Protest in London after Tommy Robinson Arrest

From the Evening Standard:

Hundreds of far-right protesters have descended on Whitehall to demonstrate against Tommy Robinson’s arrest for ‘breaching the peace’ outside a courthouse.

Whitehall had to be closed to traffic as a huge group gathered outside Downing Street on Saturday afternoon, chanting Mr Robinson’s name.

It’s not clear how much can be said about this in the UK – there is apparently a court order that imposes reporting restrictions, and some earlier newspaper stories about the arrest have been removed from the internet. There is nothing sinister about this: there are trials taking place at the courthouse concerned, and the temporary ban would have been imposed to protect the integrity of those proceedings. I assume the Evening Standard knows what it is doing, but out of an abundance of caution I provide no link or go into further details.

However, the information void on social media has of course been filled with the ramblings of blowhards and conspiracy theorists, who claim that an authoritarian state has detained Robinson because he is a high-profile critic of Islam. Those making inflammatory comments along these lines include public figures, such as Geert Wilders (in a piece published by the Gatestone Institute) and the UKIP leader Gerald Batten, who recently appeared with Robinson at others at a supposed “Day for Freedom” rally in London.

Without speculating about the specific grounds for the new arrest, Robinson’s apparent decision to show up outside a court building is surprising, given that he was specifically warned a year ago at Canterbury Crown Court not to do this. This was a condition for having a prison sentence suspended (I discussed the circumstances here); the judge at the time cautioned him that

In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon [Robinson’s real name], turn up at another court, refer to people as “Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists” and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand?

There may be some pedantic ambiguity here over whether Robinson must adhere to all of these restrictions together, or might be allowed to “show up at another court” so long as he behaved himself, but any sensible person would surely assume the broadest interpretation and act accordingly. Such a general ban was quite reasonable – it should be remembered that judge was balancing leniency with risk management.

Many of Robinson’s supporters may not be aware of the Canterbury outcome; at the time, he made a short video in which he declared “victory” and a “court win”, but added that he was unable to go into detail. This was because he had raised funds on the promise that he would mount a free-speech defence, but had then pleaded guilty and thrown himself on the court’s mercy.

20 Responses

  1. It is hardly accurate to describe the protestors as ‘far right’. Unless we get our facts rights we are not likely to be highly esteemed.

    • Who’re the ‘US’?

      • The media are a distorting image that impute to Mr Robinson and his followers something that they are not. Mr Robinson is not far right. He is exposing Mohammedan sex-grooming gangs which the State is hiding and being lenient on. The ‘far right’ tag is an attempt to protect the sex-grooming Mohammedans.

  2. UR an apologist.

  3. Mr Robinson was careful to be merely on the public street and not on the court steps. He simply refered to what the men were charged with. He refered to other past cases were the public had been uninformed and misled by the media after the cases. He certainly didn’t do what the BBC did with Cliff Richards.

    • He was reporting on a case that has reporting restrictions to prevent a mistrial which could mean the victims do not receive justice. He had no concern about the victims, rather was intending to make a political statement in one of his endless Islamophobia campaigns. He was on a 14 month suspended sentence and warned if he went near another court and did what he did he would serve that sentence immediately. Robinson admitted his crime and is now banged up for 14 months were the criminal belongs.

      • There is no such thing as Islamophobia.

      • This was a public trial of course. Reporting restrictions cover substance that may prejudice the trial, not the facts of the trial taking place, filming of people arriving and leaving, or even of listing name son the court list. Tommy Robinson kept within those limits.

        Your assertion, common to almost all the mainstream media, lacks intelligence, and is mere insinuation.

        The fact that TR was arrested and sentenced, and that with with a D notice, indicates that, just as the police knew he would be attending the hearing, his arrest and conviction was intended in advance, in order to unjustly punish TR in vendetta – not for the first time. The livestream was cited as evidence, but nothing alluding to its content. I have seen it; this action of the Judiciary is shameful, a sign of a totalitarian government who do no properly t fear the people; ordinary people everywhere in increasing numbers now rather fear the establishment.

  4. Mohammed himself wedded a girl of 6, when he was over 50, and then deflowered her when she was only 9! His followers are not to allow any criticism of him and are rather to emulate him in all that he did. Does this not account for some of the untoward happenings in our northern towns that have been going on over many decades?

    • What has that got to do with Tommy Robinson breaking the law so blatantly especially as he was on a 14 month suspended sentence and is now serving that time after admitting in court he had breached the law?
      You think something that happened 1000s of years ago means Robinson has free rein to break the law?. No-one else does,. Even Muslims.

      • Mohammedans do not break the law? How about all of those child-rape cases?

    • You cannot know he de-flowered her at aged nine. I presume you heard it form someone, no authentic source.
      IN those days it was common to ‘marry’ several women in order to look after them, because there were more women than men.

      (don’t get me wrong I am not an apologist for radicalised Islam, which is the spearhead of this evil, about which you speculate along with emulation ).

      • It is general knowledge that Mohammed wedded Ayisha when she was only six and deflowered his child bride when she was only 9! Was this normal practise? According to the Mohammedan sex-grooming gangs, yes. That is just the problem.

  5. The reporting restrictions are still in force and it is forbidden to even mention which court and trial .Robinson was live streaming from and commenting on the case in front of jurors. The potential for a mistrial was there. His video could have ended up on Youtube and jurors could have seen it- trial abandoned. No joy for genuine victims here when an ignorant goose like Robinson decides to interfere to make a political statement. They would have to go through the entire process again.
    There was even a restriction on reporting on Robinson’s own appearance in court until the late afternoon but that has been lifted. Robinson pleaded guilty to breaching his suspended sentence and was immediately jailed for 14 months. Idiots like Gert Wilders should learn the law if they are going to ignorantly comment on British law and it is common to have media reporting restrictions for a host of very good reasons. They are usually to protect genuine victims not that Robinson cared about them when he plays to his ignorant fan base.

    • The professions have been covering up the huge number of cases of child rape by Mohammedans. Someone needs to highlight what is going on if the professions fail. Would not you do something if it was your daughter that had been gang raped by so and so and his cousins from the same religion?

      • I don’t like to be rude but you are an idiot. What in the hell do you think the trials are about? People have been charged after 1000s of hours of investigation and careful planning by the CPS so that nothing goes amiss- so the defendants receive their rights and the victims receive theirs.
        But no, a clown like “Robinson”, a convicted criminal and thug comes along and makes it all about him. Trying to steal the heart-breaking and depressing work of police and everyone involved. And then an unruly ignorant mob goes on a rampage waving Union Jacks and are so thick they don’t even understand the laws they live under. What a bizarre situation but it’s always the way with these phony “patriots”- they haven’t got a bloody clue about the country they live in. This is what happens when people start taking Lager Louts seriously.

      • Ah but Mr Robinson’s point is that there are many cases that have not been brought to court due to the conspiracy of silence among the professions. So he was highlighting this, and this is what the powers that be have been trying to clamp up. He did not breach the peace and did he really prejudice the trial? And was there any danger of that happening? I doubt it.

    • no they could not they were already in deliberation – when I sat on a jury they took our phones!! once the jury is out you are not allowed any contact at all ( except the court clerk with food)
      In addition he read from the BBC report many other news outlets had already reported that the trial had finished and jury were in deliberation.
      Get your facts straight

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *