By Robert Henderson
[AC: Many thanks to Robert for this account of last week’s Trial Part 1. Robert is no stranger to the negative effects of the UK’s speech laws. For more information, check out his blogs in the links below.]
The trial of Alison Chabloz day 1 – 10 1 2018
Presiding: District Judge John Zani sitting without a jury
Karen Robinson – Prosecuting counsel
Adrian Davies – Defence counsel
Witnesses for the Prosecution
Gideon Falter, chairman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA)
Stephen Silverman Director of Investigations and Enforcement CAA
Thanks for your message, Sergeant.
Here is my statement:
Following previous treatment of me by Derbyshire Constabulary, including six arrests, unwarranted detention and seizure of my property whilst seemingly being reluctant to carry out any proper investigation into harassment of which I am the victim, this statement will be published in full on my blog alisonchabloz.wordpress.com as well as forwarded to my solicitor, my barrister, and to Ms Jane Grenfell of the UK Charity Commission.
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.
Looking back over the past 12 months, it’s hard to describe my year as being anything other than eventful. Thank you to all my followers, readers and donors – your support has enabled me to continue the fight and remain strong in the face of ever-increasing adversary.
In the past, – asides those contracts on cruise ships where I entertained live audiences daily – my musical performances were more often than not part of some folk gathering or open mic session. Of course, most artists desire a live audience and such events were always enjoyable, giving me the opportunity to meet other musicians playing the local circuit in the North West and Derbyshire.
There’s no denying that I sometimes feel great sadness about having lost this part of my life. Many of those closest to me now are understandably concerned for my safety and believe that appearing at open mics elsewhere is simply not worth the risk.
The full document containing communications between Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) and Derbyshire Police and Crime Commissioner’s office (PCC) can be found here.
The correspondence between both organisations begins with a letter to PCC Hardyal Dhindsa from CAA chairman, Gideon Falter, dated June 8 2016. Surely no coincidence that my original demo of (((Survivors))) was uploaded the same day?
Two days ago, Google alerted me to a recent request for deletion regards the Campaign Against Antisemitism Wikipedia article which contains a ‘Litigation’ section discussing the private prosecution brought against me by CAA Chairman, Gideon Falter.
Following on from yesterday’s update, my recent thoughts concern the credibility of the Crown’s two remaining key witnesses, Gideon Falter and, in particular, Stephen Silverman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism. At Wednesday’s hearing, the court was already informed that the Crown would not be relying on the recent statement given by Jonathan Hoffman. My question, therefore, is why would the Crown rely on the statements of a man who, seemingly unwittingly, already exposed himself as anonymous Twitter troll @BedlamJones in a legal document submitted at last December’s bail hearing?