Tim Burton on the Tommy Robinson Appeal

The British anti-sharia activist Tim Burton has appeared in this space a number of times in the past. He has been tried twice for “hate speech”, and was convicted the second time — for sending emails that offended Fiyaz “Fizzy Bollocks” Mughal, of Tell MAMA fame. He served six weeks in one of Her Majesty’s prisons. You’ll have to ask him how he survived his stretch in a prison with so many Muslims in it — I don’t know how he did it.

So Tim has been there, done that. He’s talked the talk AND walked the walk.

In the following interview with Vlad Tepes, Tim Burton discusses yesterday’s appeal by Tommy Robinson’s defense team against Tommy’s continued detention (Tim was present in the courtroom), and the larger social and political context of what is happening now in Britain:

20 thoughts on “Tim Burton on the Tommy Robinson Appeal

  1. I would be very surprised if the [executive] ‘government’ had any say in the composition of the bench to hear an appeal. It may be that the prosecution had asked for, and received, a full bench hearing rather than a single judge, or that, if leave to appeal were required, leave was granted and the hearing went straight to the full appeal bench rather than a single gatekeeper judge, but generally it’s the judges who decide who sits on what, partly from availability (which is largely an administrative matter). The Chief Justice may have been aware that there was an issue of national importance when deciding to head the bench for the appeal, but, however it goes, it wasn’t a ‘government’ decision.

    I hope Tommy’s home soon, and safe. I would caution, however, against viewing this simply as a freedom-of-speech matter. Courts make suppression orders for all manner of reasons, and it would appear that the reason in this case was because there were three consecutive trials of multiple defendants concerning the same events, and that the Court had made a gag order in order to preserve the integrity of the trials and, in the end (what would matter to us all) the safety of the convictions. Not every suppression of talking about a Certain Subject is simply for the purpose of hiding that Certain Subject.

    We had a journalist in Australia some years ago who was on a one-man crusade against child abuse (as if any decent person could possibly not be against child abuse), and who named a defendant on the radio in breach of a suppression order. That order had not been made for the defendant’s comfort or convenience, and the journalist felt the full weight of the law, protesting his righteousness all the way.

    We must be careful that the righteousness of our cause does not blind our discernment of the righteousness, or otherwise, of the methods we use to further that cause. We should render unto Caesar until after taking counsel, both our own and that of qualified people, we determine that Caesar is in breach of his own laws.

    It would appear (from what I’ve read elsewhere) that the appeal was put not on the basis of the illegitimacy of the gag order, but on the basis of Tommy’s understanding of whether it applied to him, and of the grotesquely peremptory manner in which he was dealt with, and whether proper criminal procedure (due process) was followed. There are plenty of other cases where citizens’ rights to express an opinion or to tell the truth about a Certain Subject are unjustly curtailed. We have yet to determine whether this is one of them. Tommy remains in my prayers.

    • Gagging orders on the reporting of certain trials and frequent use of “name suppression” is a peculiarity of the British Justice system, and also practiced in Commonwealth countries like Australia and New Zealand. It is frequently challenged by journalists, which is really what Tommy was doing. Though I haven’t noticed Journalists without Borders rallying to his defense.

  2. If the Government carry on like this I expect Eurogend will be sent in quell rebellion. Do not relax our guard for one second. The refusal to honour the “Brexit” vote shows we are in dangerous times-civil conflict. British Army and other HM Forces reduced to but 20% of what they were in my day. Our Oath was to HM The Queen not Islam or the EU bureaucracy. I recall twice when the Army threatened a takeover by their arrival at Heathrow. Blair had such an episode but the Army is too small now- disarmed and low morale after Blair’s illegal wars. Wilson was almost a victim of Lord Mountbatten’s coup as they thought he was a Russian plant. Boy, do times change.

    If Corbyn gets into power although the brass-hats stated that they would not tolerate his becoming PM. The Army are in no position to act as the Crown Guarantor as is part of their role.

    Watch as Javid replaces Theresa May. Dark ties indeed.
    This will not end well. Get ready.

    • Dark times, indeed.

      Incompetent politicians and lack of faith, discipline, morals, sense of direction and lack of common sense. They don’t know what to do, what action to take. They are afraid if they take a drastic action, even in the interest of their own citizens, say zero invited muslim invaders, they are afraid someone, or opposition, will object to that and they will be halted in their tracks. No one will blame the opposition Party, because “that’s the way democracy works.”

      How did this deadly immigration start? Why it cannot be stopped?

      Cut your nose to spite your face. . .

      It started with embracing “intelligentsia” from the communist countries, in order to shake confidence in Socialism. Ironically now all so-called democracies are Socialists.

      Then the west invited every muslim criminal in his own country. For the west they were not criminals and bums, but oppressed activists who needed freedom to realize their hidden potentials, and only in the west those potentials would be stimulated and recognized by genius western elite traitors.

