Friday June 2, the Crown Prosecution Service informed my lawyer of their intention to discontinue the initial accusation for malicious communications brought against me by Gideon Falter of the Campaign Against Antisemitism for my song (((Survivors))).
A senior police officer meets with Jewish Shomrim vigilante police force and Twitter troll Bedlam Jones.
Since that fateful day in court last December, Jones has desperately sought ways to alleviate his discomfort. Alas, to no avail.
A letter published in today’s Guardian speculates on the reasons for the Crown Prosecution Service announcement on Wednesday that a man connected to the murder of PC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy in 1984 cannot be prosecuted for reasons of national security:
• The UK government’s case has always been that the Libyans shot dead PC Yvonne Fletcher out of pure wickedness – implausible prima facie because it would make the closure of the Libyan People’s Bureau inevitable. In fact the UK government was warned by the Libyans several times on 16 and 17 April 1984 – both in Tripoli and London – that they expected trouble involving firearms. Western intelligence knew well that the violent Libyan dissident faction it supported – Al-Burkan – had agents inside the embassy. Outside the building, Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk uttered the last warning to police on the morning of the shooting and was promptly arrested; he was in custody when the shots were fired.
Despite the deafening warnings, the UK government took no preventive action – not even surveillance cameras were positioned – and several individuals escaped from the rear of the LPB before the lockdown began. No wonder they still want to keep it all secret under the “national security” blanket.
Dr Kevin Bannon
This, of course, will not be heartening news for British police officers. One sets out with noble intentions of serving Queen and country – to whom one swears an oath of allegiance – and then one is brutally assassinated. The culprit walks free, leaving friends, family more aggrieved than ever and colleagues bitterly contemplating the possibility of the same happening to them. Yet another indication of the level of decrepit corruption prevalent within our Establishment.
Poor Zionbat is still complaining about being associated with a certain registered charity. If Twitter really is that bad, then why doesn’t she do something else for a change?
The undeniable fact that Andrew Roberjot is something of a loose cannon and very much an inveterate liar is unlikely to change in the near future.
Here’s a brief reminder of Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) trolling activities as attested to, in writing, in the private prosecution’s own legal papers submitted to court last December :
Twitter Support has now come up with a THIRD different reason for my suspension.
Firstly, they claimed I was guilty of posting a ‘violent threat’.
Secondly, they claimed I was guilty of creating multiple accounts with overlapping purposes.
Now, they claim my account was suspended for ‘multiple breaches of Twitter rules’.
None of these reasons has any validity, clearly confirmed by the fact that Support has now given three, separate reasons for a suspension which was originally the result of malicious, mass reporting by users who are themselves in breach of Twitter rules!
I shall keep appealing.
Regulars here on my blog will remember my suspension from Twitter last October, followed by Derbsyhire police closing their investigation into the harassment and malicious communications of which I am victim, and then my arrest by the same police force two weeks later.
I would say Twitter Support played an important part of responsibility in this farce. Just as a reminder, here’s the tweet which sparked my suspension:
As you can see, there are two police forces tagged into my offending tweet. Previously, during the targeting of my gigs, venues, my Edinburgh Fringe show and the general trolling and harassment of me by this same troll and others, @Sicaro72’s tweets had been sent to police on their request. Back then, although I knew of Sicaro’s other identities, including those mentioned in my above reply AND the infamous @NemoNemo50 – still no official charges! – I still had no idea who he was in real life.
My offending tweet can hardly be described as a violent threat. I’ve received far worse on Twitter myself yet Support hasn’t suspended these accounts:
Maybe because the threat was separated over two tweets (the order is reversed in the image above) Twitter doesn’t consider it a threat? And what about CAA (Campaign Against Antisemitism) associate Mark Lewis’ replies to me?
Whereas I tweeted once only about wanting to see a rope around an anonymous serial troll’s neck, foul Lewis is able to get away with tweet-murder, and his only sentence is to remove his crass outbursts. How does Twitter Support reconcile such blatant double standards?
As for the poor, strangled troll, Sicaro aka Nemo, I made an Excel spreadsheet of the 540 tweets he’d sent me over a period of six months and sent this to Twitter Support who, after this grand effort on my part, finally suspended him. Why my prior, endless reports didn’t have the same effect is a mystery. Regards Sicaro’s 540 tweets, my own suspension and Lewis’ non-suspension, I appealed to Support again and, suddenly, rather than citing a ‘violent threat’, the reason given for my suspension was now the ‘creation of multiple accounts with overlapping purposes’.
To no avail… The new excuse lasted a couple of appeals and then reverted back to the ‘violent threat’ yarn. I tried opening a new account @ajchabloz last week and was not able to send one single tweet before being suspended for ‘multiple breaches of Twitter rules’.
