 hours of “community service” slavery and a social media ban for a year. All because of a few songs satirizing “holocaust” fakes such as Elie Wiesel and Irene Zisblatt etc. [for a small selection of “holocaust” fakery and fraud, see the Notes, below]
Alison Chabloz is now taking her appeal further, via judicial review of the decision of the Crown Court ruling in her failed appeal from the first instance conviction in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court a year ago.
We shall have to wait and see what is the result of Alison’s judicial review application (it’s a 2-stage process). As to other developments, a year has now passed since the social media ban was imposed.
It is an open question, legally, whether the social media ban imposed on Alison Chabloz was lawful or valid. However, she complied with the “ban”, though managing to sidestep its effect almost entirely by simply continuing to post on her WordPress blog and website!
“They” must have been wailing (wall or no wall) and gnashing their teeth!
So the “social media ban” was never effective. A dead letter.
What about the suspended sentence and financial penalty? Appealed and now, in effect, further appealed. The suspended sentence period still has a year to run.
What about the “community service” slavery? Alison at first did not comply because of her appeal. The bad-joke privatized probation idiots went back to court and Alison had hours added on, but now she has been told that she need do no more than the few days she has already done (picking up litter in wet Derbyshire churchyards!). So that part of the original sentence (confirmed on appeal rehearing) is also a dead letter.
Meanwhile, of course, the privatized probation outfits have all lost their contracts. Presumably, the people who worked in them will have to find other work. There’s at least one vacancy in Derbyshire, picking up litter in wet churchyards!
Oh, and Alison was sentenced to “rehabilitation” days (20, I believe). Turns out that she is immune from being brainwashed (I mean “rehabilitated”) so she has not done much if any of that. So that part of the sentence is also a dead letter.
So there is not much left of the conviction and sentence the CAA Jew Zionists worked so hard to procure!
In fact, as explained already, all that is left is the conviction and suspended sentence itself, and the £700 financial penalty, both of which are being further appealed (in effect).
When l’affaire Chabloz started, she was almost unknown. Now, mainly by reason of the “Campaign Against Anti-semitism” and its attempts to persecute her (both online and offline), Alison Chabloz is known worldwide and has been invited to —and has visited— Canada, France and other countries to talk and sing.
Even some Zionist Jews, indeed even some Zionist Jews who applauded her conviction, now wish that Alison Chabloz had never been prosecuted. Her conviction has brought into the open the disbelief that very many have in respect of the “gas chambers” fable and other parts of the “holocaust” mythus.
Alison Chabloz did nothing wrong, she just sang satirical songs about the Holocaust, so what? The real problem here is well funded Zionist lobbies are being used by israel to shut down free speech in order to hide Zionist deception and crimes from public attention.
Alison Chabloz has come to mind for some reason. I'm waiting for her social media suspension to be over so I can follow her. It's funny how the courts ordered this yet certain criminals are still online spreading hate/misinformation.
Alison Chabloz wasn't convicted for holocaust denial, she was convicted for using holocaust denial in what certain powers deemed as a grossly offensive manner. i.e for taking the piss. This conviction was very very wrong
No, I never was “convicted” of anything (bar the odd speeding ticket) but the “CAA” Jew-Zionist group did try, in early 2017, to get the tame police of Grays, Essex (the area where Stephen Silverman, self-styled “enforcer” of the CAA, lives and from where he makes his false allegations) to arrest and/or charge me, but failed in the end. No arrest. No charge. No trial. No conviction. Nothing. Here is my experience of the emergent UK police state (under Jewish-Zionist influence and pressure):
Below, rent-a-mouth BBC ignoramus James O’Brien defends disgusting Jo Brand. Apparently, it’s OK to “joke” about Nigel Farage having battery acid thrown at him, because “it was on a comedy show”. Funny, I never saw O’Brien and his type stand up for Alison Chabloz and her comedic songs…Must be that it’s OK to joke about acid being thrown —on a named person who has already had other stuff thrown on him— but not OK to lampoon the proven Jewish frauds and fakes of the “holocaust” mythus…(we really are just “occupied” now…)
Jo Brand's joke about battery acid was on a comedy show. Cue calls for a police investigation & manufactured outrage on an industrial scale. This clown talks about death warrants to a member of the public, in public. Cue silence. 'Double standards' doesn't really cover it. https://t.co/ivH19ci3Gr
Below, Alison Chabloz performing in France recently, at the annual Bal des Quenelles, a Summer event held at the country residence of Dieudonné , the famously “anti-Semitic” African entertainer, who has had his own clashes with a contaminated legal establishment, permeated by Jew-Zionism.
The evil Jew-Zionists of the so-called “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [“CAA”], using backstairs manipulation as always, seem to have complained to the Ministry of “Justice” and the privatized probation “service” that Alison Chabloz is in effect getting off lightly, in that the ban on her using social media for a year has been avoided (by her posting only on her own website) and that she has done only a few days of picking up litter unpaid (instead of nearly 2 months!) etc. They wanted their pound of flesh! Instead of which, they are eating bitter herbs…
Today, Monday 8 July 2019, having been summonsed, Alison Chabloz appeared at court, representing herself, regarding the fact that the privatized probation “service” had notified the court that the “Unpaid Work Order” (i.e. picking up litter etc) part of her 2018 sentence (now well over a year in the past) had not been fulfilled. She faced an amendment of her 2018 sentence, which might have been some period of immediate imprisonment, a fine, or other possibilities.
I have it on good authority that the district judge (i.e. magistrate) was at first minded to impose a penalty of a curfew and electronic tag.
This is not the place to explore the lazy and pointless use of curfews and tags on what sometimes seems to be all and sundry defendants, as when Jonathan Aitken, the MP-perjurer, finished his prison sentence early and was tagged and made subject to curfew. Why? In case he sneaked out at night to commit perjury again? What a mad country “we” have become!
Anyway, in today’s matter, Alison Chabloz told the magistrate that she would refuse a curfew and tag. She spoke of some of the surrounding circumstances: police negligence and/or collusion, death threats, harassment by the “CAA” Jews (including death threats appearing on their own social media pages).
The magistrate put it to Alison that, if he were to amend the sentence, then it was a matter either of “immediate prison, or a fine – do you have anything to say?” Alison Chabloz, with great courage, replied that if the British authorities saw fit to jail a singer for her artistic productions, then so be it! At that, the magistrate suspended the Unpaid Work Order (in effect, chucked it in the bin), and told Alison that she was free to go! So that’s an end to that.
[above, Alison Chabloz at Chesterfield (Derbyshire) railway station today, in good spirits].
A complete victory for Alison Chabloz over the CAA. (((They))) really must be wailing (wall or no wall) and gnashing their teeth!
Alison Chabloz is still under attack by “them” (((them))). In the meantime, one of the pseudonymous Jew-Zionists on Twitter has seen fit to claim, entirely falsely, that Alison Chabloz has “served prison time” [see tweet below]. No, her sentence (handed down in mid-2018 and presently under higher appeal) was a suspended one. Alison Chabloz has never “served prison time”. Seems that “Wealden Girl” is indulging in a little wishful thinking. Well, in any case, and as said on previous occasions, do you really expect the truth from any of “them”?
Holocaust denier and antisemite Alison Chabloz served prison time but continues to incite others on Gab and continues to make false allegations. https://t.co/mQzji08UK0
Well, the Jew-Zionists have renewed their attack on Alison Chabloz and have brought pressure to bear on the politicized and disgraceful (and misnamed) “Ministry of Justice”, which in turn has pressured the privatized probation idiots and the equally-(((pressured))) Crown Prosecution Service to summons Alison Chabloz again, this time for allegedly breaching the one-year social media bar imposed at her sentencing hearing in mid-June 2018 (and which has therefore expired). (((They))) must be getting desperate!
In view of the fact that the trial has now been set down for 3 hours in late September, I shall say no more (for the sake of form, even though it will be just before a District Judge (Criminal), i.e. sole magistrate).
In the meantime, you can hear Alison in interview here:
The usual “antifa” idiots are onto the story too, people like “Dr” Louise Raw (the doctorate seems to be not medical but an academic one, though as far as I am aware she is not in any academic post). An agency that books her for speech-giving slots merely says that ” Louise is a writer, speaker and writer, and the acknowledged authority on the Bryant & May Matchwomen’s strike of 1888” and she herself is coy about her academic background: see https://womenalsoknowhistory.com/individual-scholar-page/?pdb=982
Not that I doubt that she has a “doctorate”, but it has always been infra-dig in England to use it as a rank or title unless one is either a medic or an academic. Still, there it is. The habit is creeping in of all sorts of odd people calling themselves “doctor” just because they have a “doctorate” in obscure bits of history or sociology from this or that “university”.
