There is intense social media interest at the moment about the situation regarding Tommy Robinson. As many will know, he was on a suspended sentence for contempt of court in connection with his coverage of an Islamic Rape Gang trial in Canterbury Crown Court, Canterbury, Kent, last year. If I recall correctly, this related to attempts by Mr Robinson to ask questions of the Muslim defendants whose trial for sexually exploiting a 16 year old girl in a kebab shop had just started.
Mr Robinson was hauled before the court at Canterbury and handed a suspended prison sentence for contempt of court by the judge who was presiding over the Islamic Rape Gang case. Now as a former court reporter, I understand how seriously the court views contempt and matters of sub judice, such as making comments on a trial rather than reporting what is said in the courtroom in front of the jury. This is especially the case if the actions of those committing the alleged sub judice offence cause trials to be unjust or required to be re-run in front of a fresh jury. Even so, I also wonder whether this suspended sentence imposed at Canterbury was far too harsh and not something that would be imposed on any other person doing the same thing as Mr Robinson.
Fast forward to today and to another Islamic Rape Gang trial, this time in Leeds. Again Mr Robinson, along with a colleague, was reporting on this trial and asking the defendants some questions as they went into the court building. West Yorkshire Police then sent at least six officers to the court area to arrest Mr Robinson for behaviour likely to incite a breach of the peace.
There then followed a series of confusing reports about the status and whereabouts of Mr Robinson including both from within and from outside of the UK. This included one report from Russia Today that stated that Mr Robinson had been released from custody. Hard evidence of what had happened to Mr Robinson was and still is, hard to come by, although the name ‘Tommy Robinson’ was listed for appearance at Leeds Crown Court at 14:00 BST today.
It is from here on in that things start to get a little strange, to say the least. Later on this afternoon one of Mr Robinson’s colleagues, Caolan Robertson, put out a Tweet, now deleted, that told the world that Mr Robinson had been gaoled for 13 months. I presume here that this sentence was, at least in part, the activation of the previously imposed Suspended Sentence from the judge at Canterbury Crown Court.
When I refreshed Mr Robertson’s Twitter feed, the original Tweet mentioning the sentence was gone and at the head of the feed was a Tweet that merely said ‘reporting restrictions’. This information, coupled with the fact that there is very little information so far on British media about the alleged gaoling of Mr Robinson, lead me to believe that there could be reporting restrictions on speaking about or publishing information about Mr Robinson’s sentence. This belief was given some confirmation by several other prominent personalities on social media, although, of course, there is no mention of this from British media.
I may be wrong of course, but mainstream media outlets do seem to be a little thin concerning any details on this incident, apart from reporting the initial arrest in Leeds of Mr Robinson. It may be a case that the MSM has not caught up yet with social media, or could it be the result of the judge at Leeds imposing a very draconian reporting restriction? If the latter is the case, which is looking likely, then it may be because the Leeds trial is one of a number of linked trials of alleged Islamic rapists and therefore no reporting of any aspect of the trial can be made until the final trial is over. This is to ensure that the defendants in later trials cannot complain that they have been not tried fairly because of publicity over earlier trials. Linked trials are, at least in my experience, used when there are a lot of defendants linked to one crime or series of crimes. In some cases it may not be practical, or fair, to try all the defendants in the same courtroom at the same time in front of the same jury.
However, it is worrying if a reporting restriction has been put on any sentence that Mr Robinson may have been given. It would be quite possible and practical to allow journalists to report Mr Robinson’s sentence, without naming any of the defendants in the main case and only vaguely alluding to the charges they are facing, or charges for which the defendants have either been cleared or convicted. If there is a reporting restriction like this, then it looks very much to me like judicial overreach and is draconian.
