Tommy’s Family Authorizes Fund-Raising

Rebel Media has been authorized by Tommy’s family (including his mum and wife) to raise funds for his new lawyers.

Here is the brief video, including the website for contributions. There is also a snail mail address for those who prefer not to use online payments.

The last part – what to do with any monies left if he is killed – is sad but clear.

This initiative will probably be on-going until they know he’s out of danger.

By the way, what is being done to Tommy has already been described by the EU Constitution. For a country that supposedly wants to leave the EU, that is creepy.

“Brexit”, my gluteus maximus.

37 thoughts on “Tommy’s Family Authorizes Fund-Raising

  1. Are you still taking donations for Tommy? I’m one of those people not wanting to provide a lot of information to The Rebel. Their donation form even requires my phone number. I have PayPal; it’s really easy. . .

    • Since I already subscribe to The Rebel’s work, I don’t know of another outlet. There was one up under Tommy’s name and under his control, but I don’t know that it’s safe now.

      You will see that they provide a way to send a snail mail donation to the lawyers if you want to do that.

  2. What a noble initiative. I’ve never seen Ezra Levant so serious in his tone and expression. It is heartening to know that Tommy’s predicament has gone global. I’m doing my part, I call on all GoV readers to ponder the fact that Tommy Robinson is a political prisoner. Who could have imagined in, say, 1980, that the UK would even have political prisoners? And forget about Amnesty International – that once laudable institution was thoroughly corrupted by the turn of the century.

  3. Dymhna, good on you for publicising this. I saw it earlier today on YouTube and made a donation.
    Given the huge number of followers Tommy Robinson has, I’d very surprised if he doesn’t receive hundreds of thousands of pounds in a few days.
    Let’s hope and pray that his new legal team can get him released as quickly as possible.
    If I was Tommy, once freed, I’d be considering legal action against the judge who jailed him, the police who arrested him and the Home Secretary who must have played a key role in his persecution.

    • Agreed. Britain is supposed to adhere to rule of law – that’s a joke!

      • It’s an Alice-in-Wonderland kind of place. Having fallen through the rabbit hole, regular Brits keep running into various Mad-Hatter/Red Queen types- i.e., the Powers That Be. And *they* decide what the law is at that particular moment. Just look at the constant surveillance, the idiotic littering laws, etc., and you realize that it’s a sick joke…a lethal one.

    • If he’s very lucky, he’ll get out on appeal, largely because the powers-that-are will realise that more noise will come from not letting him out.

      There’s no way that anyone involved in his persecution will every be found guilty of anything, I’m virtually certain of it. I’ve seen the crap that passes for a legal system around here, and it seems to be worse in England.

      I think that Tommy should seriously consider seeking refugee status elsewhere and operating remotely in the future, for the sake of his family. Perhaps it looks like giving up, but he’s worth more to the cause alive than dead, which is where the British state want to have him. Plus, being recognised as a refugee from Britain would be extremely bad PR for the UK gov’t.

      • Excellent ideas.
        I think calling the British Embassy and conveying these opinions will underscore that the world is watching.

    • Theresa May’s govt is responsible, thing is the Tories were elected by the British people, UK is a parliamentary democracy. So the buck stops with the British public, naturally the Labour opposition under the Jihad supporter Corbyn, is all on board with the persecution of Robinson. Also their MPs are elected by the Brit public. So the blame lies with the majority of British citizens, not solely or even any more so the figures they elect. But let’s keep blaming the personalities and agencies actively supported by the British public, at least most of them. The buck stops with the average British citizen from all backgrounds and class.

      You want to know where the blame lies? It lies with the ordinary British man and woman. This is the mess they have made, and scapegoating onto the agencies and judges and MPs and cabinet and PM etc. is just that, a scapegoating. As odious as all these thugs are, they reflect the thuggishness, dhimmitude, know-nothingness and self-loathing of the British public, of its civil society.

  4. I don’t like paypal. I donated via rebel site. This is going to be interesting – good on ‘yer Tommy.

  5. “… what is being done to Tommy has already been described by the EU Constitution.”