It’s so absurd, that it’s laughable. Banned for a ‘violent threat’ – simply words in a tweet – whereas my abusers are given free reign to troll, harass, threaten and stalk with impunity, mostly using anonymous accounts. Twitter clearly uses one set of rules for a certain section of the Twitter community – those associated with ‘anti-racism’ [sic] organisations – and another for the rest of us.
Sicaro aka Sicko aka Nemo is back up to his usual tricks as mark00427586, tweeting about George Galloway and grassing up anyone he dislikes to CST and CAA: ‘I don’t work for any charities’, come the habitual, Talmudic lies. He can’t be too vocal, though, and he knows why.
It was only after my first court appearance on December 15 that I came to the realisation that the two men – CAA Chairman and Director of Enforcement – sitting next the prosecution lawyers were none other than my two most prolific trolls, Nemo and Bedlam. There was no need for any confirmation from me: their solicitor managed this, dragging my barrister and I back across the UK a week later when Goldberg QC lied in order to have me gagged by fellow Friend of Israel, the now-recused Chief Magistrate, Emma Baroness Arbuthnot.
There are enough screenshots of the two CAA director-trolls hosted on this very blog and included in attachments to police emails without it being necessary to recover the library of screenshots on my computer – the same computer held for five months without a charger and which has still not been returned to me, despite all police charges being dropped. The only two or three charges left are for my songs, and I’ve not yet been served with those either.
No wonder the CPS asked for an adjournment and no wonder CAA have stopped mentioning my name – the first time in what was a daily occurrence for over 18 months. The CAA is, however, still targeting others. One latest victim is Welsh Labour hopeful Mike Sivier, rightfully angry after he suffered defeat at last week’s local elections following a typically rampant CAA smear campaign. Unable to crucify Sivier properly on their own blog, CAA paid a useful hasbara and one of Sivier’s Tory rivals to seal his fate by associating him with yours truly. I shall write more on this in another blog post.
Suffice it to say that we ethnic Brits are being silenced, as well as professionally and socially demonised in our own country. Not all the culprits are of foreign heritage, some are as British as Sivier and I – and they’re the worst traitors of all, along with our corrupt political leaders who have enabled this and allowed it to happen beneath their very eyes. This isn’t what our fathers and forefathers fought for. Time to wake up!
Yes, regarding the CAA and my other accusers I will be making a counter-claim and, depending on the result, I will also be making a claim against Twitter. In light of the above evidence, it’s difficult to see how they would have a twig a tweet on. I will publish a copy of Twitter’s response to my appeal below.
Although no fan of Katie Hopkins, I do have sympathy with some of her views for the simple reason that she happens to be correct, sometimes. Take the latest scandal surrounding one of Hopkins’ provocative tweets which she was forced to delete following a typical onslaught by the usual virtue-signalling do-gooders’ failure to understand that ‘anti-racism’ is a code word for ‘anti-white’ :
(For the sake of argument, here I’m referring to Hopkins’ own words and not the TV series Dear White People).
Lebanese-born Dom Joly is a comedian which perhaps partly explains his outrage. Maybe he was just trying to be funny? Sadly, no. Joly believes that in Britain blacks suffer far more discrimination than whites. His outburst would appear to suggest that whites – and in this particular case, Hopkins – are more racist than any other race simply because of the colour of their skin. In which case, doesn’t that make Joly just as ‘racist’ as Hopkins?
Moreover, despite the implied meaning of Hopkins’ tweet being wholly justified, Joly provides no counter evidence whatsoever, preferring instead to slate Hopkins as an evil racist who has no right to exist, in full glare of his 220k Twitter followers. If Hopkins said Joly had no right to exist, she’d be accused of hate speech.
Is Joly in some twisted way really suggesting that indisputable statistics relating to black on black violent crime would somehow be further proof of whites discriminating against blacks?
Poor black people have suffered sooooo terribly and have been sooooo oppressed by evil, colonising whites that we must never blame blacks for continually beating and killing each other – it’s not their fault. Whites are the guilty ones! Just look at history!
Cue the Leftist Liberal segment of British society shrivelling yet again under the huge weight of white guilt imposed, this time, by a non-white stand-up comic. These virtue signallers then sing the praises of the latter whilst patting themselves on the back as Hopkins is forced to pull her opinion from public view.
As Hopkins’ deletion shows, speaking the truth is now a potential hate crime. Likewise and without exception, the main ‘anti-racist’ organisations in the UK are doing all they can to set legal precedents which will ensure that, in future, ethnic white Brits will be harshly punished for thinking aloud and stating verifiable fact.
Who are the people behind these ‘anti-racism’ organisations? I’ve already written about Fiyaz Mughal – former director of Islamophobia monitoring organisation Tell Mama – here. Suffice it to say that as well as trying to screw ordinary Brits, Tell Mama also does its best to mess with members of the very same community it claims to represent. With former CST Chairman Richard Benson as president, the fact that so many British Muslims have such little faith in Tell Mama is no real surprise.
