Image 01 Image 03

UK Judge Orders News Blackout Following Arrest Of Tommy Robinson For Reporting On Sex Grooming Gang Trial

UK Judge Orders News Blackout Following Arrest Of Tommy Robinson For Reporting On Sex Grooming Gang Trial

Judge asserts his live streaming posed a danger to the trial integrity, and reports about the arrest were scrubbed from publications

Tommy Robinson, the outspoken English activist who founded the English Defence League (EDL) only to later leave when it became too extreme, was arrested Friday while filming alleged child sex grooming gang members entering court for trial.

One of the arresting officers told Robinson that he was being arrested for “suspicion of breach of peace.”

That same day, Robinson, who was on a suspended sentence from a contempt of court arrest last year, had his suspended sentence revoked and was apparently immediately jailed.

Details are sketchy because the judge ordered a complete blackout on reporting of the incident, and as a result, news media—including Breitbart News—were required to remove their stories.

The resulting confusion about Robinson’s arrest, freedom of speech and of the press in the UK, varying reports of Robinson’s 13-, 14-, or 18-month prison term, and concerns about his safety in prison have flooded the internet with outrage and indignation, some righteous, some not.

Fox News reports:

U.K. right-wing activist and journalist Tommy Robinson was arrested and reportedly jailed Friday after he filmed members of an alleged child grooming gang entering a court for trial — but the details of his purported sentence remain murky after the judge ordered the press not to report on the case.

Robinson, the former head of the English Defense League and a longtime activist against Islam and Islamic migration, was arrested after he was filming men accused of being part of a gang that groomed children. Britain has been rocked by a series of child sex scandals perpetuated by gangs of predominantly Muslim men.

Video shows Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Lennon, being surrounded by as many as seven police officers as he livestreamed the incident on his phone. The police informed him he was being arrested for “breach of the peace.”

Fox News continues:

. . . .  The judge in the case on Friday slapped a reporting ban on the case. The order bans reporters from reporting on a case if there is reason to believe the reporting could prejudice a trial. The order prevents reporting until the conclusion of the trial Robinson was reporting on.

The gag order led to news outlets in the U.K. removing their reporting from their websites to comply with the order. Most remaining reporting in the U.K. comments on Robinson’s arrest, but not on his purported sentencing.

The news blackout left many bewildered and angry.^tfw^tfw^tfw

The list goes on.

The deep and abiding irony is that the judge’s decision to instate a news blackout has brought far more attention to the case than had it been treated with transparency.

One aspect of all of this that has created a great deal of genuine concern is Robinson’s safety in prison.

Fox News continues:

Sources with knowledge of Robinson’s case spoke on condition of anonymity in part because of fear they would be arrested for contempt. One told Fox that Robinson’s lawyer warned that, considering the presence of Muslim gang members in prison, a 13-month sentence was tantamount to a death sentence.

“Tommy’s lawyer said he will likely die in jail given his profile and previous credible threats, and the judge basically said he doesn’t care,” the source said. “He sentenced him to 13 months in prison.”

These are not idle or unfounded concerns.  In 2016, a man jailed in Britain for placing bacon sandwiches in front of the door of a mosque and a flag that had “no mosques” written on it was found dead in his jail cell.

The Daily Mail reported at the time:

A man jailed after leaving bacon sandwiches outside a mosque has been found dead in his cell.

Kevin Crehan, 35, was halfway through a one-year prison sentence he received in July after admitting the racially-motivated attack on the Jamia Mosque in Bristol earlier this year.

. . . . A St George flag with the words ‘no mosques’ was also tied to the fence outside the building in Totterdown, Bristol, and shouted racial abuse at a worshipper.

In her ruling at Robinson’s sentencing last year, Judge Norton noted the defense’s concern about Robinson’s safety in prison but stated that “a very large part of me thinks, so what?”

The judge ultimately suspended his sentence, but this is quite a chilling remark.

Concerns about Robinson’s safety have been shared on Twitter, and a “free Tommy Robinson” petition has been started.

