45 thoughts on “UPDATE: Tommy Imprisoned Already

  1. The drumhead justice of Tommy Robinson in the UK is pretty strong stuff. I think even the most optimistic person open to facts will concede the UK is a totalitarian state now, totally without individual rights and liberties. The Magna Carta is totally dead. I doubt that it is taught much in British schools.

    Having said that, I think the ox that was really gored was the UK police and judiciary establishment. These are the usual bureaucracies in a socialist system: tax funded, appointed rather than elected, and totally without accountability. Every study of the grooming gangs shows not only police ignoring the criminal behavior; it shows police compliance and assistance. The police not only worked to suppress complaints by parents and victims; the police actually knew the gang members, were friends with them, and quite possibly partook of the fruits of the grooming activity.

    So the justice system of the UK undertook a self-protective action, carrying out an extra-legal abduction and detention of a citizen through administrative actions totally outside of any legal process. This is literally material out of Darkness at Noon,
    Koestler’s classic novel of the interrogation, brainwashing, and conviction of an old Bolshevik who essentially agreed with his persecutors, but who had outlived his usefulness. He had too many of the old notions of truth and logic to be of further use to the Revolution.

    One very poignant incident in the novel occurred when the prisoner actually convinced his interrogator through logic and facts that some of the charges were false. The interrogator recommended those charges be dropped. The result: the interrogator himself was liquidated through “administrative action” and replaced by a fresh, eager, young prosecutor totally devoid of any interest in facts.

    In the end, very little justice was done concerning the avalanche of murder and persecution in Soviet Russia. The communist officials, at worst, retreated into retirement, the most flagrant of them likely living above the average standard due to their profits from corruption. The worst of the bureaucrats actually became free-enterprise participants, profiting greatly from the grossly corrupt sale of state companies in fixed auctions. One of the worst offenders of that corruption was Marc Rich, an American citizen heavily involved in Russian organized crime and corrupt profiteering. Rich, a heavy contributor to Clinton causes and fronts, was pardoned by President Bill Clinton without explanation or apology in the last day of Clinton’s presidency.

    • To be historical correct Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for “the Great Charter of the Liberties”), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; “Great Charter”), is a charter agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons.

      It was never intended to be some form of legislation for the general populace or as a constitution as is often thought. It was merely an agreement between the king and his barons nothing else.

      • copywriter: thank you for the info you cc’d for us from Wikipedia.

        However, Wikipedia also tells us that “Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.

        • Isa is right. The Magna Carta marked a change in the concept of the sovereign, whose power could no longer be viewed as absolute. The powers of the king became limited under the law, and subject to the consent of a subset of those he governed.

          That subset grew gradually to include the entire adult population. But even when it was just the barons’ claiming their rights, it constituted a revolution in political thought.

          • I beg to differ.
            The barons were not claiming their rights.
            They were rebelling. Had the king access to sufficient funds he would have squashed the rebellion as was his god given right at the time.

            On the other hand had the king access to sufficient funds he would not have had to plunder the coffers of his barons and the Magna Carta would never have been written.

            You are suggesting the Magna Carta is the start of the Rule of Law.
            This is not so. Thousands of years ago there already existed a comprehensive body of law governing the lives of everyone. Including your ‘subsets’. Many of these rules and regulations entered the Common Law and suprisingly still exist today in our modern codified law books because they withstood the test of time.
            Magna Carta did not add anything new to the already existing Common Law.
            It was a mere legal hiccup.

          • copywriter> Had the king access to sufficient funds he would have squashed the rebellion


            > as was his god given right at the time


          • For copywriter1:

            If you are still reading this, I wanted to correct your statements about the Magna Carta and what the Baron said.

            First of all, the Baron did not say this is the first codification of law. He said it was the first such embodiment of law that it specifically limited the power of the state (government). It was the first statement of law that viewed the law as a contract between the subject and the rulers, subject to contract law rather than divine law.

            Let me address the charge that the Magna Carta applied only to the barons and was not meant to affect the common people. This is a quote from the Magna Carta itself:

            “We furthermore grant and give to all the freemen of our realm for ourselves and our heirs in
            perpetuity the liberties written below to have and to hold to them and their heirs from us and our
            heirs in perpetuity.’


            I’m honestly confused why people say things about easily-obtainable documents without checking it out.

            Reading the Magna Carta itself was an experience. It was the first codification of law that viewed the king and the subjects as party to a contract with obligations, limitations and duties to either side. It had a strong sniff of the Bill of Rights, where the rights of individuals are clearly and uncompromisingly laid out.

            In my view, the Magna Carta is one of the two most important legal documents of all time. The other is the US Constitution, as originally written.