Others have questioned this tendency, which questioning seems to hit a raw nerve, so to speak:
Yes, it’s happened AGAIN- the now-legendary misogynistic trope of questioning women’s PhDs on twitter! I even spoke about it at #MatchFest19– but STILL they come! Thanks for being our 5,476th player, Richard. https://t.co/tW2OSmwdvE
Here is the “doctor”, whose usual platform is a monthly column in the Morning Star, speaking about the 2019 gathering commemorating the historically-noteworthy Bryant & May match-factory women’s strike of 1888:
The event seems to have attracted at least 20 people! Well, with both “doctor” Raw and self-promoting one-trick-pony Caroline Criado-Perez there (you remember her: father ran Safeway supermarkets in the UK, and she herself got an OBE for demanding more women on banknotes etc…the female equivalent of a pub bore), it is surprising that even 20 turned up! (I’m being kind, as usual: the photo shows only 13 in the audience).
Here is what the “fighter for freedom” (or should that read “for repression”?) has to say about Alison Chabloz being banned from entering Macron’s France:
Alison Chabloz’s songs claim the holocaust was fake. She was given a suspended sentence for broadcasting them. She just tried to visit France, where they’re not fans of Holocaust denial. They’ve kicked her out & banned her for 40 YEARS. Tres bien 👍🏻
It seems that the “historian” has failed to note that the Crown Court judge [HH Judge Hehir] who heard Alison’s initial appeal made the points, in his judgment, that
“holocaust” “denial” is not a crime in England;
“anti-Semitism” is not a crime in England; and that
broadcasting “holocaust” “denial” or “anti-Semitism” is not in itself a crime in England.
Another “historian” (this is epidemic!): Australian grifter, “antifa” fan and self-styled “historian”/”journalist” Mike Stuchbery, seen below having a meltdown after one of his incitements to political violence backfired…
Grifter Stuchbery (at present touring Germany, thanks to the idiots who keep sending him donations), takes time off from his latest subsidized holiday to enjoy Alison Chabloz being barred from France. Another supporter of State repression.
Oof, they tend to take Holocaust denial very seriously across the Channel. Holocaust denier and thoroughly awful sort Alison Chabloz has been excluded from France until *2059*.
Here’s a very confused woman, below, commenting on Alison Chabloz being barred. Her Twitter account is called “TellDramaUK”. Her tweets bear a remarkable resemblance to those of a certain Indian (I think Goan) hysteric and “drama queen” who (laughably) pretends to be an expert on “counter-terrorism” rather than the sort of nuisance who wastes the time of her local police station staff. Be that as it may, the Twitter profile of “TellDramaUK” says that “True liberals support #FreeSpeech. U.K. hate crime and hate speech laws must be repealed. Amend Communications Act 2003“; and yet now tweets that:
5/ Chabloz need to be challenged and mocked. Until hate speech laws are repealed, Chabloz will have to celebrate the restrictions imposed upon her – as she championed restricting others. I witnessed Chabloz viciously target women on Twitter. My sympathy is entirely with them.
Well, returning to the main point, of course France has had a problem with Jews for a long long time. Despite their whining, most “survived” WW2 and in fact a great many lived out the war comfortably in places such as Monaco as well as, for several years, unoccupied (1940-1942) Vichy France (many also moved to Spain or Portugal for a few years, or, as in the famous film Casablanca, Vichy French Morocco).
Paris is now the centre of the largest Jewish population in Europe. “Their” influence is huge, and that particularly applies to the financial and political realms, as well as “French” TV and film. Macron was bankrolled by Jewish Zionist circles even before he started to pose as President: see https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2019/01/09/on-recent-events-in-france/
This (notionally) 40-year bar has nothing to do with French people as such but is the result of pressure brought to bear by the large “French” Jew-Zionist lobby on an “occupied” French legal and political establishment.
Meanwhile, one Zionist Jew, a retired “silk” (QC) resident now in Israel, puts another Jew (Twitter troll @rattus2384 aka @grubstreetsteve aka house-husband and occasional film critic Stephen Applebaum) right as to the legal impact of the 2018 criminal case against Alison Chabloz:
Of course it matters. It is utterly misleading to leave the reader with the impression that this singular decison creates new law which will have a bearing on future cases. It won't. It is of no relevance beyond Chabloz herself.