Free Tommy protesters flooded Downing Street, demanding Robinson’s release.


[Edited for clarity, FS.  5/27/18, 8:50 p.m.:  Clarifying that the judge in the 2017 case is Judge Norton, not the same judge who ruled Friday, Judge Marson]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Okay, the court so ordered its news blackout on Tommy’s arrest.

And what has happened? The Streisand Effect has taken hold of the whole situation. LOL,

Milhouse, clean up on aisle 3.

We are taught to have respect for judges, but “a very large part of me thinks, so what?”

Judge Marson is obviously a vicious little snit.

    Just a quick note because I may not have been as clear as needed in my post: Judge Marson is the one who ordered the news blackout on Friday (and who revoked Robinson’s suspended sentence, sending him back to prison). While not vital to the story, the Judge’s name is Geoffrey, not Denise as stated in one of the embedded tweets.

    Judge Norton, who dismissed concerns last year that Robinson might be attacked in prison with “a very large part of me thinks, so what?”, presided over his arrest for contempt. That was last year and the suspended sentence he was on when arrested Friday. Norton’s suspension of Robinson’s sentence was revoked by Marson in light of his arrest Friday.

    It’s super complicated, and it doesn’t help that there is little reporting out of the UK (that is still available). I’m sorry if this was not clear, though. I tried to make the distinction between his arrest last year and his arrest Friday, but I could have done better. I’ll look at it and see how I might make this all more clear.

      Colonel Travis in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 27, 2018 at 11:27 pm

      I like how Robinson is classified as “far-right” or “extreme-right”, etc. but the UK government is not described as “uber-left” or “Orwellian” or “totalitarian”, etc.

        Huh? I don’t refer to Robinson as “far-right” or “extreme-right”, etc. in either my post or my comment. I don’t think he is an extremist and wouldn’t characterize him as such.

        Sorry what was your point again?

          Colonel Travis in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 28, 2018 at 12:21 am

          see below

          Yeah, I read that, but have no idea what it means. You wrote:

          I like how Robinson is classified as “far-right” or “extreme-right”, etc. but the UK government is not described as “uber-left” or “Orwellian” or “totalitarian”, etc.

          But I don’t know who did that or to what you are referring. I certainly didn’t say that. On either count.

          Your follow-up didn’t help because not only did I not say this in my post, but I didn’t say it in my comment, as you acknowledge Very strange, my friend, and I confess to being confused.

          Colonel Travis in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 28, 2018 at 2:26 am

          Sorry for the confusion, it wasn’t a response to anything you wrote. It was just a general observation how the media typically describe the right in the harshest way possible, even when it’s not warranted, yet when the left does something that is legitimately tyrannical, the media never classify the behavior as such. It’s either played down, or more commonly, ignored because they approve of whatever means are necessary to accomplish their goals.

          My bad, my friend. I thought you were saying that I was bashing Tommy in some way (a thing I’d not do since he left the EDL). I totally had the wrong of the stick, and I apologize. 🙂

        Milhouse in reply to Colonel Travis. | May 28, 2018 at 2:35 am

        The UK government is not “uber-left”, “Orwellian”, or “totalitarian”. If you think it is you’re no different from those snowflakes who think Trump is Hitler. The UK government is moderate, and by European standards rather conservative, and pretending otherwise to make a point just discredits you. You want uber-left? You almost got it with Corbyn. The UK dodged that bullet by the thinnest of hairs, but to hear you you’d think there’s no difference.

          MSO in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 7:40 am

          I have increasingly noticed that when the left moves left, so does the center; but when the right moves, no matter the direction, the center moves left. In other words, the left, center and right have no anchor.

          The judiciaries in most of the world have serious credibility problems. It matters not where you place any individual judiciary on the political scale, it is losing its respect because it is abusing its power.

          Burn_the_Witch in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 10:00 am

          “Conservative” in perhaps the European sense, but the UK is decidedly Left in the American sense. The linear ideological spectrum is considerably different between the Europe and US.

          Calm down, Sport.

          Jackie in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 10:26 am

          The “right” in Britain is merely less left than the liberals. There is no real right in Britain. The British “right” bans any center right activists from entering the country, while the left is always welcome. People I know were warned by the Police to keep their opinions to themselves or end up in prison like poor brave Tommy Robinson. What a bunch of cowards the media are in Britain. They are ordered to remove and not report a story that has nothing to do with national security and they do it. The Brits have been reduced to sheep.

          rdm in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 11:12 am

          So you are good with this then?

          Colonel Travis in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 1:23 pm

          Milhouse, I never said or implied the UK government on the whole is Orwellian or totalitarian, etc. However, when it comes to speech freedom in the UK, including this particular media blackout by the government of the UK and possibly even the arrest, we simply do not know at this point what the hell is going on, can be (i.e., not always) tyrannical.

          I do not understand why you and one other frequent commenter here can be so thoughtful one minute and the next minute shut down all brain cells.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 2:22 pm

          Colonel, you wrote that ‘I like how Robinson is classified as “far-right” or “extreme-right”, etc. but the UK government is not described as “uber-left” or “Orwellian” or “totalitarian”, etc.’

          Since the UK government is not any of those things, it shouldn’t be remarkable that it’s never classified that way. In a country where Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the opposition and but for the grace of God and the DUP would now be prime minister, it would be lunatic to call the current government “uber-left”. And Orwell himself would have a few sharp things to say about calling it “Orwellian” or “totalitarian”. People who say things like that have never experienced those things. It’s like the observation during the W. Bush years about how the people who claimed to fear the 2am knock obviously don’t, or they wouldn’t go on so about it.

          Colonel Travis in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 2:30 pm

          Thanks for reminding me what I wrote, but I kinda remember it already because, ah, you see…I wrote it.

          Even when explaining it further, you still have no clue what I’m talking about. I don’t think a third attempt will help.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 5:30 pm

          In your opinion. Others have the right to have a different opinion.

      Colonel Travis in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 27, 2018 at 11:29 pm

      For clerical purposes, that wasn’t supposed to be a reply to your comment here.

      But since I’m here, for clerical purposes, I was not confused.

    “Judge Marson is obviously a vicious little snit…”

    Perhaps. But in the mold of Nazi judge Ronald Freisler.

    Milhouse in reply to Neo. | May 28, 2018 at 2:51 am

    Judge Marson is obviously a vicious little snit.

    Judge Marson is trying to run a trial, not a circus. “Robinson” waylaid and harassed the defendants on their way into the court, while on a suspended sentence for doing the same thing before. The judge can’t have that, so he un-suspended the sentence.

Thanks for reporting more of the relevant facts. The cut-a-bit-too-short version, that “the British government” is censoring the news, isn’t accurate enough and doesn’t capture the issue at hand. This isn’t abuse of a UK version of the Patriot Act, it’s extremely aggressive use of judicial power by the judiciary itself… and needs to be analyzed and judged on that basis.

First, they take your weapons…

Judge: “a very large part of me thinks, so what?”

In my alternate timeline, whatever happened to Robinson in prison was visited upon the Judge, which mysteriously motivated her to be concerned.

You guys should come visit. We just banned froo froo drinks and now all the bartenders are joyously pouring doubles.

Also, we fixed duct tape back to the way it used to be when it was working just perfect.

The UK is becoming a totalitarian state. Mr. Robinson has been sent to the gulag.

The UK is becoming a totalitarian state. Mr. Robinson has been sent to the gulag.

“…arrested for ‘suspicion of breach of peace.'”

What are the elements of that crime? Breathing?

    I must have watched that arrest video ten times, Tx-rifraph. There are like four people there (who are not police), and they are all standing around not even understanding that Robinson is being arrested.

    I think the breach of peace thing is rooted in his livestreaming the arrival of the defendants in the child sex ring case. Apparently, the public right-of-ways we still recognize in the U. S. are not so recognized in the UK, and people can actually be arrested for filming things that happen on a public street.

