{"id":231346,"date":"2021-04-11T07:23:26","date_gmt":"2021-04-11T07:23:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=231346"},"modified":"2021-04-12T07:16:42","modified_gmt":"2021-04-12T07:16:42","slug":"minstrel-sent-to-jail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=231346","title":{"rendered":"Minstrel sent to jail"},"content":{"rendered":"

Nick Kollerstrom \u2013 Terror on the Tube April 10, 2021<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Alison Chabloz has been jailed under Section 125 of the Communications Act, on the grounds that she made some \u2018grossly offensive\u2019 remarks in a couple of US interviews she did.<\/p>\n

She was admittedly talking about the Tribe, always a risky business.<\/p>\n

\u2018He<\/em>\u00a0did not wish to\u00a0go<\/em>\u00a0about in Judea because the\u00a0Jews<\/em> were looking for an opportunity to kill him.\u2019 \u2013 4th Gospel 7:1. \u2018They are not pleasing to God and have made themselves the enemies of all mankind\u2019 \u2013 Thessalonians 2:15<\/p>\n

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 Comm. Act 2003 can apply to ANYTHING on the internet which SOMEBODY deems to be \u2018grossly offensive\u2019<\/p>\n

The obvious implication is that it is only the Chosen Ones who have the authority to deem some internet statement to be \u2018grossly offensive.\u2019<\/p>\n

The Verdict sounds kind of rational on one level but is actually pure madness. The claim that someone has been \u2018grossly offensive\u2019 on the internet \u2013 if that be a crime, then any boundary between innocence and guilt has been utterly dissolved.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The Court has claimed that merely posting a link to some satirical song of hers \u2018may be defamatory.\u2019<\/p>\n

Now in the last century the word \u2018crime\u2019 had a meaning and we all knew what it was viz unacceptable harm or loss. It was something which had a victim. And \u2018defamation\u2019 was likewise clearly defined, as adversely affecting someone\u2019s professional reputation.<\/p>\n

This judgement has killed stone dead the tradition of British comedy. Mind you in these \u2018woke\u2019 times it has pretty well been killed anyhow. Satire? Get ready for a prison sentence if it annoys the wrong people.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

She did not cause anything to be \u2018sent\u2019 by being on a US interview and so the 2003 Communications Act is not applicable. \u2018the \u2018grossly offensive\u2019 charge as a crime comes from Section 127 of the 2003 Communications Act:<\/p>\n

\u201cOffences that fall under section 127 of\u00a0the Communications Act<\/strong>\u00a02003 include the following: A person sending any public electronic\u00a0communications<\/strong>\u00a0network a message or other content that is\u00a0grossly offensive<\/strong>\u00a0or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. A person causes any such message or content to be sent\u2026.<\/p>\n

It is clear from section 127 \u2013<\/p>\n

\u201c(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he\u2014 (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.<\/p>\n

(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.\u201d<\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n

How is it possible that the person bringing the prosecution is the same person who makes the judgement about \u2018grossly offensive\u2019 comments?<\/p>\n

The media are there to generate hate against her when she cannot reply. the Mail <\/em>alleges in its headline that Alison had said \u2018Hitler was right.\u2019 when did she ever say that and to whom?<\/p>\n

The Daily Mail has<\/a> quickly cut off comments on their article, headed \u201cAnti-Semitic blogger, 56, who believes \u2018Hitler was right\u2019 is jailed for 18 weeks for saying Jewish people use Holocaust as \u2018eternal cash cow’\u201d.<\/p>\n

What Judge Michael Snow said about Alison Chabloz is \u2018grossly offensive\u2019, too, and even more so. The same applies to what he said about Julian Assange (https:\/\/wikispooks.com\/wiki\/Michael_Snow<\/a>) calling him a \u2018narcissist\u2019 and telling him to \u2018get over to US\u2019 \u2013 and \u2018pacissifical protesters\u2019, 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<\/a>).<\/p>\n

She\u2019s in Bronzefield women\u2019s prison in Ashford, run by Sodexo Justice Services. According to Wikipedia <\/a>: \u201cIn August 2013, Sodexo Justice Services was criticised in an official report for subjecting a female prisoner to \u201ccruel, inhumane and degrading treatment\u201d, which \u201cappears to amount to torture\u201d at HMP Bronzefield<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0Ashford, Surrey<\/a>, UK. The woman was kept segregated from other prisoners in an \u201cunkempt and squalid\u201d prison cell for more than five year<\/p>\n

No friends are allowed to visit Ms Chabloz, only close relatives. She will be very much alone I guess.<\/p>\n

She\u2019s 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 page:<\/p>\n