Sad News: England Seeks Deeper into A Zionist-Controlled Police State
Chanteuse and satirist Alison Chabloz was convicted for using telecommunications to transmit “grossly offensive” material — songs satirizing the extravagant claims on Jewish “holocaust” survivors. A gloating comment by Gideon Felter, spokesman for the well-connected and well-funded Campaign Against Anti-semitism made it quite clear that it’s ideas that are being outlawed: ” This verdict sends a strong message that in Britain Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
YouTuber Alison Chabloz guilty over anti-Semitic songs
She was further convicted of a third charge relating to a song on YouTube.
District Judge John Zani, sitting at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, said the offences were serious and “the custody threshold may well have been passed.”
When the verdict was given supporters of Chabloz shouted “shame” from the public gallery.
Chabloz was released on bail on the condition she was placed on a night curfew at her home and does not leave England and Wales.
When Chabloz left court there was a scuffle and heated arguments outside, before police arrived to keep the peace.
The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism initially brought a private prosecution against Chabloz, before the Crown Prosecution Service took over.
Gideon Falter, the group’s chairman, said: “Alison Chabloz has dedicated herself over the course of years to inciting others to hate Jews, principally by claiming that the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by Jews to defraud the world.
“She is now a convicted criminal. This verdict sends a strong message that in Britain Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories will not be tolerated.”
A CPS spokesman said it first became aware of the private prosecution in December 2016 when Alison Chabloz’s solicitors asked the CPS to take it over and stop it.
However, in 2017, the CPS determined the case should continue and Alison Chabloz was prosecuted.
Chabloz, who describes herself as a Holocaust revisionist, said her music was “satire” and had previously told the court there was “no proof” gas chambers were used to kill Jewish people in World War Two.
However, prosecutors said three of Chabloz’s songs, including one which referred to the notorious Nazi death camp Auschwitz as a “theme park”, were criminally offensive.
Another song included a section set to the tune of a popular Jewish song Hava Nagila.
The defence had told Judge Zani his ruling would set a precedent on the exercise of free speech.
Chabloz had claimed many Jewish people found her songs funny and that no-one was forced to listen to them.
British White Nationalist Leader Jez Turner Jailed for Criticizing Jewish Power
Yesterday Jeremy Bedford-Turner known as Jez Turner was convicted at Southwark Crown Court in London of inciting racial hatred during a speech he gave in 2015 outside Downing Street . In this speech he attacked Jewish influence, most particularly, the Met Police’s support for and enablement of a Jewish security organisation known as the Shomrim . He was sentenced to 12 months, six of which will be served in prison and the rest on licence.
Did Jez have a chance of acquittal? Well, he had a jury trial so that gave him some chance of an acquittal. Had it been a trial without a jury he would have had none. But even with a jury the odds were heavily against a not guilty verdict. In the minds of jurors must be the fear of being called a racist which has been so successfully inculcated in the general population that it produces an automated reflex of panic and terror when faced with the possibility of the label being put on them. Any juror faced with a case such as this must have it in the back of their minds at least that to return a not guilty verdict would be to risk being called a racist. There is also the sheer shock factor of hearing politically incorrect views being unashamedly spoken. As it was the jury was out for less than two hours and returned a unanimous verdict of guilty.
The case was originally turned down by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) as not meting their evidential standard for a prosecution. The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism threatened the CPS with a judicial review of their decision not to prosecute. Faced with that the CPS caved in and prosecuted. It is worth noting that running a judicial review is very expensive. The fact that the CAA managed to get the CPS prosecute effectively creates two tiers of justice, that for the rich and that for the poor.
I shall be writing a fuller account of the trial later but I can say unequivocally that the judge showed his bias against Jezz from the word go in both his actions and manner. He began by refusing a request by Jezz’s barrister to put questions to prospective jurors to discover if any off them were members of the CAA or the Community Security Trust, a charity which has surprising support from the Met Police for a quasi-police group known as the Shomrim – see below. During this passage of the hearing the judge said with great distaste that it was shocking that such an organisation as the CAA needed to exist but that was the way of the world.
The judge also intervened on a number of occasions when Jezz was being cross-examined to dispute what Jezz was saying.This was not his job, it was the job of the prosecutor to challenge what Jezz was saying.
The other thing to note was the way both judge and prosecuting counsel accepted opinion as fact and were seemingly oblivious to what they were doing which in short was enforcing the politically correct view of the world. For example, prosecuting counsel thought nothing of quoting a senior judge that freedom of expression had to be compatible with the “standards of a just and fair multiracial society”.
What has been made very clear in this trial (and that of the trial of Alison Chabloz) is that we have an elite which is hell bent on squeezing the range of permitted opinion ever more tightly into a politically correct shape.
The other striking thing about this trial is the paucity of media comment. One might have thought the mainstream media would have jumped all over the matter but the only mainstream press attending the trial was the Press Association. Why? Well, I suspect it was because although the politically correct wanted the prosecution and a guilty verdict they did not want the politically incorrect nature of much of the evidence to come before the public’s eyes.
Where does all this leave us? Free expression is essential to democracy and political freedom. Take it away and oppression soon fills the void. It also has a general cultural value. Its importance is examined in detail in my essay Freedom or permitted opinion below. . Beneath that you will find a number of reports of Jez’ trial and a couple on the truly amazing powers granted to the Shomrim both here and abroad.
I’ll sing my way to court in high heels and a frock Give the press a winning smile from inside the dock… Alison Chabloz song, Find me guilty
Mr Gideon Falter, 34, who runs the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAAS) was the chief witness for the Crown Prosecution service’s (CPS) against the British minstrel Alison Chabloz. On January 10th at Marylebone Magistrate’s Court we heard him swear the oath, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He then proceeded to give the court various hearsay conjectures, about what effect Ms Chabloz’ songs might be exerting, upon unspecified persons.
He averred for example that they were ‘spreading anti-semitic hatred’ and were ‘inciting to racial hatred.’ The Court was not given evidence for this,nor advised where or in whom these emotions were being generated. Should he not have called witnesses to testify in support of these conjectures, or better still a psychologist to affirm that they were or had been generated?
The Court was advised of one offensive performance by Ms Chabloz, where she sang her songs ‘(((Survivors))) and ‘Nemo’s anti-Semitic Universe’ namely the London Forum in 2016 (September 24th). A problem here could be the signs of mirth and riotous applause in response to the songs: did this really show what Mr Falter had been alleging, or if not, what did?
She was recently introduced as ‘The brilliant comedienne and singer/songwriter Alison Chabloz,’ by Richie Allen, on his popular radio show (18 January).
The point of satire, is that it makes people laugh. Britain has a long tradition of satire from William Hogarth in the 18th century to Private Eye in the present time. Its future is surely at stake in this trial.
In October of 2017 she was arrested and jailed (or, ‘held in custody’) for 48 hours, for posting a video of herself singing a song. This had allegedly broken her ‘bail conditions’. As Ms Chabloz observed, “As far as I am aware, I am the only artist in modern British history to have been jailed for the heinous crime of composing and singing satirical songs which I uploaded to the Internet.”
We live in a society where just about any sacred belief is liable to be satirised for entertainment value, and those being satirised have not generally sought recourse to legal action. When punk-rock bands savagely mocked the Royal family for example, no-one prosecuted them.
The present case was being brought under the Communications Act of 2003. A degree of public support is said to exist for its controversial section 127,by people fed up with online bullying. For example, a racially motivated tweet relating to a footballer was prosecuted under it. But many have objected to its catch-all character, and the DPP has stated in 2102, that its section 127 ‘should not be seen as a carte blanche for prosecuting content which, however upsetting to some, would normally fall within guarantees of freedom of expression in a democratic society,’ and that freedom of expression should include the right to say things that ‘offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population.’
Last year, at least nine people a day were being arrested in the UK on such dubious grounds. Annoying someone or causing distress has never been viewed as a crime — until now. The Communications Act was basically designed for the media. In contrast, songs posted up on the Web are only heard by persons who choose to listen. One exercises that choice by clicking the ‘play’ button. Ms Chabloz has not ‘communicated’ anything in the sense defined by that Act.
Normally, if a Youtube video is found to be disturbing, a complaint is put through to Youtube, rather than the person who has uploaded it. Now Ms Chabloz’ songs have either been deleted or given protective warnings by Youtube, which further complicates the question, of how and to whom she is supposed to be causing offence.
The Defence lawyer Adrian Davies had suggested at an earlier hearing that his client’s songs might be ‘offensive’ but not ‘grossly offensive,’ and that remark was reiterated by the judge in the present hearing. That is surely so: it’s not as if they were snuff movies, or featured depraved or perverted acts, or personally defamed anyone living — except for one person, Irene Zisblatt who claims that she swallowed diamonds while she was at Auschwitz. The court discussed her case, with Mr Davies pointing out that the official Yad VashemHolocaust centre in Israel had cast doubt upon the veracity of Ms Zisblatt’s story in her book The Fifth Diamond. It features of course ze evil Nazis ripping babies in half, making lampshades out of human skin, etc. Was this not a legitimate target for satire, Mr Davis asked the Court?
Some have commented that British politics would hardly be able to function if a distinction was liable to be made between ‘offensive’ and ‘grossly offensive.’ How is the law supposed to discern such a thing?
Others have wondered if it is really appropriate for the CAAS to be registered as a charity, i.e., a tax-exempt NGO, which goes around suing people. The CPS had not wanted to take this case, but was pressured by the CAAS to do so. That applies both to the pending case of British ‘nationalist’ Jez Turner as well as Ms Chabloz: in both cases the CPS had no inclination to prosecute, but arm-twisting by the CAA made them do it. In fact, the CAA works for a foreign power: its first action upon being founded in 2014 was to intimidate the Trycicle Theatre in Cricklewood so they gave up their BDS policy on Israeli goods. Why should a group specialising in legal intimidation be awarded tax-exempt charity status?
The second witness after Mr Faulter was Stephen Silverman, the CAA’s ‘Director of Investigations and Enforcement.’ Under examination he confirmed that the online character ‘Nemo’ who had been persistently trolling Ms Chabloz, was none other than Stephen Applebaum, the CAAS’s ‘senior volunteer.’ For the last two years she had received some quite intense twitter threats and curses from this character — thus on her website ‘Nemo’ declared: ‘Even if you are acquitted, we will still go after you.’ Earlier, in the first court hearing of this case in December 2016, Mr Silverman admitted that he had been tweeting as ‘Bedlam Jones’ who had likewise been making quite intimidating comments.
So, this is a case that could work a lot better the other way round, with Alison as the innocent injured party and CAA personnel as guilty of harassment and victimisation. Clearly, the CAA needs to be stripped of its charity status. As a general comment, one can either post envenomed tweets against someone or sue them, but it may be inadvisable to try both.
The case is adjourned until March 7th.
 As her lawyer A.D advised the Court, the ‘personal emotional reaction’ of Mr Gideon Falter was ‘entirely irrelevant’ to the case
 Section 137: A person is guilty of an offence if he— (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;
 Figures obtained by The Times through the Freedom of Information Actreveal that 3,395 people across 29 forces were arrested last year under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it illegal to intentionally “cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another”, in 2016′
 It aimed ‘to make provision about the regulation of the provision of electronic communications networks and services … to make provision about the regulation of broadcasting and of the provision of television and radio services, etc.
Firstly, a huge thank you to the 25 brave souls who turned up at yesterday’s hearing in support. Thanks also to those of you who weren’t able to be there but sent messages and donations.
It was a great boost to see familiar, friendly faces in the public gallery vastly outnumbering the opposition. Indeed, as proceedings began, we were informed of a request made by Crown key witnesses, CAA’s Gideon Falter and Stephen Silverman. Both men had originally intended to be present in the public gallery yet neither turned up. Instead, CAA minion, Anthony Orkin, was again in attendance with just a couple of others, including the man seen on the far left of the photo below:
Gideon Falter of the Campaign Against Antisemitism along with representatives of other Jewish organisations including Shomrim held a meeting last week in London with Labour’sHardyal Dhindsa, Derbyshire Police and Crime Commissioner, to discuss hate crime.
Perhaps the fact that Derbyshire Constabulary last week finally returned my laptop is one of the reasons why Falter and Silverman failed to turn up? Who knows? But in light of the CPS barrister’s announcement, both were highly conspicuous by their absence.
The Crown also requested that my barrister, Adrian Davies, be the first to present submissions in relation to the complex legal arguments surrounding my case. As already explained, the charges (now five) which I face concern sending or causing to be sent a grossly offensive message under the Communications Act. I won’t go into much detail here. Suffice it to say that I was brilliantly defended by Mr Davies.
After hearing both sets of submissions, Judge Zani informed the court that he would give a decision in writing after studying the points of law discussed. He also scheduled yet another preliminary hearing on November 20th when his decision will be made public. The judge also made it clear that, at this current stage of events, he would still be inclined to keep the January 10th trial date.
Judge Zani explained that the reason for still wishing a trial to go ahead would be to hear my case not only on points of law (whether sharing a URL constitutes an offence under the Act) but also on facts, namely, the content of my songs. I, for one, shall look forward to the Crown’s star witness coming to the defence of Irene Zisblatt, Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and the already-debunked war propaganda lies of Jews being turned into bars of soap, etc., etc.
It is quite strange to consider that in the case of Judge Zani agreeing with the Defence submission and therefore ruling that I would not have committed any offence under the Act, I may nevertheless still be sent to trial. However, the judge’s decision in this matter, quite rightly, is meant to avoid further eventual hearings pending appeals. If the judge agrees with the Crown’s submission concerning points of law, then I can and will appeal.
Judge Zani then went on to discuss bail conditions. The Crown – no doubt under pressure from the usual suspects – unsuccessfully tried to impose tighter address restrictions. Mr Davies also announced our intent to sue for abuse of process following my arrest and detention earlier this month.
My arrest and subsequent charge for yet another of my songs was the result of a witness statement made by former Zionist Federation co-vice chair, Jonathan Hoffman, who – as we saw last July – has already attempted to prejudice my case on more than one occasion. As a result of Mr Hoffman’s interference, the Crown announced yesterday that he would not make a credible witness. Key evidence relating to the new charge is now solely confined to a similar statement made by Stephen Silverman aka Bedlam Jones. On this matter, I shall leave readers to make up their own minds.
For some real discussion of my case and seeing as the Mainstream is failing in its task to inform the British public of this highly newsworthy event, I shall again be a guest on tonight’s edition of Radio Aryan’s Daily Traditionalist with Matthew Heimbach and Florian Geyer. The show starts at 5 pm BST and, hopefully, the audio quality this time will enable listeners to better hear my story. Big thanks to Sven Longshanks for organising this.
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.
YOU TUBE THOUGHT POLICE BLOCK AN ALISON CHABLOZ VIDEO
Apologies for the mass email once again, and apologies to those of you who took the time to respond to my previous updates and have yet to receive any personal reply. My bail terms and accompanying inconveniences limit my Internet usage to mobile-only, but I promise to try and sort through my messages and respond as time and data allowance permit.
Today and yesterday I received yet more email notifications from YouTube regards ‘action taken’ on my videos following ‘legal complaints’. Please see below YouTube’s updated list of countries where my videos are now blocked :
Like Amazon, YouTube is ignoring UK law, no doubt following pressure from the Israel Lobby. This now brings the total of potential viewers blocked from viewing my songs and other videos to well over 300 million.
If Gideon Falter of the Campaign Against Antisemitism had not brought a private criminal prosecution against me for (((Survivors))) at the end of 2016, it’s reasonable to think that my video would still be floundering around the 6,000 view mark. Instead, the grand total is now over 30k. As plenty of other users have noticed, YouTube also regularly culls the number of views. For this particular video – the total is now frozen at 30,666 !
To celebrate, I have uploaded two songs to Vimeo which are available with a password. One is an old number of mine ‘Social Media Queen’ updated for 2017 – I’m now banned from so many online platforms, would the enemy be trying to force an early abdication? 😉
The second is one of my most recent rants ‘Too extreme for the BNP’. Clearly, I AM too extreme for Twitter and YouTube, but for the BNP as well ? (*rolls eyes).
Mark my words, they’ll be going after my PayPal account next..
Zionist-connected Judge Recuses Herself, Crown Takes Over Prosecution & Singer Alison Chabloz Case Adjourns Until June
LONDON. Satirical chanteuse and song-writer Alison Chabloz’ case seems to be a test as radical Zionist censors seek to create a precedent in Britain for gagging critics on the Internet. She is charged under a hazy law the Communications Act of 2003, which was meant to regulate commercial broadcasting, for You Tubes of satirical songs about the holocaust. She was charged for improper use of the public communications network for having broadcast “grossly offensive” material in such songs as (((Survivors))) with lyrics such as, “‘Now Auschwitz, holy temple, is a theme park just for fools, the gassing zone a proven hoax, indoctrination rules.”
Initially, Jewish complaints were dismissed by the Crown Prosecution Services (CPS) as non-actionable. Then, the well-funded “charity” the Campaign Against Anti-semitism initiated a rarely-used private prosecution complete with pricey Jewish lawyers. In December, Alison Chabloz was gagged by way of bail conditions that forbad her posting any racist or anti-semitic or “grossly offensive” material on the Internet or naming her tormenter complainers, Gideon Falter of the Campaign Against Anti-semitism. [Canadian political prisoner Arthur Topham was similarly prohibited from mentioning the names of those who complained and dragged him into court and inflicted tens of thousands of dollars of costs on this intrepid Internet warrior. The court-coddled complainers were Victoria B’nai Brith operative Harry Abrams and chronic complaint filer Richard Warman.]
Miss Chabloz’s legal team then raised the issue of “reasonable apprehension of bias” on the part of the judge, Baroness Emma Arbuthnot. She had been part of a paid trip to Israel along with her husband, a former Tory MP, who headed Conservative Friends of Israel (a cheering team for another country). The day before the trial, Baroness Arbuthnot quietly withdrew and was replaced by an experienced jurist Judge Zani.
On March 7, after prolonged Zionist lobbying, the CPS took over the prosecution. Now, a whole new team of lawyers was seized of the file. Almost predictably, despite having had the Chabloz file for months, the CPS sought an adjournment on the eve of the trial, needing more preparation time. The adjournment was granted on March 22 — two days before the trial was to commence.
On June 23, there will be purely legal arguments. One key argument deals with jurisdiction. The impugned posting was made in Switzerland. Do U.K. courts even have jurisdiction?
Should rulings on June 23 go against the defence, Alison Chaloz’s trial will proceed on July 17.
Thursday December 15, I shall be appearing in court for the first time in my life charged with causing gross offence after posting my song (((Survivors))) on YouTube. What makes this case special is the fact that I am not being prosecuted by the Crown; it is a private prosecution taken on by chairman of the wealthy Zionist ‘charity’, Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), Gideon Falter, who – in order to persuade the judge that publishing my song merits a heavy fine – will have to prove that my song is grossly offensive.
It is quite possible that the CPS is unaware of the case at this stage. As well, in order to prove my song grossly offensive, Falter will have to provide the court with an expert’s report. Falter himself, despite his close association with CAA, is not an expert. The summons reads as follows:
On or about 08/06/2016 at within jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court caused to be sent by means of a public electronic network communications network, namely, a YouTube video under the title “(((Survivors)))”, that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. Contrary to section 127(1)(b) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003.
At this point, I think it is important to stress that out of the three women who reported me to police for alleged harassment and inciting racial hatred, only one is Jewish. During my interrogation which lasted about an hour and half (I was detained in police custody for six hours in total, including more than two hours locked in a cell), the policeman didn’t even mention the Jewish woman, nor did he read her statement – no doubt supplied on the orders of ‘Amanda from Finchley‘.
