Tommy Robinson vs. the Daily Mail

A man named James King is apparently a photographer and/or reporter for The Daily Mail. He was recently tasked with finding Tommy Robinson and his family in Greece Tenerife, where they were on holiday. But Tommy sussed him out, confronted him, and uploaded this video of their confrontation.

There are couple of things worth noting about the exchange between Tommy and Mr. King. First of all, when Tommy asks him whether he thinks it would be a good thing if Britain were to become dominated by Islam in the next twenty or thirty years, the reporter dodges the question. All he’ll say is, “I don’t think it’s going to happen.” He won’t say what he would think of it.

But this exchange between Tommy and Mr. King is priceless:

Tommy:   So would it be OK, then, if I followed you on holiday and took pictures of you and your family?
King:   But I’m not a public figure.
Tommy:   You are now, mate — you are now!

Tommy’s right. He has millions of followers, subscribers, and fans. James King’s face will soon be well-known to them, so that when he returns to Blighty, it’s not unimaginable that some of them will recognize him on the street, or in the supermarket, or driving his kids to school. What then, eh?

Maybe he’ll look nervously over his shoulder when he’s out in public, the same way Tommy has had to do for the last nine years.

Listen to their exchange. Tommy is a real bulldog — he hounds the reporter into rhetorical corners from which he can’t escape:

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

ANOTHER Trial for Tommy – This Time at Old Bailey

UPDATED: Here are the links —
Sign the petition

Ezra Levant discusses Tommy’s ill health and the gob-smacking new trial in a new venue, more or less a month from now. So much for his vacation.

Tommy’s status is now definitely “political prisoner”.

I’ll post the crowdfunding and petition links later.

“You Daft Bint!”

Paul Weston has plenty to say about the “Fake News Media & Tommy Derangement Syndrome” exhibited by the middle class, particularly one Janice Turner, wife of The Times’ executive editor. This couple demonstrates the problems inherent in nepotism: want to bet he didn’t fact-check wifey’s snarling rant?

The Times was forced to retract the “girlfriend beater” part of the smear after Tommy threatened to sue the paper. Here’s the item from our newsfeed the other day.

Tommy Robinson: The View From Hungary

A Hungarian reader named László sends this detailed account of the prominent coverage Tommy Robinson has received in the media (both traditional and alternative) in his country.

Tommy Robinson: The View From Hungary

by László

I would like to give you and your readers a glimpse into the way the Hungarian press covers the topic of jihad and islamization in the West. Although I expect CrossWare keeps you pretty much updated about us, it may still be of interest to you, since I know that the Hungarian language is a secret code for everyone else in the world.

Jihad and islamization news from the West in general hit the biggest Hungarian online mainstream news sites (sometimes even the leftist ones, although it is distorted) and the state TV. Now, I can see that plenty of ordinary people (I could say an ‘army’ of Counterjihad commenters) influence the content and analysis of this mainstream news coverage from the background, mainly by commenting below the articles.

What Tommy (and other Western Counterjihad warriors) have probably never even dreamt of is how much their heroism and work help to save Hungary and Eastern Europe from islam! His captioned and subtitled videos sometimes have almost the same number of views as the original English ones. Just look at the number of views on this playlist for the counterjihad site Dzsihádfigyelő.

Some of Tommy’s videos even get into the mainstream, such as this one: “Revolution May Come in Germany this Summer

These mainstream sites — not giant ones, but bigger than blogs — wrote about this video and embedded it:

Let me show you another example:

The Hungarian online mainstream media in general have extensively covered Tommy’s imprisonment and release, even the progressive ones.

Even the latest Fox News interview has already got detailed coverage in a smaller right-wing — still mainstream — outlet: “Tommy Robinson: The Prison Mosque Was in Front of My Cell Window” (This site may have some 15,000-30,000 readers, but their headlines are frequently echoed within the conservative media.)

And the largest Hungarian news site, Origo, on Tommy’s release: “Tommy Robinson’s Kangaroo Court Verdict Overturned

Continue reading

The Torture of Tommy Robinson

In the following video Paul Weston presents a series of important questions to Home Secretary Sajid Javid about the treatment of Tommy Robinson while he was in prison. His questions concern the roles played by the police, the judicial system, the government, and the media in what Tommy endured — which was, for all practical purposes, physical and psychological torture:

Ezra Levant of Rebel Media interviewed Tommy at home shortly after he got out of prison. In this video you’ll hear more details about how he was treated while he was inside:

An Account of the Appeal Judgement in Tommy Robinson’s Case

Our British correspondent Alan Smith returns with an account of yesterday’s appeals court decision that resulted in Tommy Robinson’s release from prison after serving slightly more than two months of a thirteen-month sentence.

Previously: A Detailed Account of Tommy Robinson’s appeal

R v Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson)

Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
On appeal from the Crown Court sitting at Canterbury and Leeds

by Alan Smith
1 August 2018

The Appeal judgement was announced in Court 4 at the Royal Courts of Justice. There was a notice on the door of the court room warning the public that filming would take place, and that those not wishing to be caught on film should sit at the rear of the court.

The doors were unlocked at 10am, and a stern female official warned people not to film or take photographs or “He will put you in the cells.”

Tommy’s QC, Jeremy Dein, arrived at this time with his female junior, and they took their positions on one side of the court room.

The video monitors that featured Tommy Robinson during the appeal hearing on 22 July 2018 were turned off.

At 10.29am, a female court official said “All rise,” and Lord Burnett and Mrs Justice McGowan entered.

Lord Burnett said words similar to the following:

“I should say I’m handing down two judgements this morning, but it will only take a short time. I want silence as I read them.

“For the reasons that are given in the written judgement, the appeals are dismissed [there were faint sighs in the public gallery]. The respondent will pay costs of £5,000. The judgement will be made available in the usual way”.

Lord Burnett went on:

“Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was committed to prison for thirteen months for contempt of court on 25 May 2018, including the activation of the three month suspended committal order. The appellant made an application for an extension of time. We refuse the extension of time for Canterbury on 22 May 2017; the appellant has admitted contempt as identified at the time, and the process was fair. We allow the extension of time for Leeds, as the process was flawed. We direct that the Leeds case be reheard [anticipation in the gallery].

“Pending the rehearing, the appellant will be released [applause broke out on one side of the public gallery; Lord Burnett, annoyed, said, “No. I said silence.”] …on the condition that the appellant attends the rehearing, and that he does not approach within 400 metres of Leeds court.

“I will be referring the case to the London Recorder. Thank you”.

The court rose at 10.32am, the matter having lasted no more than three minutes.

Supporters left the building, where there was a noisy commotion outside. On the left (as one leaves the building) was a demonstration of around a dozen Socialist Workers Party activists, standing behind a barrier. Tommy supporters were on the right hand side, with two rows of police separating them (both rows of police had their backs to the SWP demonstrators). More police were standing at opposite ends, and on the other side of the road; sixty or more.

The SWP demonstrators were chanting the following phrases (each phrase was repeated five or six times, before moving onto the next one):

Continue reading

Paul Weston, Ezra Levant, and the MEF on Tommy’s Release

Just after Dymphna posted the earlier video by Paul Weston, he uploaded this one about the release of Tommy Robinson from prison:

Ezra Levant of Rebel Media (whom Tommy thanked for his help) filed this report from London about the conditions Tommy had to endure while he was inside:

As Tommy acknowledged in his brief video from home, the Middle East Forum provided him with major financial support and legal assistance. Their efforts were crucial in securing his release from prison. Here’s the press release from the MEF:

The Middle East Forum applauds the release of Tommy Robinson from prison this morning, after the UK anti-Islamist activist won his appeal over a contempt of court sentence.

In June, Mr. Robinson, a long-time target of UK authorities, was covering a rape-gang trial involving Muslim defendants in England when he was arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced to 13 months prison, and jailed — all in the course of five hours, all while denied access to counsel.