            The Magna Carta made the government a contract between king and subjects. The Constitution made the government a contract between the federal government and the state governments. The Bill of Rights extended the Constitution to be a contract between the federal government and the citizen.

            Of course, there was the problem of the contract between the state governments and their citizens. It was not addressed in the Constitution, and that may have been the better approach. You move to the state which has the form of contract you approve. You cannot get an anti-abortion law passed in one state, you move to another if you feel strongly about it.

            I’m afraid the concept of government as a contract is disappearing, in favor of the concept of the government as a parent. I don’t think the two are compatible. As we move to a form of government responsible for all needs and wants, we move inevitably towards where Britain is, a no-longer-soft totalitarian police state.

          • RonaldB May 27, 2018 at 12:54 pm

            The problem here is the use of the word ‘Freemen’ [or Burgesses] as it was understood at the time.
            The upper class of society; nobility, semi-nobility, landed gentry, people in governmental/church control.
            The commoners [majority of the people] were never included. How could they? The were considered the lowest of the lowest. They were serfs.
            Remember we are talking feudal times here.

            The Magna Carta was never intended to be the all encompassing principle we believe it is today.
            It was just the upper crust looking out for number one.

            Even after the Second Barons’ War (1264–1267) the matter was far from settled. In the following years more and more provisions were scraped from the document until only a few remained.

          • To copywriter:

            Free men formed a small proportion of the population of 13th-century England, but the most famous clause of Magna Carta, stating ‘No free man shall be seized or imprisoned …’ directly applied to them. Although Magna Carta focused on the interests of the barons, a significant proportion of its clauses dealt with all free men, which included the barons, knights and the free peasantry.

            The distinction between the free and the unfree peasantry (‘the villeins’) varied across the country. Generally, in contrast to an unfree villein, a free man could leave his manor, could buy or sell land, and owned his goods and possessions. He was not required to make customary payments to his lord, nor help to cultivate his lord’s land. Free men still had to attend their lord’s court, but they also had access to the royal courts, which offered greater protection for their rights and property.


            Of course the provisions didn’t apply to serfs, but they applied to non-serf peasants, merchants, townsmen, craftsmen, etc.

            I don’t care if the barons were looking out for themselves. Progress is not smooth and motives are not always pure. But progress is progress, and advances in government can be a messy affair. That doesn’t detract from the importance of the Magna Carta.

          • RonaldB on May 28, 2018 at 8:32 am
            Looking at the Magna Carta it can be boiled down to a single overriding legal principle;
            “no taxation without representation”
            That’s what the conflict was really about.

            But this was not new or revolutionary. Centuries before throughout Europe it already existed.
            In East-Slavic communities with their Veches or pre Roman Germanic tribes this principle was already common. It can also be found in ancient Roman Law.

            I don’t know why this come so late in England. Perhaps being a rather isolated island community was a factor.

            At any rate Ronald, having not an Anglo-Saxon centered world view it is my opinion the Magna Carta did not bring anything new into the world.

          • For copywriter:

            You said:
            “Looking at the Magna Carta it can be boiled down to a single overriding legal principle;
            “no taxation without representation”
            That’s what the conflict was really about.”

            I looked over the entire Magna Carta again, at the link I gave you above, and it has not one word on representative government or the necessity of going through a legislative process to enact taxes.

            The Magna Carta is actually closer to some of the Bill of Rights provisions in the US Constitution, protecting the citizen from arbitrary seizure of property, arbitrary use of his property by the government, arbitrary arrest and conviction and excessive punishments.

            Again, the great leap of the Magna Carta lie in its redefinition of the relationship between the government and the governed. Instead of simply obedience to a ruler, it specified a contract between a ruler and the ruled, with obligations on both sides.

            I can’t say if such governing contracts existed previously. As I say, the Magna Carta is emphatically not a specification for representative government, and so the claim that there were representative governments prior to the Magna Carta does not invalidate the claim that it is groundbreaking.

            You have a right to your view that it provides nothing that wasn’t in existence before, but to convince others, you have to show that prior to the Magna Carta, there was a government that was limited in what it could do by its charter and where the relationship between the governed and government was treated as a contract.

          • Magna Carta 1215 version

            [12] No ‘scutage’ or ‘aid’ may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent…

            [14] To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an ‘aid’ – except in the three cases specified above – or a ‘scutage’, we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.

            [61] The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.

            If these are not calls for representative government I don’t know what is.
            That the issue was about taxation was clear from the onset and requires no elaboration.

            I will end this discussion. We don’t see eye to eye on the matter but I enjoyed our this little sparring and foray into the mists of the past.

      • Concerning the U.S. Constitution,
        “The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves…”

        -No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner

  2. Those barbarians were able to walk into the courthouse unaccompanied by police!?!!?

  3. They will imprison him with Muslims so that he gets killed. This is most obvious. That’s what they blatantly have done in the past.

  4. I feel vindicated in my decision to cancel plans to revisit, with family, the land of my father and grandfathers. When travelling the last thing one wants is to be continually looking over one’s shoulders to check who may be listening to what is being said.
    Looking from outside the country I often wonder how much longer it will be before the average Tommy rises up against the Crown once again.

  5. Injustice served as swiftly as one would whish justice was served to those Tommy Robinson has been warning the Brits about for years .
    “Foul is fair and fair is foul” Macbeth , Shakespeare , a long time ago…..

  6. Tommy should apply for asylum in Hungary. At least his family would be safe, even as he would continue to fight for his country.

  7. WTF? When will the snotty upper-class conservatives in the UK finally get over their supercilious attitude towards the working-class Tommy Robinson and lend him their unstinting support?

    • It is a good thing that Tommy Robinson speaks with a working class accent – Douglas Murray appeals to one cohort, Tommy another. The broader the church the better.

  8. There are a number of court cases taking place in Britain which are subject to reporting restrictions. A good percentage of these – and we really don’t know how many which I think is rather the idea – relate to Muslim gang-rape trials. Tommy was under a 13 month suspended sentence for previously reporting on a gang-rape trial subject to reporting restrictions. In other words, if he broke the law again he would then serve the jail time as per the initial sentence.

    I’m not sure if the trial he was reporting on when he was arrested was yet another “reporting restriction” case, but if it was (which I think it was) the police have a duty to issue a warning before taking action if the warning was ignored. Again, I am unsure as to what happened here.

    But the police made no mention of reporting restrictions or contempt of court; they arrested him for “breaching the peace” which would seem to be a total fabrication and therefore unlawful. His immediate hearing and sentencing suggests this was a planned action by the police (and our lovely government) in order to shut him down.

    To reinforce further the actions of a totalitarian state, a reporting restriction has now been put into operation with regard to his arrest. Tommy has been “disappeared” in much the same manner as countless others were airbrushed out of existence in genuine totalitarian regimes abroad, but I think this is the first time in England that a citizen has been “disappeared” in such a blatant way.

    Even more horrifying is the supine manner in which this grotesque act of totalitarianism has been received by our media and purported civil liberties merchants, none of whom have raised a murmer of disapproval at the time of writing this comment.

    Couple this with the video of the woman arrested a few days ago by the police who threatened to break her down if she refused to open it – “DO NOT RESIST US! DO NOT RESIST US!” and I think it is very clear that the government, given the choice of crushing Islam or crushing those who question Islam, have chosen to crush the latter.

    So the decent, democratic Britain I was born into has now gone. I warned some years ago of the direction the British police was taking – http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/multiculturalism-has-destroyed-british.html – and it is time to realise Britain is now a genuine Police State.

    As the Islamic threat grows via demographics and violence, so the grip of the Police State will increase over the dissidents. Britain has three progressive routes now open to it: First, submit to the State. Second, submit to Islam after the State submits to Islam. Third, engage in revolution within the next decade in order to head off the two former routes.

    I don’t think we will though. I think Britain is finished as a country, culture and people. Our only hope of achieving revolutionary thought is via total economic collapse. When we are hungry and cold we might, just might, become angry enough to revolt. At the moment though, we can fly abroad to the sun kissed beaches of Ibiza and get completely trolleyed even as our country and all that is stands for is incrementally stolen from us by 7th century savages in alliance with our home grown Traitor Class.

    Tommy was a threat to the Traitor Class, so they have removed him. He won’t be the last.

    • Thanks Paul for clarifying some of this for us. If it’s still unclear to you exactly what happened, you can imagine how confused the whole episode seems to us in North America. I read somewhere that Tommy’s pre-existing suspended sentence was for three months, which made it more outrageous that his immediate punishment issued yesterday was a sentence of 13 months. However, the facts seem still to be floating around, somewhere, so perhaps the situation will clarify. Nonetheless, this act of “justice” was exceedingly swift—it’s staggering to think of the powers behind the scene which orchestrated this outcome. How smug they must be feeling now.

      It is more than chilling that a British citizen can be so swiftly and completely “disappeared.”

      I see that your comment has now been posted here as a separate item. That’s good for it will serve to focus more attention on this despicable turn of events in the U.K.

      • He was given 18 months, suspended if he stayed out of trouble for 3 months…I *think* that’s right. He thought he was obeying the letter of the law: he didn’t try to film anyone (that was his sin back then), he was simply trying to live stream until the verdict/sentence came down for these scum. There wasn’t even a jury for the groomers – strictly a judge.

        But he’s been pulled through a rabbit hole and the reality is whatever they say it is.

  9. My daughter and mt 2 grandchildren live in London. I refuse to visit her there at all. I never thought I would say this, but Great Britain is a disgusting place. Trump needs to name Western Europeans as political refugees and they should be allowed here in droves starting with Tommy Robinson, Geert Wilders and the other patriots seen on these pages for the last decade should they wish to emigrate. The totally Fascist Democrats will howl. To hell with ’em.

  10. Do you have a link by which we can contribute to his family and for lawyers?.

  11. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/twenty-nine-people-court-child-12886282
    12th April 2017
    This was the court case that states the names and addresses of the 29 and some photos of the defendants.
    Some of the charges are child abduction, trafficking, rape, aggravated assault, supply of a controlled substance with intent to engage in sexual activity, supplying drugs, making indecent images of a child, possession of extreme pornography, etc., etc., relating to woman now, but were children then, the youngest being 11 year old.
    The offences dating back between 2004 and 2011.
    11th May 2017
    A picture gallery of the defendants is shown of 14 of them
    “three separate trials starting in January 2018
    The next hearings in each of the cases are: October 27, 2017; March 2, 2018 and June 1, 2018

    The first trial, expected to last 10 weeks, has a provisional start date of January 8, 2018. The second trial, expected to last six weeks, is planned to start on April 16, 2018. The third trial, which is expected to last four weeks, has the provisional start date of September 3, 2018.”

    It seems that the first trial has been totally suppressed, as one can not find verdicts, or sentencing. Just what did happen to those defendants. Would a journalist inquire at the address and ask about their good health? 🙂
    The 2nd trial also seems to be suppressed.

    Then it seems normal that Tommy Robinson’s arrest, charges?, defence?, sentencing also seems to be suppressed.

    Will there ever be a post mortem? Not a joke, as the judicary system has previous, and the reports have again been kept quiet.

    Was there ever a trial for the above?
    I do not know why I can not find the first trial, but then I am just a simple being, supposedly to accept the rulings of the “superior pay grades”.

    As for all the people, big and small, thank you in finding and declaring the truth about islam in the counter-jihad.
    Long live “Tommy” and the many;- just appreciate all of them more, as Rudyard Kipling’s poem points out, in the previous post.

  12. This could be a clear example of Anarco-fascism/(terrorism).
    First of all, the state creates unbearable conditions that citizens oppose, whereupon the state pursues those righteous citizens in the most nasty way.

    Anarcho-Fascism: Nature Reborn
    by Jonas Nilsson Paperback – $13.00

    Deals with a multitude of important current issues, and presents a controversial and constructive starting point for an intellectual discussion on how the West can regain control of its own destiny. The book can rightly be described as a polemical pamphlet, built on solid arguments and full of references to other works, for those who wish to deepen their knowledge of the subjects discussed. The author does not shy away from issues that are considered taboo in contemporary society, as these subjects are crucial to future developments.
    The title “Anarcho-Fascism” might seem contradictory at first glance, bearing in mind the classical view on anarchism and fascism. Is there really anything that unites these ideologies, and can offer a solution to the problems facing the West? Based on the author’s bachelor’s thesis in political science, the book goes beyond the strict limits of ideologies and gives alternative answers to many questions. It invites the reader to partake in a discussion of the false perceptions that are influential today, and what the consequences of this will be. It also offers possible solutions to avoid this likely future scenario.

    • Meanwhile hate preachers breeze in and out of the country
      Seemingly at will.

      Today I regretfully have to state that I feel ashamed of being
      British, of these Stazi tactics enforced by a politicised
      Police force who seem incapable of tackling actual crime!

      God protect Tommy whilst he is in prison , hopefully his
      Legal team will secure his earliest release possible and
      My thoughts are with his wife and family.

  13. So thirteen months for naming the accused in the UK, even though the names were and are publicly available internationally, and by extension the UK.

    I think UK justice has just sentenced the rest of the world, and those in the UK who communicate with it, to thirteen months in jail.

    Tommy is jailed to spite freedom of information, our freedom of information.

  14. Im surprised the police and judges arent targeted by people with honour and assassinated, as an example to others who choose to destroy the rights of individuals and contribute to the Marxist police state , the consequences being loss of freedom ,culture , land , rights and confidence in the system .

  15. Most of the time I visit this site and see the day’s articles, I leave with a sense of disgust, regret, and dread for what is happening in most European countries. Today, however, with what has happened to Tommy Robinson and with Memorial Day upon us, I think it is reprehensible, diabolical even, and a disgrace beyond measure that so many American lives were lost only to see the consequence of their sacrifice.

    I think if I were POTUS I would have every single American military person buried there disinterred and returned to our shores, because, as the rate things are going, sooner or later the cemeteries containing their remains will be desecrated.

Comments are closed.