Leaving aside Jewish lobbying group CST and militant wing CAA for the moment, I would like to concentrate on another ‘anti-racist’ organisation, Nick Lowles’ Hope Not Hate.
As well as functioning as a registered charity which receives government funding, Hope Not Hate is also a company whose directors include snivelling ex-Bicom Labour MP, Ruth Smeeth. Lowles and Smeeth are both perfect examples of the utter hypocrisy of such organisations which exalt the ideologies of multiculturalism and equality whilst keeping their professional interests strictly within their own kosher network.
Last month, the entire website archives of Hope Not Hate were wiped and, despite search results still appearing on Google, all past links now lead to 404s. Where, oh where have all Matt Collins‘ smear blogs gone?! Down the pan, along with Hope Not Hate’s ‘charitable’ status?
Does this wiping of years’ worth of archives have something to do with Lowles’ announcement also last month of his intention to sue Nigel Farage for a comment made on LBC radio last December? In response to a tweet by Brendan Cox (widower of murdered MP Jo Cox) describing Farage as an ‘extremist’, Farage said that Cox would know all about extremism because of his links with Hope Not Hate, an organisation which uses undemocratic tactics against its political enemies.
At the time, Lowles used his influence to persuade The Guardian to publish a whole swathe of articles condemning Farage from the likes of Owen Jones and, err, himself. Lowles’ piece trumpets ‘a huge response’ to his plea for donations required to serve justice on the despicable and hateful Farage. Five months on: Lowles re-launches Hope Hot Hate’s website, re-launches his intention to sue Farage and re-launches an appeal asking for £100,000 – also via The Guardian. On the original donation page from last December, a disclaimer reads that, in the eventuality of any settlement outside court, donated funds will be put to further good use battling hatred. If there was already a huge response last December, where’s the money now and why the need to set up a new fund?
And what about Brendan Cox’s role in all this? The last time I checked, the Jo Cox Fund had already overreached its target by almost £500,000 and the money is still flooding in. As Hope Not Hate is one of the fund’s main beneficiaries, why can’t Lowles dip into his part of the surplus – let alone into his part of the official target sum of £1.5m? Are Lowles and Cox taking the good-natured British public for a ride?
Perhaps afraid of pending legal consequences relating to his own organisation’s despicable record on targeting political enemies, Lowles should heed a similar case brought by Mughal against The Telegraph after columnist Andrew Gilligan also used the word ‘extremist’ in one of his articles to describe the then director of Tell Mama. Mughal lost his case, no doubt resulting in impending financial disaster for Tell Mama, thereafter heroically saved by the ensuing knight-in-shining-shekels arrival on the scene of Richard Benson.
Hope Not Hate’s dubious methods of trying to shame their political opponents into silence is common knowledge. Furthermore, Nigel Farage was criticising an organisation, not an individual.
Last night Hope Not Hate together with London Antifa managed to shut down a meeting of the Keep Talking Group which was due to host British author and historian Nick Kollerstrom speaking on the recent Westminster terror attack. Keep Talking is a non-politically aligned group which entertains speakers from a wide-ranging socio-political spectrum, including climate change skeptic, Piers Corbyn, and Danish false flag expert, Ole Dammergaard.
Hope Not Hate’s blog post, written by senior researcher Joe Mulhall (like Mughal, also a trustee at the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust) describes Kollerstrom as one of Britain’s ‘leading Holocaust deniers‘. In what way is last night’s attack – where an 80-year old attendee was injured – linked to last February’s similar assault at a London Forum meeting in Kensington? Is there any significance to the fact that the wiping of Hope Not Hate’s archives seems to coincide with Lowles now specifically targeting those associated with British nationalist intelligentsia and Jez Turner‘s London Forum? If so, then last night’s call out to Antifa gang thugs was surely a step too far?
‘Anti-hate’ groups which purport to uphold democratic values whilst behaving in direct opposition to such claims should be investigated – especially those masquerading as registered charities. These organisations’ main target is of course nationalism, which must not, at any cost, be allowed to flourish. ‘As we all know‘, pontificate Lowles, Cox, Mughal, Joly and an army of virtue-signalling leftist liberals, ‘Nationalism leads to death by insecticide poisoning on an industrial scale in gas chambers. Nationalism is the devil incarnate and those who partake must be burned at the stake – or at least executed socially and professionally. We will shut you down and burn all your books in the name of, err, anti-fascism.’
Don’t back the wrong horse and please don’t give your hard-earned money to traitorous scum who’ve grown rich and fat playing victim whilst tendering a begging bowl. True patriotic nationalism transcends any traditional concept of Left-Right political ideology. The primary aim of organisations such as Hope Not Hate, aided and abetted by the corrupt creeps currently in power at Westminster, is to banish any nationalistic notion from the public psyche in the name of multicultural diversity, globalism and the status quo.