The full resources of the Middle East Forum were activated to free Mr. Robinson. We:

Continue reading

Tommy and the Growth of Populism

So what do “we” need to do? In the case of Tommy Robinson, Britons could consider holding a Gratitude Parade, just so those in charge notice that people care about due process. Failure to show up means that no one will come when it’s your turn…and in a soviet like the U.K., if you live long enough it will be your turn eventually.

I like Dr. Turley’s inferences for the wider victory this represents.

Tommy Robinson Freed on Bail

The British court has made its decision: Tommy Robinson has been freed on bail.

This is a time for celebration, but it’s not a complete victory. The judges ruled that procedural rules had been violated in Tommy’s wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am trial and imprisonment on May 25. So he has been released on bail pending a new trial on the same charges (whatever those were). His next court appearance will be in October. It will be interesting to see what he says in public (if anything) in the two months between now and then.

This must be a tremendous relief for his wife and kids, and I’ll bet he’s glad to be home.

Below are excerpts from the report in the Grauniad:

Tommy Robinson freed on bail as court orders retrial

Appeal court quashes finding of contempt against English Defence League founder

Tommy Robinson, the founder of the English Defence League, is to be freed from prison after the court of appeal ordered that he should be retried on a contempt of court charge.

He has been held at Onley jail near Rugby after receiving a 13-month sentence for breaches of reporting restrictions at Leeds and Canterbury crown courts.

At the court of appeal on Wednesday, the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, upheld the Canterbury conviction but said the ruling in Leeds was “flawed” and there should be a retrial.

Robinson, the appeal court said, would be released on bail on condition that he attended the retrial before the recorder of London at a date to be fixed and keep a distance of at least 400 metres from Leeds crown court.

In the ruling, the lord chief justice quashed the Leeds finding of contempt. That court hearing should not have proceeded immediately but waited to hear the case on a “fully informed basis”, he said.

The judgment added: “It was unclear what conduct was said to comprise a breach of that order and the appellant was sentenced on the basis of conduct which fell outside the scope of that order.

“… The decision at Leeds crown court to proceed to committal to prison so promptly and without due regard for [part] of the rules gave rise to unfairness.

“… The judge might have referred the matter to the attorney general to consider whether to institute proceedings. That course would have avoided the risk of sacrificing fairness on the altar of celerity.”

Robinson’s supporters in the packed courtroom broke into applause as Lord Burnett announced the decision. The judge called for silence while he read a summary of the judgment.

Outside the Royal Courts of Justice, supporters of Robinson and anti-racism protesters chanted rival slogans at each other separated by crowd barriers and police.

Continue reading

A Detailed Account of Tommy Robinson’s Appeal on July 18

Our British correspondent Alan Smith sends the following account of last Wednesday’s court appeal by the legal team for Tommy Robinson of his thirteen-month prison sentence. Mr. Smith was present that day in the public gallery of the courtroom.

Appeal of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (“Tommy Robinson”) against convictions and sentences at Canterbury and Leeds

by Alan Smith

Court 4, Royal Courts of Justice
10.30am, Wednesday 18 July 2018

Judges presiding:

    Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
    Mr Justice Turner
    Mrs Justice McGowan DBE

Author’s Note

This account of the Appeal hearing is based on notes written long-hand in Court. It offers a detailed description of the proceedings rather than a continuous transcript. The words recorded are based on those used, and certain phrases are in quote marks to indicate particular accuracy. Notes and clarifications are in square brackets.

At various points, the proceedings made reference to legal authorities, particularly the cases of West, and Nicholls vs Nicholls. The writer is unfamiliar with these, so details recorded here are incomplete. As the writer had to listen and write at the same time, there are likely to be other omissions.

A brief background: On 8 May 2017, Tommy Robinson had been given a three month suspended sentence for contempt of court after trying to film four Muslim men on trial at Canterbury Crown Court for raping a teenager. On 25 May 2018, Tommy Robinson was detained outside Leeds Crown Court for using social media to broadcast details of a trial which was subject to blanket reporting restrictions. He was gaoled the same day for 13 months for contempt of court by Judge Geoffrey Marson QC.

