London Forum Organiser Charged Under Race Act

Jez Turner – organiser of the London Forum – has been charged with “inciting racial hatred” in connection with his speech at the “Anti-Shomrim” rally in Whitehall on 4th July 2015.

The Zionist lobby group “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” had brought a legal action to force the Crown Prosecution Service to bring charges against Mr Turner, even though the CPS had originally decided he committed no offence.

An initial hearing will be held at 1.30 pm on Monday 30th October at Westminster Magistrates Court, Marylebone.

Meanwhile another prosecution instigated by the CAA sees anti-Zionist folk singer Alison Chabloz facing charges under the Communications Act, relating to songs uploaded to YouTube. A full day’s hearing of this case will take place at the same Marylebone court on October 25th at 10 am.

Ms Chabloz was arrested again last Wednesday and subjected to an extraordinary 48 hours of custody including travel from London to Derbyshire, following alleged breach of bail conditions.

While we are restricted in reporting these cases at the present stage of proceedings, there will be full updates in forthcoming editions of H&D.

Source: Heritage & Destiny website

Editor’s Note: Naturally all nationalists living within easy reach of London are urged to attend these hearings in order to lend moral support to both Alison and Jez as they bravely resist these attempts by organised Jewry and the our political establishment to bully them into silence.

32 thoughts on “London Forum Organiser Charged Under Race Act

  1. How can a private interest group influence the CPS or force them to reverse their decision? Until now it has been most people’s understanding that the CPS is an independent body making its own decisions. But now it looks like it was only a facade and the Jews had their insiders waiting to make their move.

    1. John Savva, there was a strategy: The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) made a High Court application for a Judicial Review of the failure of the CPS to act against Jez Turner on Article 17 of the ECHR. Any action in the High Court is stupendously costly. And the CPS does have a duty to consider the public interest when it acts. In this case, the DPP and the Senior Administrator of the CPS decided that it is not in the public interest to proceed with the Judicial Review, and concluded an agreement with the CAA that terminated the latter’s application for that Judicial Review. So far not too bad.

      But one should have access to the text of that agreement. A copy may become available on this email address: . I should like to know whether the CPS has in fact agreed, as at least one newspaper has claimed, to consult the CAA on its (the CPS’s) decisions about charging people with ‘hate crime’ offences. If that is true, then one almighty public protest is in order.

      Sophie Johnson

  2. they may have to bring us all to court, thousands of us, bring it on, it highlights the power of the zionist lobby in the UK and the hysteria of jewish groups who feel they are eternal victims. It will not stop any of us thinking and saying what we feel is the truth

  3. It’s a blooming con. Turner is an agent and this is just a show of force. Watch as the case vanishes once GCHQ get involved. Turner allowed that swede to infiltrate the LF so all the records he’s kept can end up in HNH’s hands without Turner taking the blame.

    1. Hi Paul, you rather foolishly make some rather serious and libellous allegations without providing any evidence to substantiate your claims. Next time you make such allegations through the comments facility on this website I will not publish them unless you also provide your real name and full postal address so that Jez Turner has the option to sue you for defamation should he choose.
      Firstly, your suggestion is illogical because if GCHQ are going to quash any charges against Jez, how can his prosecution be a “show of force” as you suggest? It would be a show of weakness, wouldn’t it?
      Secondly, Jez Turner was not the organiser of the Jonathan Bowden Dinner. The organiser has already accepted responsibility for the failure to properly vet the Swedish infiltrator and has apologised to those adversely affected by this. Therefore Jez was not responsible in the way that you suggest.
      Finally, I have been personally acquainted with Jez for more than five years now, during which time I have shared confidential information with him on many occasions and to my knowledge none of this shared information has ever been passed to any of our enemies. On the other hand, Jez has been a tireless campaigner for just about every issue of relevance to British nationalism and is a great asset to our cause. We can of course rarely be 100% sure of anyone’s loyalties (look at Kevin Wilshaw’s recent pronouncements) and it is possible that I may one day be proven wrong on this, but I have no qualms about regarding Jez as a comrade and in his regard, my only wish is that we had 1,000 more like him.