      Now those invited criminals are practicing what we encouraged them to practice: promoting their religion, their political ambitions and establishing their Caliphate. They feel that establishing Caliphate in the west is much easier than in any of the 57 muslim countries, because the west is oblivious to the looming danger, nonchalant, indifferent to oppression because there are no values to defend. They have no faith in anything.

      In contrast muslims have a vision (caliphate, ruling over dhimmis, looting infidels’ riches and women, because allah has decreed that) of how should things be in the future: masters of the world by allah’s will.

      To achieve that muslims have determination, faith, values, everything that is lacking in dhimmi traitors.

      Was Europe insane like this: How did they wrench Europe from Hitler’s claws and only 5 decades later they surrender it to jihadi claws without scruples or hesitation after 60 million corpses. Free Europe from Kara Mustapha in 1683 and surrender it to other Kara Mustaphas in 1983.
      How come ordinary people can discern the approaching plague but Traitors, supposedly educated, with certificates, are blind and leading us to perdition.

  3. Meanwhile, the BBC disgraces itself with more fake news. In this clip called “Meet the Tommy Robinson supporters”, you may watch the BBC correspondent Gabriel Gatehouse brazenly claim before the camera that it is a lie that in Muslim countries, sex with children is allowed.

    The conversation containing this statement begins at 9:07.


    “It definitely isn’t true. I’ve been to many Muslim countries, I’ve been all over the Middle East and North Africa. It definitely is not true.”

    The woman he lies to does not have the sources at hand to prove him wrong, so she comes across as a poor naive victim of the Free Tommy-rally organizers. However, it takes 5 seconds of Googling to test who has spoken the truth: the organizers or the BBC. I hope she went home and did just that. If so, Mr. Gatehouse has certainly taught her a lesson – about his employer, the BBC’s, ethics – that she is not likely to forget.

    It is mind-boggling that Mr. Gatehouse thinks he can get away with this at this point. That he does, and that the lie was not edited out of the programme, suggests an old habit of being able to get away with even worse. Something that should deeply concern every member of the public irrespective of political belief.

  4. In addition to my above post, here is the truth that BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse denied.

    I do not know the woman in the interview, so I cannot send her these links, but if anyone does, then please forward them to her.


    Even the Guardian would not deny what Mr. Gatehouse did:



    Here are two samples of the nightmarish scenarios accompanying child marriages:

    Fistula is one of its common consequences:

    “A survey of nine African countries by the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) in 2003 found that most fistula patients were poor, uneducated teenagers who developed a fistula while giving birth to their first child. Some were as young as 12. When a mother’s hips are too small for the baby’s head to pass through, it presses down on her pelvic bone, cutting off blood supply and causing the tissue to die. The resulting hole causes urinal or fecal incontinence. The baby usually dies.”

    Girls with a fistula are usually cast out of their communities, since the constant flow of urine or feces makes them smell unbearably.


    Meanwhile, in Nigeria: if a child refuses sex with the “husband”, she is taken by her parents to the local barber, who “doesn’t understand anatomy. He thinks there’s something obstructing the girl down there, and that’s why she fears her husband. So anything he sees, he will just use his knife to cut it”.


  5. From my own experience with judges, some (not all) are first-rate hypocrites, so I wouldn’t “read the body language” to mean very much. I’ve had a presiding judge on an appeal practically make my case for me – going beyond what I was saying, even… seem very sympathetic to the case, and then come out like a different person on the written opinion.

    My suspicion is that they’re not really all that independent around here. A minority seem to not care what lack of career advancement they’ll suffer for doing the right thing, but that doesn’t seem to be the dominant ethos – not at all surprising, considering how most are appointed. I see no reason to think that it’s any different in the UK.

    I’ve actually come to the conclusion that the U.S. jurisdictions that have judicial elections may well be on to something. I’d try to recycle a lot of that, because I think that it has value. I think that there’s something to be said for appointed ones, too. So here’s what I’d do: in order to be on the list of those eligible to be appointed to a judicial post, one would first have to go through an electoral process. Then the executive authority would choose from among those pre-approved by the electoral process.

    Then I’d limit the length of time that they’re in position to maybe 10-15 years, bar them from barrister work for 2-3 years and have them not be re-electable for another 2-3 years or so after that. I’d also generously pension them off so that even if they don’t get other work after that, they’re not starving.

    I think that this would go a long way towards ensuring TRUE judicial independence. Right now, around here, they’re largely retired politicians that get appointed by their buddies. Seriously, no joke.

  6. Fascinating to hear Vlad speak- I didn’t know he was a Canuck. Fingers crossed for Tommy.

  7. I read in the MSM that there is UK ‘law’ on not reporting on criminal trials, that there was a ‘gag’ or ‘supression’ order on this multi-part trial and/or on Tommy Robinson in particular. I have have never been able to find any of these in writing or any links. I suspect they do not exist and have given up looking. Please prove me wrong that the ‘law’ is not in writing and that they make it up as they go along.

    I HAVE seen the trasncript of the original Tommy hearing (with sespended sentence) but not the second quick hearing. Does anyone have a link to that one? Thanks in advance.

    • I wonder if it exists. They took all of five minutes to put him before the judge and then remand him to jail…the blowback from many sides has resulted in a new, closer-to-real hearing, but that just demonstrates how capricious British judicial review really is.

  8. Whilst I agree TR has been treated unjustly I wish he had reported on the case after the verdict had been given. Surely this would have had more impact to live stream and tell his followers and others what sentences these pimp, rapist enrichers had been given.
    I also think TR knew he was going to be arrested and jailed which would in turn stir up the public to protest against the establishment which indeed it did.
    I think what we are all forgetting is that the real victims of these muslim scum are the girls who were raped.
    The only way the establishment feel the pinch is financially so protesting for each and everyone of them to receive a victim of crime compensation payout of say 25-35k each will hit them hard and maybe cause a ripple to stop this happening.
    I’m hearing that the next person people will marching/protesting for release is Melanie Shaw, a brave woman.

    • I think what we are all forgetting is that the real victims of these muslim scum are the girls who were raped.

      No, we haven’t forgotten those thousands of girls or their families. But had it not been for the relentless push by Tommy and other chavs, the existence of those girls would have been shoved under the rug along with the REAL name of the culprits: (majority) Pakistani immigrants let in by the elites. The latter knew better but they wanted a permanent voter class and they didn’t care who had to pay for for it, or what price was paid.

      The UK needs a new Jonathan Swift with a satiric pen…oh, but that would be racist, wouldn’t it??

      • The Irish have long been good at puncturing the pretensions of we English: Swift, Sheridan, Wilde, Shaw. Maybe if we re-colonised them…(!)

        • You mean round them up and kill them again? Or take their farms and make serfs of them? Starving serfs who were forced to send their best crops and cattle to England? Wash, rinse, repeat…but you don’t have penal colonies anymore to send the worst of the rebels.

          England is ripe for invasion now and karma is a wicked wheel.

          • Dear Dymphna, I was being ironic, and am aware of your Irish roots; hadn’t expected you to rise to the bait. Though maybe the writers I mentioned (except Swift, who was Anglo-Irish) had an incentive to take verbal pot-shots at us?

          • “Verbal” potshots? If only the English, Scots, (and hired Hessian troops) had limited themselves to that. Instead, it was rape, robbery, house-burnings, torture, etc. Sub-human Castlereagh and his fellow-blackguards.

            Dust off your Chesterton. He describes the villains without being too graphic. Ireland was deliberately starved, mutilated, and beaten down. And then England moved on to do the same to India.

            In one of those karmic consequences, Irish Tommy Robinson is showing England how to protect its vulnerable girls…while the average Englishman lifts his skirts and runs away, afraid some spatter of “racism” may stain him.

        • Unfortunately the same thugs who are running England today were running it then. The common Englishman had no beef with the Irish – it was the so-called “aristocracy”, the vestigial remains of rotted medieval society in England. It wasn’t the English, per se, who oppressed the Irish, but the thug class that is persecuting their own now. I wouldn’t want to turn them loose on anyone else. Better to do away with their system altogether. I honestly can’t think why the people there support a monarchy. What has that institution done for them but spend their money lavishly? Hard to figure that one. The news coming out of England today vindicates the American Revolution!

    • I don’t think that Tommy Robinson expected to be arrested. He could have defied everyone and stood on courthouse property or he could have let loose and let caution go to the wind and called the defendants “perpetrators” instead of “the accused”. Robinson was about to embark on a new project to expand audience and partner with some other intrepid journalist personalities and undoubtedly this prompted action at this time to throw him in jail for over a year while that project languished and cooled to death. Tommy Robinson, although edgy and courageous, would not have desired to cast himself into a year of solitary confinement (any more than you would), especially knowing that the alternative might well be a gruesome death or horrible disfigurement from sugar scalding, as nearly happened last time. So, no, I really think he did not intend to get jailed.

      • Sally, you have only to look at the expression on his face just before they put him in the wagon. It was muffled terror. In Enemy of the State he describes the effect solitary confinement had on him, and he knew he was headed back there unless his lawyer could intervene. I don’t think even he guessed that the police would deliberately lie to his lawyer about his being returned to prison. In the U.S., that would be in litigation right now. But in the U.S., a man of Tommy’s public standing couldn’t have been stitched up like that.

    • No, without Tommy Robinson they WERE being forgotten, but thanks to his manful refusal to be intimidated into silence these young girls and women have a voice that is being heard around the world. So NO! These people are remembered today and everywhere. Thank you Tommy Robinson.

Comments are closed.