    UK authorities are so vested in keeping their “Muslim problem” under wraps that they’ve unintentionally shined a giant spotlight on the child sex rings these Muslim gangs are inflicting on the UK’s native population. White girls groomed for gang rapes? Not a problem. White dude livestreaming the alleged perpetrators on a public street? Lock him up.

      Mike H. in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 28, 2018 at 3:51 am

      There’s more to it.

      MajorWood in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 28, 2018 at 2:41 pm

      The UK populace has never left the peasant mentality, period. England is like California. The good people left a long time ago (mine did in 1632), now the rest are there to either subjugate or rot, depending on your position in society. In addition to Burgess and Orwell, the UK also produced the Yes, Minister series which even today is still the best political show of all time. Run any politicians statement through the Sir Humphrey filter and you will arrive at the truth. You could even see the beginnings of Brexit when they aired back in the 80’s.

    Sanddog in reply to TX-rifraph. | May 27, 2018 at 10:46 pm

    In the UK, certain types of trials have media blackouts. No one is allowed to write about them or mention them for fear the public will learn about it. They claim it’s to protect the accused and to prevent the trial from becoming tainted. In reality, it’s to prevent the government from having to deal with angry citizens swarming trials of Muslim men who raped and drugged young girls and sold them on the streets. When the government restricts a fundamental right, they always claim it’s to protect another right when in fact, it’s to protect the government itself.

Looks like he has already been attacked (unsubstantiated due to black-out) – severely enough to warrant hospitalization.

UKIP is going to try to find the Justice minister personally responsible. I suspect they’re hoping for some long-shot smoking bullets if it ever makes it to discovery…

    gospace in reply to cvg. | May 27, 2018 at 11:42 pm

    That news being reported on facebook. By Brits.

    Milhouse in reply to cvg. | May 28, 2018 at 12:22 pm

    False. He was not attacked in any way and is in perfect health. As reported by his own people. Which should make you wonder who invented this story of an attack, and why they would do that.

HImmanuelson | May 27, 2018 at 10:34 pm

I don’t get it. How could an English judge order an American website to drop a story about the arrest?

And what does “child sex grooming” mean? Is this a pimp with underage prostitutes?

    This baffled me, too, when I saw that Breitbart had deleted a post on this. Who knows? If the intent is not to prejudice a British jury, what does it matter if American media outlets cover it? But I guess we live in a global information age.

    As to the child sex grooming thing, here’s an article by one of its survivors. You can find further information on this via an internet search.

      Sanddog in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 27, 2018 at 10:47 pm

      It’s Breitbart London. They have a separate bureau there and reporters in the UK.

      Yes, Breitbart has a UK office. It would be interesting to see if they tried to punish the UK employees for anything published on the US site though. It seems pretty simple just to route the story to the other site. Bans like this are meaningless in the internet age. All they do is draw attention to where a problem is and resources flood in to fix the break in the flow of information.

      Let the silly wankers try to arrest everyone in the rest of the world. The sun sets early on the British Empire these days. Their colonies have long abandoned them because of this very type of tyranny we are witnessing today. I feel sorry for Markle. I would bet she was not sophisticated enough to understand how far down the tubes Britain is. So got to see the pomp and ceremony. But it is all mildew and rot underneath.

    Colonel Travis in reply to HImmanuelson. | May 27, 2018 at 11:33 pm

    The story wasn’t dropped, but what Breitbart London did is funny. Sad, yes. Orwellian, yes. At the same time, the attention drawn to it now is off the charts.

    [Redacted] Arrested for [Redacted] Outside [Redacted]: Leeds Crown Court Issues Media Ban

Trump, media blackout on aisle 3.

Another key fact which I have seen printed is that Tommy was there to document any abuse which the victims might have been forced to endure on their way to and from trial. Apparently in these sorts of cases it is common for many of the relatives of the Muslims being tried to line up outside the court and assault or abuse the victims as they come and go. It is reported that one witness even had to be escorted to the bathroom inside the courthouse because it would have been too dangerous to go alone otherwise.