…and here below, yet another Jewish Zionist asks whether a very recent Alison Chabloz post on GAB is a breach of the ban imposed on her re. “social media” (whatever “social media” is— there is, I believe, no legally-precise definition). The lawyer in question seems to be unaware that in any case Alison Chabloz was sentenced in mid-June 2018, so whatever she was barred from doing online for 12 months ceased to be a barred activity a couple of months ago. She was therefore not in breach by posting in August 2019.
The “CAA” is becoming ever more desperate in its witch-hunt against Alison Chabloz.
Update, 1 December 2019
The judicial review of the original conviction and sentence was heard at the Divisional Court (the High Court by another name) in late October and resulted in a dismissal of the application.
The next hurdle for Alison Chabloz is her appeal against sentence for breach of condition. That is to be heard in January 2020 at Derby Crown Court. If the appeal fails (though there is every reason to suppose that it will not), Alison Chabloz may be returned to prison to serve the remaining part of the sentence for breach (in real terms, she would have to stay there for a further 19 days), though the Crown Court might substitute a greater or lesser sentence, in which case a lesser one would be (in my view) far more likely than a greater one, in all the circumstances.
In Fawlty Towers, Basil Fawlty has to keep reminding his wife and staff, “whatever you do, don’t mention the War” (because German guests might be offended). In contemporary Britain, that injunction has become “don’t mention the Jews!” unless, of course, in terms that stress the huge benefits which they (according to they themselves) confer upon any nation hosting them.
The latest famous figure to fall foul of the “rule” has been Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader. In fact, what he said was hardly even controversial, surely: that the well-funded Jewish lobby has a hugely disproportionate influence over US politics. As far as I know, he did not have the courage to mention that the same is true in the UK.
Farage has been the subject of the usual Jewish-Zionist storm that breaks if anyone “mentions the Jews”. They want the money, the influence, the power, but not the “recognition ” of it by non-Jews.
In the UK at present, there are several people who face trial, possibly even imprisonment, for “mentioning the Jews”.
Naturally, one has to tread carefully for fear of being in contempt of court in circumstances where trials are upcoming.
Alison Chabloz, satirical singer, after having been attacked and trolled mercilessly for 3-4 years by Jewish Zionists, was eventually prosecuted privately by the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” for alleged offences under the much-criticized “bad law” of the Communications Act 2003, s.127. Faced with that coup de main, the Crown Prosecution Service, which had not prosecuted her for her songs (without getting into the legal niceties of the charge), had the choice of allowing the private prosecution to run, taking over the prosecution and dropping it, or taking it over and continuing it. The CPS decided to take over the prosecution, drop the then-existing charges (drafted by Zionist lawyers) and substitute new charges. So far the case, which started in late 2016, has not run its course. One notorious Jew-Zionist pest, who was a prosecution “witness”, has now been dropped by the CPS for being in fact “an unreliable witness” and there will now be a further court hearing on several points of law before the matter (possibly) goes to trial in January 2018 or thereafter. All because a lady sang some songs…
British nationalist Jeremy Bedford-Turner [Jez Turner] has now been committed for trial on the more serious charge of “incitement to racial hatred”, having made a brief speech in 2015 (2015!) in Whitehall, in which speech he is alleged to have mentioned the Jews…
The Crown Prosecution Service, having had the matter referred to them by the police on a complaint by the same “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism”, initially refused to prosecute Jez Turner, so the “CAA” took the CPS to the High Court on a judicial review application. In the event, the CPS caved in, presumably so as not to set a precedent. The matter was “re-examined” and prosecution initiated.
Jez Turner appeared this week in the magistrates’ court and was committed for trial in the Crown Court at Southwark.
It is not without note that we in the UK live under a government which is very much tied in with the Jewish/Zionist/Israel lobby. Theresa May and Amber Rudd are strongly pro-Israel and do not deny that fact. It seems that Theresa May is in fact half or quarter Jewish herself (on the maternal side). At least, that has been credibly suggested. She and Amber Rudd have stated that they intend to criminalize even people merely reading “far right” (social nationalist) “propaganda” (views, analysis) online! Police state dystopia…
Talking of police states and repressions instigated by Zionists, many may have read previously my own experience of early 2017:
and many other people have been subjected to similar experiences in the past few years. I was disbarred after a malicious and politically-motivated complaint from, essentially, the same type of “person”, masquerading as “UK Lawyers for Israel”. See: