Tommy Robinson: In Court Again Today

Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, will appear in court later today on charges unrelated to those that led to his current imprisonment.

We just received this message from a source in the EDL:

Regarding Tommy: Today (the 19th of March) he is facing court over charges of a public disorder offence. Specifically, he is accused of “inciting illegal public assembly” at an EDL rally in Tower Hamlets on 7 September 2013.

Why was Tommy arrested? His “crime” was to make a speech that was slightly longer than three minutes.

There is a new risk that may result from his court appearance: during the hearing he will be moved to another prison, and it is highly likely that this will be a much more dangerous place than HMP Winchester, where he is at present (Tommy “likes” his current prison; the place is quite friendly for him, with a lot of soldiers) .

Keep your fingers crossed for him today! And, for those so inclined, please say a prayer for him.

Any additional word on today’s events in court will be posted here as soon as it comes in.

Previous posts about Tommy Robinson, Kevin Carroll, and the Quilliam Foundation:

2013   Oct   8   Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll Leave the EDL
        8   A Paradigm Shift in the British Counterjihad?
        9   Introducing W.H. “Abdullah” Quilliam
        10   Between a Rock and a Hard Place
        10   The Problem with Gates of Vienna Is…
        10   The EDL Will Survive
        14   Tommy Robinson Attacked in Luton
        25   Tommy Robinson on RT
        30   When Tommy Met Mo
2014   Feb   8   Tommy Robinson Attacked in Woodhill Prison

32 thoughts on “Tommy Robinson: In Court Again Today

  1. thank you for the update. am very, very happy he is in a place with a
    lot of soldiers. interesting to see what punishment is given at this new
    trial, as he accepted the quilliam deal that was rammed down his throat.
    would love to know the real story…

  2. The jail issue has nothing to do with the Tower Hamlets protest. Robinson was charged on 28 November 2012, with three counts of conspiracy to commit fraud by misrepresentation in relation to a mortgage application, facing trial with five other defendants. He pleaded guilty to two charges in November 2013, and on 23 January 2014 he was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

    • Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty to stop the police prosecuting his mother, who is dying of cancer.

      Tommy Robinson’s “fraud” was no more than that done by senior Labour party members, who loaned money to Labour members who are now in the House of Lords, to use as mortgage deposits which they did not declare were loans from a 3rd party.

      When the civil war becomes apparent, and the population discover the persecution of Tommy Robinson, the majority of the British people will regard him the way that Nelson Mandela is regarded by South Africans. Unlike Mandela, Tommy Robinson was not imprisoned for planning to kill innocent people in acts of terrorism.

    • Look at the post more carefully. This is about another charge aside from the “mortgage fraud”. This new hearing today is precisely about the Tower Hamlets protest.

      The man is in jail because of the caste system in the UK. No one from the mid-to-upper classes who has done exactly the same thing re his mortgage will ever be put on trial for their scoff-law behavior. Such persecutions are handy for keeping the lower class in line…

  3. I’m a little bit short of sympathy for TR. It evaporated when he teamed up with Quillaim. If he’d had enough at that point (understandably) couldn’t he have just gone quietly? Maybe I’m being hard on him?

    • He risked his life for four years, and still isn’t safe today. He still continues to bravely support the right cause. It was a letdown that he joined up with Quilliam, but I will never run out of sympathy for TR.

    • Well…since it has absolutely no impact on you one way or another, you might try leaving sympathy out of the equation. See how fully you can can put yourself in his shoes- which means finding out as much as you can about those shoes and where they walked.

      You could begin by asking yourself the ramifications for “going quietly” after years of hard work in which you were persecuted for your views and your parents were too – just for being your parents.

      You could factor in what you’d have to do if the police froze your bank accounts, if you had no access to your own money, if your business was in ruins.

      You could try to ascertain how it might impact your thinking if you were told point blank that all the persecution and harassment would stop if you would give up advocating for your country’s culture and values. IOW, if you would just sit down and shut up and let the emasculation of your country continue sans interference from you.

      Each of us is different:

      For some the “telling” would be sufficient to make them do what the police told them, even if it meant that all those who’d taken a big risk along with you were left holding the bag.

      For others, the act of sitting down and shutting up would be experienced as a betrayal both of one’s own principles and of the people who’d stood by you. Not to mention your concern about what your children would think of you as they got older. IOW, what legacy would you leave for them?

      Don’t forget to factor in the notion that you’re lower class Irish and have generations of family experience at the hands of English police for both those existential facts. You recognize that your treatment is due both to your class and to your blood (so to speak). You realize that if you were a higher class this wouldn’t be happening.

      Leadership is funny thing. We can indeed strive for it, but the mantle is only given; it can’t be demanded. And sometimes people find the path narrower and far more demanding than they’d realized. Sometimes a ‘calling’ is exactly that…

      • Dymphna, well said. I couldn’t have done a fraction of what Tommy Robinson has done over the years. The police, crown prosecution service and the MPs should all feel a degree of shame for what they have been doing to him, his family and other members of the EDL. Of course, shame is in short supply these days.

  4. Thanks for the updates on Tommy. The guy is a true hero and I’m afraid that the way he’s treated by the country he is trying to defend says it all…

  5. The fundamentals of the “inciting illegal public assembly” would infer that all unauthorised public assembly in the UK is in fact illegal.

    The charge is an affront to all British peoples of all political persuasions.

    • Democratic assembly was suspended many times in order to prevent EDL having demonstrations in Tower Hamlets. Not because the police feared uncontrollable violence from EDL, but because the police knew for a certainty there would be uncontrollable violence from muslims and their fascist allies on the Left.

      Here’s the proof:

  6. A totalitarian state will pursue dissidents until they are either killed or neutralised. So it is with the UK and Tommy. This is clearly a trumped up charge designed to discredit Tommy and undermine his credibility in his new role with the Quilliam Foundation. It remains to be seen if Quilliam decide whether Tommy is now too much of a liability to support. If this is the case, job done as far as UKSSR is concerned.

    • IMO Quilliam feared that Tommy would be assassinated in prison. They probably are aware that Britain is governed by people who have done at least the same amount of “fraud” as Tommy.

      Quilliam would know that Tommy was actually their best hope for resistance to islamic fascism in Britain coming from someone who wasn’t a racist, someone who believed multiculturalism could work, and someone who fell for the lie that there was a meaningful difference between an islamic extremist and a moderate muslim.

      IMO the torch of resistance in Britain has already passed from EDL to Britain First. And Britain First are making no attempt to support Israel or multiculturalism. As I’ve been predicting for some years, what comes after the EDL will be far worse for the enemies of EDL.

      • “And Britain First are making no attempt to support Israel or multiculturalism.”

        Should it?

        Is Israel making any attempt to support indigenous Brits?

        Are the multicultis making any attempt to support indigenous Brits?

        How so? Specific examples, please.

        • “Should it?”

          I never said it should. I’m not offering you my vision of what should be done. But I’ve got very clear ideas concerning how things will pan out. And there is no way that mainland Britain will not end up with violence like Northern Ireland. Only it will be violence that will be far more difficult to resolve.

          • IMO the torch of resistance in Britain has already passed from EDL to Britain First. And Britain First are making no attempt to support Israel or multiculturalism. As I’ve been predicting for some years, what comes after the EDL will be far worse for the enemies of the EDL

            I read your thoughts re the future as descriptive rather than normative. There are no ‘shoulds’ here, merely echoes of what the prescient saw a generation ago.

            A few years ago, when our correspondent El Ingles tried to describe the options likely facing England, his thoughtful essay got us banned from Pajamas Media. Their minds have been formed by the narrative of the left – they are leftists, actually, or their funders are – so that the distinctions between normative speech and descriptive speech have been erased. We now have a whole lexicon of forbidden words, ones that if you utter in order to describe them, you have made yourself into a racist, bigot, etc.

            Tedious. Just another reason why we home schooled.

  7. Not a big fan of Tommy. He’s a brave dude, but he’s either naive or is someone’s pawn working for another motive. He often says “I’m not against Muslims, I’m against Islam”. What does that even mean?

    • Same as saying in 1940, “I hate Nazis, not Germans”; difficult then to defeat the Nazis without killing Germans who didn’t necessarily support them. Today it’s even more difficult, as both Islamist and peaceful Muslims are intermingled with us. Like the Israelis, but without their military options, we need to choose our targets with great care- even if we can persuade our lords and masters of the threat.

    • [edited]

      First to answer your question: parsing your puzzlement re being able to say one is “against Islam but not against Muslims” and have that statement make logical sense…that’s a process of disentanglement that anyone concerned about the issue has to make. The profound disjunction between primitive Islamic jihad & jurisprudence on the one hand, and the obviously moral lives led by many 1st world, integrated Muslims is jarring. In Tommy’s example, he knew Muslims who weren’t aggressive or hostile but he also saw the imposition of Islamic jurisprudence in Britain as harmful and an urgent problem – and he also knew hostile, professionally aggrieved Muslim groups who knew how to get the police to work for their side.

      It is the same for anyone in the Counterjihad. In our case, the internal dissonance first arose when we had to do a mental calculus separating what we knew of the Islamic jihad compound some miles away, up against our almost daily experience with our Iranian Muslim immigrant shopkeeper who came here with his family after the Shah was booted out and Iran became dangerous for his family. He settled in our small rural backwater and took over a decrepit country store that no one had been able to make profitable in thirty or forty years. The family spent some time cleaning up decades of rubbish; when they opened for business, all of them were friendly and accomodating.

      He had/has a natural talent for business, for understanding what people want and offering it for sale at reasonable prices. That old building was rotting away on a busy state road that connects two small towns. The road is also used by commuters on a long daily trek to a larger town for work. People knew the road well and knew all the possible stops on their way; they welcomed a good addition to their limited choices and black people in particular were glad to find a place that was dependably friendly. Travelers need gasoline, snacks, cigarettes, lottery tickets, etc. So he stocked his store with those things, along with small-sized items that locals could use to tide them over in between marketing days – milk, bread, cheese, pet food, etc.

      In addition, he registered the store as a wild game weighing station, which attracted the hunters and they were invariably hungry by the time they arrived with their “catch” to be weighed and measured. Ali learned to shoot, too, and went hunting once or twice. But that was after he was held up by some crack-heads at gun point. The word got out quickly afterwards that he was now armed. No more robberies.

      He had the usual American version of snackfoods- fish and chips, fried chicken, etc. He expanded his food into pizza and hot vegetables and small amounts of fresh produce. In the Spring he stocked flower and vegetable plants. He was a tough guy but very enterprising…one day we used the commercial car vacuum he had on the side of the building to clean out the car. Our young son was bored while waiting so he began picking up litter around that area and stuffing it in the trash can next to the vac. When we went into the store to pay for our gas, Ali thanked my son for the litter pick-up and gave him an ice cream cone as a reward. IOW, Ali observed and knew his customers. His wife, a real live wire, friendly and lots of energy, was also a Muslim…from Indonesia.

      No halal foods – no one would have known what they were and besides I don’t think he was observant. He came here to do well but as he also told me, he liked knowing that he provided a service for people. I asked him if he WAS doing well and he told me with a big smile, “I’m make a killing here”…no, he didn’t brandish a scimitar. He just worked seven days a week, 14 hours a day for years. And then he moved back to an urban area and bought up apartment buildings. Still making a killing and now that he’s ‘retired’ I’ll bet he’s a good landlord.

      No doubt his business had some impact on the county’s revenues. Ready-to-eat foods are taxed at a high rate and he sold a great deal of it. Later he built a bigger store from scratch and put in tables so people could eat inside or out on the porch.He sold the business based on volume, of course, but the owners who have come and gone since he was here don’t have his charisma and ability to interact with their customers. No one since is still “making a killing” – they don’t have the gift.

      He was conservative in his politics, furious that Bush ignored the situation in Iran and went after Saddam. He never forgave that and after a while he gave up on American politics in general. As many immigrants do as they see how their country of origin is treated by our feckless State Department.

      You see how it’s different? We weren’t inundated by a massive group with a bad attitude. Just one family that accommodated itself to the community and whose English improved remarkably over the time they were here.

      BTW, he and his wife sent their children to a private Christian school because they valued education.

      You’re right Tommy is brave, but your summary judgment with an either/or reduction for his motive demonstrates your lack of attention to the situation he faced (some of it his own making from a time before he realized what was going to be required of him). It must have been when he realized that the whole establishment was (and still is) determined to bring him down that he and Kevin had to begin to carve out a modus vivendi for the future, keeping in mind their determination that England will not disappear without a fight.

      • My problem with Tommy is that he isn’t against immigration, trying to prevent radical Islam in the west any other way is futile.

        There’s a few problems with your example, one being a simple issue of numbers. For every 10 “Ali the friendly moderate Muslim shopkeeper” that immigrates to a western country, there’s atleast 2 “Muhammed the bearded and cloaked conservative Muslim who has trouble finding a job”. If there were only a few hundred or few thousand immigrants per year, this wouldn’t be a problem, but that isn’t the case, because the number is in the hundreds of thousands, even for a country as small as Sweden with 9 million people. That 2 out of 12 immigrants IS a huge deal.

        The second problem with your example is, Ali, per common western country law, may invite his brother or other family members, to come immigrate to the country, because of family laws. His brother, Hakim, perhaps a refugee from a war torn area, makes the trip over. Distraught over what he witnessed in his home country, he may be more prove to violence, crime, and perhaps even raping one of the un-veiled natives who are totally new to him because he can’t resist his basic instincts.

        The third problem, Ali’s potential children, as cruel as that may sound. Being the westernized person he is, Ali will try to raise his children as neutrally as possible(and send them to schools which do the same). Likely being in a majority foreign/immigrant area(like the majority of immigrants go to), his children may be influenced by radical Islam propaganda, have seen videos on the internet of an interpretation of what’s happening in their countries, and grow to hate the country they currently reside in because of that. There are tons of these cases. Studies have shown that most people growing up tend to lean towards the culture of their background, and people of their background. Even though radical Muslims may be a minority of Muslims, they’re a vocal minority.

        The fourth problem.. Ali is a moderate Muslim, but he’s a Muslim and wants to go to a local Mosque to pray. Not to preach hate against jews, kafirs/infidels or their host country, but just to pray. Completely moderate. Maybe people don’t want them in their home countries even if they are moderate? Maybe they wouldn’t hurt a fly, but maybe some of the natives don’t want to hear the calls to prayer as they walk down their streets? Maybe they don’t want to see Mosques everywhere? Maybe they don’t want to see towering Minarets over their cities? Maybe they don’t want to see veiled women walking around everywhere(which is moderate Islam)? Some people just don’t like what’s foreign to them, is that somehow immoral? Perhaps greedy, but it’s safe to say the vast majority of earth’s humans are still greedy in one way or another. Should all these people just be cast aside, or are they just intolerant evil people who don’t get a say in democracy? See, the thing is, we have no obligation to take in immigrants, it isn’t their right, it’s their privilage to immigrate here, so it is perfectly sane for the natives to either want immigrants to assimilate to the host culture completely, or not want any immigration at all, and the fascist, leftist, non-democratic elite have taken away any debate about that. There would be no “radical Islam” question if there was no immigration to begin with, or proper immigration, or very little immigration. To a lot of people now, immigration is as part of a country now as taxes are. It’s been normalized, and it isn’t fair. People like Tommy Robinson have conceded that, and have started to go after something else, only radical Islam, only dealing with a fraction of the problem.

        Lastly, the fifth problem with your example, there’s no mention of the native genocide taking place and the fact that NO ONE, whether you’re white, an immigrant, black, green, yellow, purple, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Totemist, Buddhist, no one likes being a minority. No one. This is what is happening to us.

        This is why I’m not a fan of Tommy Robinson, he’s conceded(or didn’t care in the first place) to multi-culturalism, and his attempts to get what he wants(which have good intentions) aren’t going to work anyway.

        On a final note, it should be someone’s responsibility to know what they’re following. A Muslim should know what’s in their holy book, therefore, there cannot be a “moderate Muslim”, there’s either a Muslim, who follows the teachings of the holy book and their prophet, or a non-Muslim.

    • ‘Not a big fan of Tommy. He’s a brave dude, but he’s either naive or is someone’s pawn working for another motive. He often says “I’m not against Muslims, I’m against Islam”. What does that even mean?’

      Presumably you say the same thing about Pamela Geller, Ali Sina, Robert Spencer, Brigit Gabriel, and dear, wonderful Bat Ye’or. They all make the same distinction that Tommy makes.

      Since you think that the only sensible/trustworthy people in this domain are opposed to all muslims, perhaps you’d like to tell us which leader you follow?

      • Quote:
        He often says “I’m not against Muslims, I’m against Islam”. What does that even mean?’

        Another quote:
        Cultural superiority is a doctrine of Islam that actually has a name; it’s called Jahiliyya – and literally means that any culture without Islam is “ignorant and stupid.”


        So in the doctrines of Islam, you, your culture, and your history are only worthy of destruction.
        And then you wonder why Tommy Robinson is “against Islam”?
        How fortunate the Muslims of his country are that he is not against them!
        In Islam, there is no human dignity. So to insult the dignity of Muslims is a kind of double hurt.
        Islam alienates all human dignity, both inside and beyond the Ummah.
        Against Islam?
        Of course he’s against Islam.
        He’s a civilized, decent human being.
        And a Westerner.

        • Being able to make the distinction between muslims and islam is a sign of a civilised human being.

          But making that distinction does not exempt muslims from being the carriers/perpertrators/enactors of islam.

          There is no essential difference between “a muslim extremist” and “a muslim moderate”. They are defined in terms of each other, and on a slighting scale. As the “extremist” becomes more numerous and more extreme (beheading an entire village of non-muslims, for example), then what constitutes a “moderate” muslim will shift (the muslim who tells us to convert to islam before we are beheaded).

          At the heart of EDL was a very good and very christian sentiment, that not all muslims should be blamed: many are too scared to stand up against their community.

          The original meaning of “islamophobia” (100 years ago) was used to (rightly) describe the fear of those within islam who are the victims of the doctrine (women, apostates, etc.) Instead, the Left in the west robbed those victims of any concept to describe their feelings. The Left instead created a conceptual space where any feeling other than total support for islam is designated a mental disease or even a crime.

          What the Left have done is equivalent to helping the Nazis turn the term “anti-semitic” into meaning “a mental disease of those who irrationally fear Nazism.”

      • You’re right, I don’t particularly trust a Pamella Geller or Robert Spencer fully. I support anyone who is for stopping immigration, closing the borders, and is against multi-culturalism overall, only only extreme Islam.

        Even if you only care about extreme Islam and not other threats the West faces, stopping immigration is the best way to deal with that.

        You probably think I’m a fan of David Duke or something, not really, I think he’s an idiot. I think the National Front in France is good, honest, and won’t sell out, and I’d prefer a party like the BNP to win over a party like UKIP in Britain, I also like speakers like Douglas Murray or Mark Steyn who are less blunt but still oppose immigration and any multiculturalism, if that answers your question.

  8. @joe,

    “Being able to make the distinction between muslims and islam is a sign of a civilised human being.”

    There in lies the seeds of the defeat of the West.

    • You’ve made an important point here, one that I contemplate often. In education, at least in higher education (though in my Catholic grade school we were taught the cncept) it used to be important to teach students to use critical analysis to make decisions. IOW, to teach through comparing competing ideologies, how to discern the beliefs comprising those systems.

      I don’t think that is done anymore. Students learn the “one right way” – and if you look at the dumbed-down texts they are given, you realize why many of them loathe school. “Making distinctions” causes intolerance because -gasp! – what if you chose the ‘wrong’ side?

      There are many sheep,though, who quietly go along with the rest of the flock whilst watching for the exits and side roads. My hope lies in those few.

    • Islam is ONLY a problem because of its believers and followers. Without active adherents, Islam would be a failed political movement consigned to history books – which proves the importance of Islamic apostasy laws whereby believers and followers enforce outward adherence to Islam – upon pain of torture and murder.

      Islam is an idea, but believers and followers are the active enforcers of that idea. As free will beings, all Muslims have the opportunity to rebel against evil with their personal actions that fall under their individual moral spheres.

      For example:

      If Muslims omit to rape, torture, tax, and murder apostates and infidels, Islam collapses (i.e., No one forces Muslims to rape and torture others.)

      If Muslims omit to ‘marry’ young girls, Islam collapses. (i.e., No one forces Muslims to consummate with young girls – even in a ‘married’ state.)

      If Muslims omit to marry multiple wives, Islam collapses. (i.e., No one forces Muslims to marry multiple wives.)

      If Muslims omit to abuse their wives, children, and slaves, Islam collapses. (i.e., No one forces Muslims to abuse their dependents.)

      If Muslims omit to torture animals, Islam collapses. (i.e., No one forces Muslims to torture animals.)


      Without Muslim free will actions in support of Islam, Islam instantly collapses and disappears.

      It is the free will actions (i.e., sins) of people who self-identify as Muslims that enable the continuation of Islam.

Comments are closed.