  4. ‘The Zionist lobby group “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” had brought a legal action to force the Crown Prosecution Service to bring charges against Mr Turner, even though the CPS had originally decided he committed no offence.’

    The extent of their power and their readiness to abuse it is getting a bit obvious even to the disinterested.

  5. As has been mentioned above, organized Jewry can’t resist over playing their hand, hopefully this will be their undoing.

    1. We’re a very long way from the point at which we can loosen their insidious grip on our culture, political and financial systems and our legal system. Fortunately, multiculturalism has given us the means and the opportunity to do so since they cannot reasonably be exempted from the measures necessary to reassert the primacy of our own race and culture in our ancient homeland.

  6. And they say Jews are not powerful, and are eternal victims. One sometimes wishes history had different outcomes.

  7. It is clearly a case of the law being as presently constituted particular care needs to be taken when making public utterances. Several younger patriots have been imprisoned for their indiscretions and little good comes from this. We need to further awareness but remain within the law, and avoid explicit references which could be manipulated as in the cases affecting Jez Turner and Alison Chabloz.

    The Cause is little furthered when good and loyal patriots are languishing at her Majesties pleasure.

    Vigilance and patience are virtues which will serve us well, and rash and theatrical indulgences are to be entirely avoided.

    1. You are correct Alec. The laws against incitement to racial hatred have been deliberately structured in such a way as to make discussion of racial issues a minefield and one that it is perilous for the inexperienced to enter into.
      Speech which motivates others to action must by it’s very nature be emotive, that is it must excite an emotional response in the listener. The problem we face is that the emotions of love and hate are reverse sides of the same ‘coin’ and it is difficult to excite love for one’s cause without simultaneously exiting hatred for that which threatens our cause. A certain degree of abstraction and restraint is required in order to walk the narrow and perilous path between excitement to action and incitement to hatred, but in the heat of the moment — mid-speech — it is very easy to stray into dangerous territory and even the best of us sometimes stray too far.
      In a country that supposedly allows freedom of speech and freedom of expression it is outrageous that we are fettered in the way we are, diminishing our ability to communicate with others, and so we wish Jez and Alison well in their efforts to avoid conviction, they are two of the most courageous and heroic individuals of our time.

    2. Alec Suchi, it does not seem to me (I am not law trained) that Jez and Alison are being targetted for their ‘specific references’. (Neither has made any specific-people ‘hate’ references.) They are being targetted because they are glamorous, talented, intelligent, prominent and appealing. They are the star figures that give the Nationalist movement a very attractive face.

      Also, I think the unfortunate young nationalists were found guilty of hate crime because they each made a victim, or target, of someone. It seems that where there is no victim, there is no hate crime. The succesfully prosecuted cases indicate that. (The CPS does not keep a case list, but the creepy CAA very conveniently does: These brief case descriptions are worth studying.)

      Clearly enough, it is because the ‘is there a victim?’ application of the meaning of ‘hate crime’ does not suit the CAA that it applied for the Judicial Review that was to contrain the CPS to prosecute under the very oddly worded Article 17 of the ECHR. (The CPS apparently has agreed that it should.)

      Sophie Johnson

  8. In light of the above Max, when can we expect your petition for the creation of representative body to protect White Identity interests. It is now an imperative to start the fightback. At the moment UK nationalists are just easy prey for a carnivorous white hating establishment. I look with envy at Austria and Czech Republic where recent elections indicate civic and racial nationalists are moving forward. Here we are not even treading water but going backwards.

      1. Ummm … Max, may I in turn anticipate that you will soon answer my ‘contact us’ note to you about a publishing proposal I should like to make to you? The piece I want to offer you is a close look in about 2,000 words at why the CAA wanted to force the CPS to prosecute Jez on Article 17 of the ECHR, and why its success at forcing the CPS hand on this point really has not done it much good. (I’ve sent Jez a copy.)