Ironically, I was arrested by the same police force which, two years ago, had worded a cease and desist letter, sent by recorded-delivery and signed for by the very same ‘Amanda’, who – along with my other non-Jewish accuser – takes equal first prize in the 2016 Professional Victimisation Championships.
As for the Jewish woman, I have hardly interacted with her at all. Only once to offer her my phone number or a chat via Messenger, which she refused, preferring to troll me on a daily basis rather than have a face-to-face discussion between adults. Indeed, the poor victim is still actively doing everything she can to please her pay-mistress, despite my account being suspended from Twitter.
In scenes worthy of a farce, the pack of Zionists out for my blood is now split into two camps : there are those who want to demonstrate next week outside Westminster Magistrates Court and those who do not…
Months of hard graft?
Oh dear, oh dear…
As well, my critics will be no doubt be unhappy about an email of support from a Russian-French philosopher, Anatoly Livry – also of Jewish heritage. Dr. Livry has given me permission to reproduce his kind words on this blog, translated into English.
Dear Madame Chabloz,
I would like to send you a word of support: indeed, although being of Jewish origin I do not feel ‘assaulted’ by your songs in English, which I find both funny and witty.
On the other hand, as a philosopher, I feel that the ever-increasing ‘shoah hysteria’ is ignoble – a weapon used by my former Jewish co-religionists to annihilate the Indo-European peoples of the West.
To say that UK police handling of online abuse is inconsistent is something of an understatement. In particular, these inconsistencies are highlighted in the case of British musician, Alison Chabloz, who shot to fame after performing a “quenelle” salute at the Edinburgh Fringe festival in 2015. Chabloz was again in the news during this year’s Fringe after her show was pulled for being “too political”.
Victim of targeted harassment and abuse from vicious, pro-Israel “advocates” as well as from a host of anonymous Hasbara “Ziotrolls” and assorted Leftist, liberal “social justice warriors”, Chabloz was recently informed by her local police force in Derbyshire that their investigation for malicious communications and harassment regarding this online abuse against Chabloz had been closed. The investigation began earlier this year after Chabloz had received several unwanted postal deliveries, including anonymous birthday and Christmas cards as well as several sales catalogues (e.g. for reinforced doors and blinds) addressed to her in a derogatory manner.
Ten days after receiving news of the now closed case, Chabloz was arrested by local police in an investigation involving two other forces. She was questioned and detained for six hours – more than two hours spent locked in a cell – learning on her release at midnight that during this time police had raided her domicile and seized her laptop.
Chabloz’ hate crime, allegedly, concerns both her 15-month old ” quenelle” as well as songs performed at London’s Grosvenor Hotel last September during a meeting of The London Forum.
Asides the allegation of incitement, Chabloz was also arrested and questioned on suspicion of online harassment of two of her critics.
Chabloz’ solicitor said no evidence of any such harassment was presented during the interview.
In fact, as early as 2014, Chabloz had been advised by the Musicians’ Union to report to police after being fired by Carnival Group for a satirical tweet posted six months before she began working for the company.
Both in the above case along with several other subsequent incidents of online harassment, including death threats and further attempts to prevent Chabloz from performing, Derbyshire police failed to take appropriate action against the perpetrators.
With her laptop now in police hands, Chabloz’ gigs are on hold because the device contains all her sheet music, backing tracks and software vital for her performances. Chabloz’ solicitor has submitted a legal request to try and recuperate the device and a mobile phone also seized.
Chabloz has been bailed till January 12 pending a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service.
As well, November 19, Chabloz received a court summons to appear in front of Westminster Magistrates Court in a private prosecution brought against her by Gideon Falter, director of UK registered “charity” Campaign Against Antisemitism. Falter accuses Chabloz of using social media to cause offense in breach of the 2003 Communications Act after Chabloz posted a video of her song (((Survivors))) on YouTube. The song has gained over six million – sorry, six thousand views views so far.
The hearing will take place at 10am on December 15