Court 4 was wood panelled with rows of bound law books on all sides. The room was high, the equivalent of several storeys, with windows at the very top. Microphones hung down on wires from various points. There were three four-foot TV screens: on the left and right walls, and the wall opposite the judges’ bench (behind the public gallery). In the front right corner (from the public’s perspective) was the dock with heavy black bars, and to the front left the press gallery. There was a large clock on the right-hand wall.

At 9.55am, Louis Mably QC, wearing wig and gown, entered and took a position on the right, as viewed from the public gallery. It was assumed by the writer that Mr Mably was the prosecutor, but it transpired that he was an independent barrister appointed by the Attorney General as a “friend of the court”, meaning he was there to offer advice and comment critically on Tommy Robinson’s appeal, rather than oppose it per se.

At 10am, Tommy’s legal team entered: Jeremy Dein QC and a female junior, both wearing wigs and gowns, and two other legal members, wearing suits. They sat to the left.

At 10.15am the three video screens came on, revealing Tommy Robinson. He looked well, slimmer, and his hair was thicker. He was wearing a long sleeved black shirt and jeans, and a belt with a decorative buckle. He was sitting at a table with an empty chair beside him and a black curtain behind. Occasionally Tommy drank from a white mug, and talked to someone off camera.

A male court official, with a foreign accent, asked Tommy, “Can you hear me?” Tommy said “Yes.” The official asked, “Can you confirm that your name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?” “Yes.” “Can you see your barrister”? “Yeah.” The official said he would ask Tommy to identify himself again, at the beginning of the proceedings.

Peering into his monitor, Tommy asked, “Is it meant to be so small? Can you make the pictures bigger?” Tommy held his hands about six inches apart, to indicate the screen size. The official said he could not change the screen size, and asked whether Tommy could adjust it at his end. Tommy said he had a “big massive TV but three very small pictures”. The official said, “We cannot change that,” and Tommy replied, “Doesn’t matter, I can hear.”

From 10.23am for about a quarter of an hour there was waiting and silence. There were three court officials to the front; the four members of Tommy’s legal team; Louis Mably QC; six members of the press; and, in the public gallery, to the back of the court room, fifty people, both men and women, of various ages. There was a black security guard to the front right of the court room, sitting in a comfy red swivel chair; it was the same type of chair as those waiting for the judges.

At various points while waiting, Tommy hunched over his table with folded arms, or leant back in the chair. At one point he took to picking fluff off his shirt sleeve. At 10.31am, perhaps prompted by someone he could make out in the court room, he grinned and gave two thumbs up.

At 10.37am three clerks entered from doors behind the judges’ bench and laid out folders for the judges. At 10.39am a fair-haired female clerk said, “All rise,” and the three judges entered. Sir Ian Burnett of Maldon sat in the centre, Mr Justice Turner to the left, and Mrs Justice McGowan to the right (as viewed from the public gallery).

The court official asked Tommy, again, “Can you confirm that your name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon?” “Yes, I am.”

Lord Burnett said: “I’d like to say two things. There is a certain amount of interest in the case, and it is heartening to see so many people in court. However, there is likely to be technical argument, so members of the public coming and going [from the court] should do so in such a manner as to not disrupt the flow of the court”.

Lord Burnett said that there had been prior discussion as to whether there should be a reporting restriction order, and whether notes could be taken in court. He said that there was no order that these proceedings be subject to a reporting restriction, and that the general rule was that notes could be taken. He said that members of the press could tweet, and that they were aware of the limits.

Lord Burnett reminded the court that there remained in place an order in the Leeds Crown Court prohibiting reporting of what occurred at two trials.

Jeremy Dein QC said he was “extremely mindful” that arguments had been set out in writing, and he would welcome being informed if he dwelt on things of which the court was aware. He would not go into the facts of the case, as the court was aware of these.

Mr Dein said the appeals were “out of time.” Lord Burnett said Leeds was a little out of time, and Canterbury was a long way out of time: “Develop your submissions as to why the appeal should be heard.”

Continue reading

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:

The End Times of Albion: Tyranny and Ineptitude in High Places

The essay below by Seneca III is the latest in the “End Times of Albion” series. Previously: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6A, Part 6B, Part 7A, and Part 7B.

Tyranny and Ineptitude in High Places

The End Times of Albion, Part 8

by Seneca III

May the Good Lord save us all


At 1300 hrs BST on Saturday 14th July 2018 I sent this to GoV:


It looks as if the Met may be setting up a confrontation between ‘Stand up to Racism’ and the ‘Welcome Trump’ marchers combined with the ‘Free Tommy Robinson’ rally. The last will already be established in Whitehall coming in from the North whilst the ‘Welcome Trumpers’ have been directed to join up with them via a roundabout route and also approach from the North; the ‘Stand up to Racism’ lot have been given free rein to approach however they wish from the South along Whitehall from their assembly point in Palace Yard.

Quote: Chief Superintendent Elaine Van-Orden said: “Our message is simple: if you wish to protest peacefully, that is your right and we want to work with you. If you commit criminal acts or breach the conditions of the event, you are liable to be arrested.”

I suspect the plan may be to let ‘Stand up to Racism’ kick off against the other two groups at the junction of Whitehall with Horse Guards and who will, naturally, defend themselves and thus give Plod the chance to wade into them and set them up as the fall guys.

I do hope not, but if that is the case I hope that at least some of the good guys read and digested Part 6B.

Seneca III

As it happened

It has long been understood in certain quarters that the collective IQ of the senior ranks in the Met is nothing to write home about. Apart from a significant percentile of them being career-box-ticking graduates of the Common Purpose Collective with degrees in politics, sociology, underwater basket-weaving, or with an affirmative-actioned Master of Philosophy degree in criminology from Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, there aren’t too many creative free-range neurons bouncing around.

Essentially, impartial planning is not their forte, although they do pretty well at buggering about those people whom they have been conditioned to regard as ‘Deplorables’. Hence on Saturday out came the threatening flyers concerning Section 12 of the Public order Act 1986, together with the route to be taken by the Welcome Trump crowd when they joined up with the Free Tommy Robinson rally.

This is the Met’s original plan:

(Note the last line)

The planned route for the Welcome Trump march. It is not the shortest 0.8 blue dotted one but the longest grey one possible bringing them in from the North via St. Martin-in-the-Fields — the one and only route the Welcome Trump Rally could take to join up with the Free Tommy Robinson protest.

[N.B. I recall from years ago that there was once a requirement for a senior officer to take over command of the (traffic?) planning unit. This required some ability in mathematics. The guy who was eventually promoted was the only officer who, in those pre-calculator days, could handle simple arithmetic using a pencil and paper — he held the highest mathematics qualification of all the candidates at the required (high) rank…it was a GCE in Maths (Junior High School Diploma in the US) and he got the job. London traffic has never been the same since.]

The planned route for the ‘Stand up to Racism’ rabble

However, to add insult to injury, the delegation of authority to localised commanders contained in the last line in the flyer shown above is probably what was utilized when the Welcome Trump gathering were told that they were now forbidden to march as planned and authorised, but that they must make their way individually in groups no larger then two, displaying neither banners nor flags, or they would be arrested, prosecuted and heavily fined.

Yet, the Met had already promulgated that the Section 12 provisions DID NOT APPLY TO ‘STAND UP TO RACISM’ AND THEY WERE FREE TO PROCEED HOWEVER THEY WISHED, the inevitable result of this favoured status was to make it possible for these masked Antifa to attack the peaceful Free Tommy/Welcome Trump combined group sometime later in the proceedings…

…when at least a few of the Plod must have realised that the whole mess they had organised had gone pear-shaped, thanks to the incubus and succubus of Londonistan…

…Caliph Khan and the Epithet Redacted.

Continue reading

The MSM Pushes Back Against the #FreeTommy Movement

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?

Continue reading