  9. The arrogance of the CAA must be of great concern to the wider Jewish Community. This organisation claims to represent the best interests of the Jewish Community, but then does so by persecuting members of the Indigenous Community who dare to speak out. This has happened before in history and the results are always disastrous for the Jewish Community as a whole. The pain of submission is becoming greater than the pain of fighting back. This is happening across the political spectrum where the pressure is building and the Jewish dominance of politics, finance, press and the media are now being openly questioned. When the backlash comes, and it will, it will be the fault of organisations like the CAA who promote themselves and their tyranny to the detriment of the very community they wish to protect. Their short sighted arrogance is their weakness. They think they are all powerful. But the pressure is building and it will soon burst. I have spoken to very right wing students who have attended ‘undercover’ at ‘Antifa’ and other far left meetings, to find that the hatred of the Jewish hegemony and it’s progenitors is tenfold what you would find at an ISD Blood and Honour concert! Whereas the right want to control and regulate their power, the left want to use their usual, far more violent and terminal solutions. The idiots in the CAA are blissfully looking the other way, prosecuting ordinary people for writing funny songs and speaking the wrong thoughts.

      1. Yes, Mr Greenstein would appear to be another interesting example, like Gilad Atzmon and Gerard Menuhin, of someone of Jewish extraction, who does not self-identify or align himself with Zionism or organised Jewry.
        Obviously Jews are not a monolithic group and as I have argued for some time, what people often refer to as, ‘the Jews’, are not simply a religion and not simply a race or even simply an ethnic group. They are as I have argued, an hereditary masonic community, and I have met individuals of whom it could be argued that they are Jewish by birth (genealogy); by race (genetics) by politics (ideology); or by religion (spirituality), who have seen in the hereditary, masonic community into which they were born, something so distasteful, or who have seen in the rich panoply of White, Western civilisation, something so attractive they can no longer self-identify with organised Jewry and have come to stand with us, in our camp, against the machinations of organised Jewry. Such people are disparaged as ‘self-hating Jews’ by many of their fellow Jews, but should perhaps be rightly regarded by us as the ‘Righteous amongst the Jews”.

  10. Re ‘Paul’ on Jez Turner, the bulk of claims of Turner as being a police or spy agent were made afaik by ‘European Knights project’. The accuser is ‘Resistance Radio Carl Mason’; he has an open-access Youtube, uploaded December 2016, called ‘Jez Turner’s London Forum exposed as State-funded operation’.

    1. To prevent misunderstanding, Rerevisionist, you should have added that Carl Mason is a semi-literate moron who’s opinion can be safely disregarded.

  11. Jez Turner dances his way to court and speaks ‘The 8 words’
    “We must free the world from Jewish control!”
    Result? Not yet ‘gulagged’.
    Case upgraded to Crown Court for trial by jury.
    Pre-trial hearing Monday 27th November, 9.30am at Southwark Crown Court. All welcome!
    Trial will probably be March/April 2018.
    Watch this space!

  12. I doubt it has anything to do with ‘power’ ‘victimhood’ or ‘hatred’.
    My suspicion is that this is an extension of the BNP tactic that worked so well.
    The BNP were goaded into persuing legal claims of libel and other such things. They spent all their money on it. Just what the enemy wanted!
    These people are not going to fall for the ‘goading’ trick, so they must be forced into wasting their money, and that of their supporters on expensive court cases.
    The outcome of the cases is irrelevant, but the result is the same – the nationalists emptying their small purses.
    Just what the enemy wants.

  13. I have applied to the CPS for a copy of the High Court Consent Order pursuant to the DPP’s agreement with the fake charity CAA to prosecute Jez Turner. So far, I do not have that copy. But Joshua Rozemberg QC has put an account of that Order on his Facebook page:

    Why did the DPP fall over herself to become party to this agreement? Might she have been told to do so by the Attorney General, to whom she reports? But surely not, for that would have been in breach of the ‘separation of powers’ doctrine. This is all pretty appalling: For two years, the DPP declines to charge Jez. Then she caves in and agrees to charge him. Surely the public is owed an explanation!

Comments are closed.