Since there is a news blackout, none of these things can be easily verified so rumors and half truths will run wild. Only a judge in the UK would be stupid enough not to see that it is better to let people report and get the truth out. You would think that in the 21st century people would be sophisticated enough to understand how all of this works. They are going to get a bigger firestorm now, and they are going to draw much more attention than Tommy could have ever drawn on his own.

Seventy years ago, the United States expended thousands of lives and billions in treasure helping to save the British from fascism. I wonder why we bothered.

There will always be an England, or whatever the Arabic word for it is.

There is a reason why our founders left England…

There are reasons why our forebears rebelled against Britain, and these are also the reasons why they put the things they did in the Bill of Rights. Our philosophical differences with Britain still exist to some extent.

Gremlin1974 | May 28, 2018 at 1:41 am

Just more proof that the UK has ceased being a “free” country. It may also be time to re-evaluate their status as an ally of the US.

I would like to see the British Crown step in and protect the nations children.

    Milhouse in reply to NoFlow. | May 28, 2018 at 2:31 am

    It is doing that, by trying the defendants. Right now its duty is to conduct a fair trial, which “Robinson” was deliberately disrupting. He knows the rules as well as anyone who’s lived all his life in pretty much every English-speaking country except the USA: while a case is sub judice you can report on what happens in open court but you can’t say or do anything that could prejudice the trial. Especially not when you’re under a suspended sentence for doing exactly the same thing before.

      Fen in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 3:06 am

      First… Gods you are a weasel. And don’t whine, you are the one who chose to make disagreement personal.

      Two, where is your evidence? For someone usually so precise, you sure are vague here.

      Third, by arresting him the Court has violated it’s own rules, else they were wouldn’t have needed to ban reporting of their arrest of Robinson.

        Milhouse in reply to Fen. | May 28, 2018 at 12:29 pm

        I made disagreement personal?! When? “Robinson” was on a suspended sentence for interfering with the trials of these defendants. The trials are still in progress, so any reporting that could prejudice the trials is illegal. That’s true of any case that’s still sub judice, but especially when he’d been specifically warned to stop. He was sentenced, but instead of sending him straight to prison the judge suspended the sentence; so what does he do but repeat the same offense?

        And no, the court did not violate its rules. If you claim it did, tell us which rule you claim it violated. Any reporting that could prejudice these trials is banned until after they are over. The integrity of the justice system is more important than satisfying people’s curiosity, let alone than whipping up political propaganda.

          Fen in reply to Milhouse. | May 29, 2018 at 3:56 am

          Milquehouse: “When?”

          When you personally attacked Fuzzy, falsely accusing her of deliberately clipping the quote to imply the Judge didn’t care. Falsely accusing her of dishonesty and deception. As if you have the first fucking clue what she is thinking.

          You always do this. Someone can’t just have a different opinion, someone can’t just be wrong. Oh no, it can only be becase they are dishonest libelous slanderous liars. And I’m sick of this bullshit.

          Stop doing that. Jackass.

          Actually, Robinson was on a suspended sentence for contempt; his Friday arrest was for “suspicion of breach of peace.” It’s not the same crime, Milhouse. You are correct that his existing suspended sentence was revoked, but it was not for the same offense. Stop it.

      Sanddog in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 2:20 pm

      A fair trial is held within the courtroom. It is not achieved by keeping the public in the dark, restricting freedom of the press and preventing citizens from communicating about the charges, accused and details of the crime.

        Milhouse in reply to Sanddog. | May 28, 2018 at 2:35 pm

        “A fair trial is held within the courtroom.” That is exactly the point. That is where it must be held, and anything that prevents it from being held there is against the law. Once the trials are over, everything can be published.

        “Robinson’s” antics last year were precisely directed at derailing the trial, which is why he was tried, convicted, and sentenced for contempt of court, and let out on suspension with a warning to stay away from these trials.

    tom_swift in reply to NoFlow. | May 28, 2018 at 4:38 am

    I would like to see the British Crown step in and protect the nations children.