It was interesting to note that those people who did state that Mr Robinson had been gaoled for 13 months were those from outside of the United Kingdom. Americans like Stephen Crowder and Brittany Pettibone for example commented on the sentence and decried it vociferously. In addition the Canadian vlogger Lauren Southern appeared to confirm that there was a reporting restriction and said:
This reporting restriction, if that is indeed the case would seem to be very wide ranging, too wide ranging in fact. Lauren Southern is also saying that media outlets that have a presence in the United Kingdom, such as Breitbart London, have removed reference to the Tommy Robinson arrest story. I have checked Breitbart London and can confirm that the earlier story on Breitbart about Mr Robinson’s arrest has been removed. How long this ‘reporting restriction’ will remain in place is anyone’s guess. If the Leeds Islamic Rape Gang trial is the conclusion of the last of any linked trials, then its feasible that the restriction could be removed then, but if this is not the case then it could be months before the public find out via the UK media what happened to Mr Robinson today. This is chilling. As I said earlier there are ways to report side incidents to a trial without compromising the main trial itself. In addition, this sentence seems to be completely over the top. Burglars get less than 13 months and burglars are a far greater problem for British society than Mr Robinson and his opinions.
As I said, it is notable that it is only those who are resident in or work in nations that have guaranteed freedom of speech and which are safely beyond the reach of the UK Contempt of Court Acts and the capricious vagueness of Britain’s ‘hate speech’ legislation, that seem to be commenting on this alleged sentence. This does strike me as odd and it does make me wonder if there is a reporting restriction, that under the auspices of keeping future trials linked to this one fair, is being used to make Mr Robinson ‘disappear’. This would not surprise me as Mr Robinson has been a justifiable pain in the arse for the Establishment for a number of years now.
There is much that strikes me as not quite right about this case. Firstly there was the fact that the police were ready for Mr Robinson to appear. For a force that like so many others, pleads poverty and whines about government ‘cuts’, senior officers certainly seemed to find it easy to gather up six of West Yorkshire Police’s ‘finest’ to arrest one man for filming outside a court. From what I could see from the video uploaded earlier, I didn’t see any point when Mr Robinson would have brought a camera onto the precincts of the court (these things are sometimes signposted as well) so why did the judge consider this a breach warranting 13 months imprisonment? This is considerably in excess of the three month prison term that was imposed on Mr Robinson in 2017 following the Canterbury incident.
There is much about this case that stinks and it stinks really really bad. It really does arouse suspicions that Mr Robinson may have been set up for arrest. I can’t help but wonder whether this was the government’s revenge for helping to organise such a successful Free Speech demonstration in London earlier this month. If that is the case then we have worrying times ahead if we are governed by those who are so mortally fearful of the opinions of the citizenry that they have to punish people for the words they use or even calling for speech to be free. The leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, Gerald Batten, who spoke at Mr Robinson’s Free Speech even in London, also expressed surprise at Mr Robinson’s arrest. Mr Batten said:
Apparently, this incident and the gaoling of Mr Robinson, has brought about a flurry of public indignation aimed at West Yorkshire Police and the agencies dealing with complaints about the actions of the judiciary. I get the distinct impression that West Yorkshire Police are losing public support over this incident and if draconian reporting restrictions have been imposed by the judge in this case, then it taints the image of the judiciary as well.
If this arrest and the claimed gaoling of Mr Robinson is the result of ‘orders or pressures from Whitehall’, as some may claim, then it further widens the gulf that exists in Britain between rulers and ruled. This is not a good state of affairs for any nation to be in, it really isn’t.
Post Script:
I understand that there will be a protest in London tomorrow (26th May) at 3pm to call for Mr Tommy Robinson to be freed. You can find details of this protest via the Make Britain Great Again site and via this video link/ #FreeTommy
I hope above all else that he is kept safe – latest reports indicate he is held in Hull prison. It is ironic how Russian media now report news which is effecively banned in the UK. I hope that any journalists worth their salt will find a way to report what has happened and that this whole thing blows up in the faces of the WY Police and the corrupt courts. I now treat the Police as part of the enemy – may they reap what they have sown.