Rather than continuing to subscribe to failed dogma, it would be far more productive to write letters of complaint to the Charity Commission and to your MP. Even better, check out local nationalist groups and see what’s happening in your area. And if you really want to annoy the likes of Lowles and his Soros-funded Antifa thug cronies, come along to the next meeting of the London Forum.
Yesterday, I received 50 legal request takedown notices from YouTube, informing me that my entire library of uploads spanning the past ten years has been removed in Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Germany, France, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Israel, Italy, Martinique, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Poland, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Reunion, French Southern Territories, Wallis and Futuna, Mayotte.
That’s approximately 260 million potential viewers who, if they’re not computer-savvy, are now deliberately deprived of my audio-visual output, whether it’s a subtitled translation of news from other revisionists, almost forgotten songs or short gardening tips. Account managers at the legal firm which issued the requests will be no doubt be satisfied, along with (((whoever))) ordered them to do the dirty on my entire channel. Or perhaps YouTube simply became fed up receiving multiple requests from whining lobbyists and just banned the whole lot in one go?
It’s hard to feel pleased about losing so many potential viewers in this way. At least, it can be said that this new dose of mass censorship of my work once again shows I must be doing something right.
Perhaps the legal action came about following my recent ban from Facebook during which I uploaded several videos on the plight of German revisionist and hero of our times, Horst Mahler. Sentenced to ten years and two months in prison, Mahler was freed under caution in 2015 after an untreated wound on his left foot became infected, meaning he had to undergo amputation below the knee. Always the rebel, Mahler gave a speech last January which is truly inspiring. You can find the subtitled version here and my shorter uploads on the same subject here. My first upload is now approaching 12,000 views in just 12 days which won’t have pleased lobbying organisations. Alfred Schaefer’s voiceover version of the same video was shared on platforms such as Renegade Tribune, further helping to raise awareness of Mahler’s situation and the utter hypocrisy of draconian thought crime laws which exist in so-called free, democratic nations. It just goes to show how desperate our traditional enemies are when the wheels of justice are set in motion in order to silence an 81-year old amputee: in these same countries, rapists and murders get off with far lighter sentences.
Censorship of this kind – initiated as ever by the same traditional enemy – is only to be expected and should be taken as a shining badge of honour. It costs them both time and money. Regards Mahler’s message, the banning of my videos also came too late as Mahler has managed to flee Germany and is now in a safe place from where he intends to seek political asylum.
However, should censorship – and indeed self-censorship – coming from those on the Liberal Left be taken equally seriously? I’ve tweeted (when I still had a Twitter), written and sung about Ken Livingstone and the Haavara Agreement. I also supported, among others, Jackie Walker when she became a target of the Israel lobby for pointing out the major role played by Jews in the Transatlantic slave trade as well as asking why the Holocaustᵀᴹ was privileged in comparison to other [verifiable] genocides. However, my sympathy for the Left stops short when, in return for my words of support, I am treated with even more contempt by these Liberal Leftists than I am by our traditional enemy lobbyists.
Hailing from mid-Wales, Mike Sivier is a Labour candidate in next week’s local elections. He also writes a blog Vox Political. Sivier is the latest victim of the Campaign Against Antisemitism’s all-out dastardly scheme to silence anyone they dislike. Alongside the lesser sins of criticising Israel and Zionism as well as voicing support for Livingstone, Sivier had had the gall to quote Gilad Atzmon. Worse still: yesterday in response to a typical CAA smear op, Sivier posted a blog in which he was misguided to the point of including a quote from yours truly. As if citing far right Holocaust denier Atzmon wasn’t bad enough, Sivier now collaborates with a genuine Nazi!
To be fair, Sivier did have the guts to publish my comment and he even replied. However, to all intents and purposes, Sivier must have quickly begun to reflect on what was more important: truth or his own fledgling political career. His final answer to my second comment says it all: Sivier is a Shoahist who believes Jews should be treated differently from the rest of us. My further replies are still awaiting moderation
As Canadian free speech advocate Paul Fromm recently said: if you can’t name the problem, then the problem can’t be solved. The enemies of free speech grow evermore desperate to suppress the truth and the more they try, the deeper the hole they dig for themselves. Revisionism and the truth about what really happened during World War Two can no longer be suppressed. In terms of advertising and marketing, society will soon reach tipping point and the true, verifiable version of history will be adopted by the masses.
Using smear tactics to silence political enemies and the law to replace the concept of true or false with the concept of what is acceptable or unacceptable to Jews – Shoahism or antisemitism – has had the opposite effect to the one originally intended. Sooner rather than later, more people will start to seek the truth and speak out. As always, our traditional enemy could have avoided all this happening. Alas, they never learn.