The following comment is ironically a good example of how subservience to the WW2-atrocity-propaganda — known since the late 60s as ‘THE Holocaust’ — really does weaken the societal integrity of a nation. In this case that of the UK.
This particular deluded person ignorantly believes or deceitfully suggests that in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
(i.e. the United Kingdom of those four countries) a person can not be criminally charged or punished for publicly expressing disbelief or skepticism of any of what are unspecified in law as the core aspects of the jewish, WW2, ‘holocaust’ narrative.
That is not the case. You can be.
This person’s ignorance or attempted deception
(they claim to be an ex-policeofficer) shows a loyalty to this narrative has reduced their loyalty to reason, truth AND civil rights in their country of origin.
This response therefore actually confirms Callafangers excellent observation and analysis.
Callafangers wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 7:56 am
Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 6:32 am
Remember,
the UK has no denial laws.
…You seem to only ramble on about "evidence" when you feel it's convenient for you. And yet here it is eviscerating your position…
So…what is the factual evidence on this particular point?
CAN YOU BE PROSECUTED FOR ALLEGATIONS OF ‘HOLOCAUST DENIAL’ IN THE UK?
Yes you can. Just ask Alison Chabloz.
In 2018 she was convicted of two offences under
section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. This followed her creation and performance of songs uploaded to YouTube which satirised the world’s subservience to this WW2 narrative; satires that Alison also posted links to on her blog.
After her trial and conviction she appealed. The jewish-paid prosecution described her songs as weaving together “Holocaust denial and hateful attacks on Jewish people generally” and they were described as “grossly offensive”.
She was given a suspended sentence of 20 weeks imprisonment suspended for two years.
In May and July 2019, Chabloz made remarks on a radio show and shared the broadcasts on her blog. The organisation run by jews called
‘the Campaign Against Antisemitism’ complained because they claimed they were again “offended”. They claimed that one of the things that had “offended” them was Chabloz saying that Jewish people used the Holocaust as an “eternal cash cow”.
Her defence was to claim freedom of speech.
Her case was perhaps not served by her comment that the judge who previously convicted her had succumbed to the “Jewish lobby”. Judges who are compromised and disloyal to their own constitutional laws presumably don’t like that being pointed out to them in their own court room.
As a consequence, at the end of March Alison was convicted of further offences under the
Communications Act 2003 due to the comments made on the radio show. The convictions placed her in breach of the suspended sentence, and she received an 18-week term of imprisonment.
WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
Alison Chabloz had asserted in her appeal against her first convictions that the proceedings were an “affront to her freedom of speech”. She said that she was being harassed and targeted by those who did not like her views.
The Court addressed the issue and agreed the right to ‘freedom of speech and expression’ is a crucial one in a democratic society. However, they claimed such rights are not unqualified.
Because there is no specific offence of ‘Holocaust denial’ yet in the UK, what jews who want to silence people do, is claim they were “offended” by something someone said. Any written or publicly spoken material can be something which someone can claim they were “offended” by. Because jews have disproportionate influence + have spent decades indoctrinating everyone into the pseudo-historical WW2 belief-system that questioning and disbelieving certain aspects of the holyH is somehow ‘denying’ all of it, this can NOW be treated by a judge as a criminal offence under
section 127.
Specifically, regarding questioning or satirising any aspect of ‘the Holocaust’ narrative, due to its illegal and unconstitutional protected status in UK society, the Court can misrepresent what is being said.
As was done in both the Irving v Penguin (Lipstadt) libel trial and Alison’s case: viz. they can deceitfully misrepresent satire, questioning, or refuting of ANY aspect of the vague and imprecise holocaust narrative as “denial” of all of it.
Something that the dimwit calling himself Confusedjew attempted to do here at CODOH on a regular basis for 4 months.
It is a profoundly deceitful tactic, but one that is now enshrined in UK law.
As the following statement by the Judge in the trial of Alison Chabloz demonstrates:
“That said [referring to ‘freedom of speech’] no tribunal of fact is required to proceed on the basis of absurdity or fiction. The Holocaust – by which we mean the systematic extermination of millions of people, predominantly although not exclusively Jews, by the forces of Nazi Germany and their collaborators, between 1941 and 1945 happened. World War II is surely the best documented and most extensively studied period of modern history, and the Holocaust is one of the best documented aspects of that conflict, if not the best. A mass of evidence, of various kinds attests to it. Moreover, the Holocaust has been the subject of extensive judicial enquiry, from the Nuremberg trials onwards, in a number of jurisdictions.”
SUMMARY: technically there is no specific law against questioning or expressing disbelief of aspects of the ‘holocaust’ narrative, but jews and the compromised UK judiciary get around this by criminalising it under ‘hate-speech’ laws.
How did so many Muslims become refugees or otherwise determined to move into the West? The "War on Terror" has played a foremost role. And how did that begin? It began with a heavily-Jewish Neoconservative movement in the USA post-9/11 (e.g. PNAC, Richard Perle, Philip Zelikow, Dov Zakheim, etc.). Even if one dismisses the evidence of Zionist-Jewish hands behind 9/11 itself, there is absolutely no question of the Jewish influences behind the "War on Terror".