    I could not catch the meaning.


    • Have you read the unratified EU Constitution? It began life as the Lisbon Treaty but Brussels couldn’t get it through as a full-fledged constitution. Thank God.

      Fjordman sent me the original link, but I no longer have it. That was several computers ago…

      A lot of links at the bottom of that wiki are dead.

      What I remember about the Lisbon Treaty was the way the EU planned to limit individual rights. Cross them and you could become a non-person: no job, no pension, no access to medical care or welfare benefits, etc. If you traveled to a country outside their purview and voiced anything “illegal” you could be prosecuted when you came home.

      I was dysphoric for days…

      • Thank you.

        The reason I asked is because the EU is touted by remainers for its human rights law, which is absent in U.K. law as a written document but instead encompassed by various facets of common law, which is argued is not a proper replacement for a clear declaration of fundamental rights. That is the record a lot of msm is playing.

        Though there may be facets of truth in that argument, it is also clearly exagerated, and especially when comparing it to EU at a practical level, where clearly “rights” have become a soft definition used arbitrarily to shape the continent, often diagonally opposed or in contradiction to traditional values, and even pre-existing common rights themselves.

        All of this has taken place with only the few scraps of EU law that have been accepted as an EU standard. There are vague definitions on various fronts that are waiting for the remote ECJ to establish case law on, but the majority of feed through is by EU bureaucratic legislation that interprets any clause at its own discretion and then imposes its own biased opinion.

        In short, in EU, on the ground in any particular country, there is simply no real access to the EU legislative process, nor to EU responsibility of action via ruling by the judicial system. The courts of most countries are overburdened, disatisfaction is high, there is no way the ECJ is going to be able to intervene in a myriad of national cases on the grounds of rights, even if it were disposed to.

        The ” ideal ” is a work in progress though, there are for example fifteen thousand lawyers being trained up in EU law, and I assume that the eventual aim is something close to a federal system of justice , with EU being much more prominent.

        Colour me cynical on that being achieved, and on it actually being coherently pro-individual rights, instead of giving with one hand but taking with the other.

        Well that is why I asked, as juxtaposition to the pro-EU view some have, which would not fit your narrative… if that view were true.

        • Colour me cynical on that being achieved, and on it actually being coherently pro-individual rights…

          Cynical colors vary from puce to magenta. The whole purpose of the EU is to destroy states’ boundaries and to nullify the very idea of the individual. C.S. Lewis warned us about this.

        • Article 19e of the universal declaration of human rights, signed by Britain and enacted in 1948 declares.
          Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

          Obviously back then the police state of Britain didn’t realize the public would, 70 years later, be able to live stream and that’s one thing the government hate because they can’t manipulate us via the MSM.

          • There are various international treaties UK has signed to that rely on goodwill, simply because there is no way to enforce them beyond a verbal reminder.

            The UK has always seen itself as ultimately supremely sovereign of its own affairs – there are advantages and disadvantages to that.

  6. Here is the direct link to the text version:

    I also won’t provide a phone number, nothing against The Rebel but as a matter of principle. Whenever a web form requires it I try to get through with entering a couple zeroes or some random ciphers (but nothing which would work as a valid number to not accidentally give someone else’s). Never had problems anywhere because of this.

    • Clever clogs.

      They’ve had my phone number for years but so far haven’t tried to sell me anything. If they were offering deals on a train trip across Canada, I might weaken.

      • Don’t blame you. I did Vancouver to Edmonton through the Rockies in 2000- stunning!

    • omg. What a treacly hypocrite is Cousin Theresa. I wonder which of Dante’s Circles she’ll see someday?

      Should have known Milo was behind that video. Heh.

      • It seems more like a “Scrounge for Britain” advert, she plays the part well, looking like a long suffering and downtrodden washerwoman, which she probably unknowingly is in spite of her thinking it all a purposeful demonstration of humility as a sociopathic virtue.

        Iftar was celebrated in parliament also.

