One of our anon commenters left a link to an unusually vile “news” report on Tommy Robinson. Gone is the news from real journalists who limited their reports to who, what, when, where, eschewing purported motives. Now MSM jornolistos comment mostly on the various aspects of “why”. For example, there is the description of Tommy:
Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, though he also uses other aliases, is a founder of the English Defense League, which has organized violent demonstrations against Islamic immigrants in the UK in the past decade. More recently, Robinson has branded himself a journalist and campaigner against Islamic extremism, a move that won him contacts with American anti-Muslim activists.
Robinson was arrested in late May outside a courthouse in Leeds, England, while making video recordings about a trial related to child molestation and jailed for 13 months for violating English law limiting publicity during criminal trials.
The real point of this slam by Reuters — aside from its snarky condescension toward TR — is its questioning of the probity of inquiries formally made to the U.K. ambassador in Washington by America’s Ambassador (at-large) for International Religious Freedom. Those queries center around concern for Tommy’s safety while in prison.*
Furthermore, since when does Reuters, infamous for using non-accredited news stringers worldwide, get to decide who is a reporter and who is not? Tommy’s “credentials” would stand up well against those of Reuters’ boys and girls. Tommy Robinson has often been a lone voice raised against Islam’s depredations in his beloved country; who better to report on the story than one of the leading voices crying out for justice?
Certainly, Reuters and the rest of the MSM cabal had set up a wall of silence to not cover this MSM soi-disant “child molestation” story. The collusive, ringing silence allowed Britain’s national shame of horrors to grow unchecked for decades. Had it not been for the UK’s near-total fear of being publicly perceived as “racist”, the massive drugging and grooming of thousands of young British girls, tacitly allowed by cowardly local government agencies (including police), would not have been possible. The pusillanimous MSM went along to get along. It was only with the rise of alternative journalism — e.g., Tommy Robinson, et al. — that the exposure of these grisly crimes became possible. Yet how many hundreds of families’ lives were ruined over the years because of this concatenation of evil and cowardice?
Why are organizations like Reuters permitted to twist reality to suit their own purposes?
Another alternative news source has stepped into the breach to make certain there is adequate coverage of Tommy’s new hearing.
Ezra Levant reports:
I am glad he is traveling to once-Great Britain for this hearing; we made a small donation toward his flight. But while it is important to shed as much sunlight on these proceedings as possible, I have little hope that the hearing will change much. There is now a panel of three judges for the new hearing — rescheduled yet again, this time moved to July 18th — and presided over by Sir Ian Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. Mr. Levant says this is akin to a small case in the U.S. being brought before the U.S. Chief Justice. But his analogy limps (as do they all). While he’s right about the new gravitas, things are different here. In America, no matter its notoriety, any legal case would have to work its way through the python; there might be intense oversight, but it would have to go through each judicial step. [Remember the Supremes’ refusal to hear the Elian Gonzalez case when Clinton and Janet Reno were pressing to send him back to Cuba? That’s an example.] The UK system appears to be less insulated from quotidian political pressure. If that weren’t the case, why is Britain playing switchies with court dates, judges, and prisons, while stonewalling?
How high-handed can you get?