Alison Chabloz, jailed by the Jews: More detailed information

(005320.38-:E-003569.93:N-HO:R-SU:C-30:V)   

[Brizer sent me the link to this article which is the most detailed we can get at the moment about the jailing of Alison Chabloz. I need to look at it more closely. I'll try to find more info.  Jan]

Alison Chabloz has been jailed under Section 125 of the Communications Act, on the grounds that she made some ‘grossly offensive’ remarks in a couple of US interviews she did.

She was admittedly talking about the Tribe, always a risky business.

‘He did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him.’ – 4th Gospel 7:1. ‘They are not pleasing to God and have made themselves the enemies of all mankind’ – Thessalonians 2:15

Turning to the Act of 2003, it is surely clear that it was designed to regulate public media, not individual blogs. However, the Court took the position, that section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 can apply to ANYTHING on the internet which SOMEBODY deems to be ‘grossly offensive’

The obvious implication is that it is only the Chosen Ones who have the authority to deem some internet statement to be ‘grossly offensive.’

The Verdict sounds kind of rational on one level but is actually pure madness. The claim that someone has been ‘grossly offensive’ on the internet – if that be a crime, then any boundary between innocence and guilt has been utterly dissolved.

Also, pretending that a person being interviewed on a website amounts to sending a message in the sense of the 2003 Communications Act is just so dishonest. Law courts are supposed to look after the meanings of words, not twist them like this.

The Court has claimed that merely posting a link to some satirical song of hers ‘may be defamatory.’

Now in the last century the word ‘crime’ had a meaning and we all knew what it was viz unacceptable harm or loss. It was something which had a victim. And ‘defamation’ was likewise clearly defined, as adversely affecting someone’s professional reputation.

This judgement has killed stone dead the tradition of British comedy. Mind you in these ‘woke’ times it has pretty well been killed anyhow. Satire? Get ready for a prison sentence if it annoys the wrong people.

The charges relate to offensive comments she made about the Holocaust on The Graham Hart Show and Realist Radio in 2019, while she was serving a suspended sentence.

Here’s what Alison gets jailed for.

She did not cause anything to be ‘sent’ by being on a US interview and so the 2003 Communications Act is not applicable. ‘the ‘grossly offensive’ charge as a crime comes from Section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act:

“Offences that fall under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 include the following: A person sending any public electronic communications network a message or other content that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. A person causes any such message or content to be sent….

It is clear from section 127 –

“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or (b) causes any such message or MATTER to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he (a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false, (b) causes such a message to be sent; or (c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.”

By misusing the law in this devious manner the judge has caused great harm to the concept of Justice and destroyed respect for the law. Who is innocent? Has any jury ever agreed that a satirical songwriter be jailed for three months because someone claims to have been offended?

How is it possible that the person bringing the prosecution is the same person who makes the judgement about ‘grossly offensive’ comments?

The media are there to generate hate against her when she cannot reply. the Mail alleges in its headline that Alison had said ‘Hitler was right.’ when did she ever say that and to whom?

The Daily Mail has quickly cut off comments on their article, headed “Anti-Semitic blogger, 56, who believes ‘Hitler was right’ is jailed for 18 weeks for saying Jewish people use Holocaust as ‘eternal cash cow’”.

What Judge Michael Snow said about Alison Chabloz is ‘grossly offensive’, too, and even more so. The same applies to what he said about Julian Assange (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Michael_Snow) calling him a ‘narcissist’ and telling him to ‘get over to US’ – and ‘pacissifical protesters’, and probably Brian Haw, too (http://brianhaw.tv/index.php/blog/3173-the-bbc-to-try-to-portray-district-judge-michael-snow-job-as-a-snowflake-23-04-2015).

“Anything goes in a court of law, except telling the truth if it is ‘grossly offensive’. The oath should be amended to: “I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, unless the truth is grossly offensive”. – Ian Fantom

She’s in Bronzefield women’s prison in Ashford, run by Sodexo Justice Services. According to Wikipedia : “In August 2013, Sodexo Justice Services was criticised in an official report for subjecting a female prisoner to “cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment”, which “appears to amount to torture” at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Surrey, UK. The woman was kept segregated from other prisoners in an “unkempt and squalid” prison cell for more than five year

No friends are allowed to visit Ms Chabloz, only close relatives. She will be very much alone I guess.

She’s been banned from posting up her own stuff but we can enjoy this satirical-humour piece of hers, which someone posted up for her, over-writing Elaine Paige:

Source: https://terroronthetube.co.uk