        I don’t see why is promoting any religion even.

    • I really love how they play with numbers. Only 3 millions of Muslims in UK. They are not so many, if we count the words of Theresa. But, in London, Brits are a minority. London has 8,7 millions. Sadistic Khan is the mayor elected. So, Theresa is talking about Muslims in London. In UK are much more Muslims. You can see it visiting UK. The same goes with Europe. They claim there are only 50 – 60 millions. Yes, it may be right if we talk about Muslims with citizenship of European countries. In reality the numbers are not known. If we take in consideration the number non Europeans receiving social benefits in EU, then we have different picture. They are way over 100 millions. And if we take in consideration also the illegals from last 10 years…well. We get about 120 -125 millions. So yes, it is not critically dangerous the number of Muslims in Europe. Critically dangerous was 10 years ago.

      • Even three million is a powerful number.

        If we consider just one million people acting in a united and coordinated manner towards specific ends, I think we get an idea of the effect of influence possible.

        The British are generally very civil minded, so they both follow government directions as well as not knowing how to handle low profile direct confrontation from a not native group in everyday life. It is almost like society is being challenged because it was “too good” to do the challenging itself (of its leaders), seems like a kind of vengeance on society by government.

  7. 140,000 muslims praying in small Heath park, Birmingham. The biggest Eid celebration in Europe, newspapers advertising where people can attend (the express) it’s like we are already a muslim country. I wonder how many radicals there are in that 140,000.
    An MEP had her mike shut down after voicing concern that TR had been put in a muslim majority jail then she was shouted at by the UK’s EU conservative leader for bringing up TR’s plight.

  8. I wonder how President Trump could be notified about this, perhaps via Nigel Farage? I think a Trump tweet could possibly put an end to this farcical prosecution.

    • Julius: Ezra has turned out to be a great friend of Tommy. His series of vids on Tommy’s predicament have been my first go-to place for information and analysis.

    • Sorry, I appended a reply to the wrong post. Thanks for this link – a very good article which confirms my sense that there was something very wrong with Tommy’s arrest and incarceration. Another point: isn’t it remarkable how respectful of the law the left has become re this case? They crow that Tommy broke the law so ‘end of story’ yet they (rightly) lionise Rosa Parkes and many also defend antifa violence.

    • The only point I disagree with in that is:

      “Of course, there are contexts in which it is morally right to obey laws that are morally wrong. For instance, generally speaking, it is morally right to pay your taxes, because refusing to pay them will land you in jail.”

      If taxation is seen to be used for morally wrong purposes, it is not morally right to pay. Point.

      However there exists a hierarchy of dedications in a person’s life. If the effect of being jailed will cause greater moral damage to that or those a person is dedicated to than paying the tax, for example deprivation of the care needed by another that freedom allows, then that person may justify paying the tax, aknowledging a part defeat of his moral standards and own pride. This is how a society becomes demoralised. This is how authorities get away with picking people’s pockets, often providing a sham of half credible excuses for people to console themselves with.

      Equally someone may pay the tax because they feel they will be more effective working from outside of jail to change how it is mispent. However we are in the realm of self discipline and self appraisal in that case, and as we know, people also very easily place themselves first in importance and simply excuse their own laxity without thinking or trying further, which is also a creeping submission.

      I have also been directly threatened into submission by authorities, by their blatantly menacing my family. It is not fun, it is very destructive for a person, for the own organisation of their lives, remaining as a permanent disruption, even after having returned the whole affair as challenged, coerced, and declaring own decisions taken as not voluntary, that returning taking place once physically moving beyond any direct threat.

      All said, people are free to pay or not pay, just as long as they pay.

      Tommy has taken the route of not paying, in terms of respecting the law taxed on him and taxed on society of not reporting the trial, and he is right in this case in my opinion, and as the author states, but ultimately it is only Tommy who is in a position to judge for himself in the wider sense – the whole burden of his choice, the effect on his family, is being made to weigh on his back by the jailing.

      He should be freed.

Comments are closed.