    It’s worse than it looks. This disgraceful circus is their idea of protection.

In her ruling at Robinson’s sentencing last year, Judge Norton noted the defense’s concern about Robinson’s safety in prison but stated that “a very large part of me thinks, so what?”

This is beyond dishonest, Fuzzy. You deliberately omitted the next sentence: “You could be put into protective custody”. You have deliberately defamed the judge and falsely portrayed her as callous about a prisoner’s safety, in order to celebrate someone who is deliberately and defiantly violating a valid court order and endangering a fair trial.

“Robinson” had been specifically warned not to harass defendants and jurors on their way in and out of the court, and this is the second time he’s violated that order. Being the subject of threats should not be an automatic license to do whatever the **** you want. There is such a thing as protective custody, and if he feels threatened he can be put in it.

He’s been in prison before; after a bad experience in Woodhill prison he was transferred to Winchester where he survived quite nicely. Apparently Winchester, which is one step below maximum security, had a better class of Moslem prisoners. I see no reason why he couldn’t be sent there again, or why he should be in more danger there now than he was then.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 8:48 am

    What’s the routine of putting Robinson’s name in quotes?

    Burn_the_Witch in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 10:08 am

    She cited the full quote a few inches below. You DO realize that the full quote doesn’t help, right? Are you dishonest, or did you just not bother reading the whole article?

    Slow down, read for comprehension, and take it easy with the histrionics.

      Milhouse in reply to Burn_the_Witch. | May 28, 2018 at 12:32 pm

      Of course the full quote helps. Leaving it out completely changes what she said, and was deliberately designed to portray her as callously disregarding “Robinson’s” safety, when in fact she simply said that his safety could be protected in prison so that was no reason to let him off.

        tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 1:33 pm

        his safety could be protected in prison

        And the Titanic could miss the iceberg cleanly, too. After all, most ships manage to miss them. So, obviously, there’s no problem.

        I didn’t leave it out, Milhouse. What is wrong with you? Can you not see the embedded screenshot of the statement? Can you not click on the provided link? Had I not included the screenie of the full statement, not included a link to the judgement, and not included the point that she ultimately did not sentence Robinson to prison, you might have a point. As is, you are the one being dishonest. I didn’t leave anything out; it’s right there for those who have eyes to see.

    “Robinson had been specifically warned not to harass defendants and jurors on their way in and out of the court, and this is the second time he’s violated that order. ”

    There is absolutely no evidence he did any such thing. By all reports he was standing there quietly and peacefully filming events. I have seen no reports that he ever talked to any defendants or jurors at all. And if reports are true, at least part of his motivation was to show who really was intimidating witnesses and jurors, or to prevent that from happening as it had in other cases.

    Of course we will never know because the judge banned anyone from talking about it. There is no good motive for her to do that other than her wanting to keep decent people from knowing what she was up to and holding her accountable for it.

    You’re kidding, right? I quoted the judge, included the full text in the post, plus a link to the judgment, and then noted that this same judge ultimately suspended Robinson’s sentence despite that “very large part” of her.

    Your selective quoting to defame me is different from what you accuse me of in what way? Oh, in the way that I provided the full text in TWO forms and added that she didn’t act on that statement.

    Dude, you seriously need to get a life.

Catch up Millhouse:

“A kangaroo court, then a gag order. In the United Kingdom, where rapists enjoy the right to a full and fair trial, the right to the legal representation of their choice, the right to have sufficient time to prepare their cases, and the right to go home on bail between sessions of their trial. No such rights were offered, however, to Tommy Robinson.”

And pay particular attention to the comments, like thus one:

” He has also posted you tube talks in which he detailed the harassment bordering on persecution at the hands of the authorities, including one which showed the police accosting him as he sat having a meal with his family, causing no trouble to anyone, and forcing him to leave the area. The sight of a phalanx of stone-faced police driving this family down the street while TR’s young daughter was weeping in extreme distress was one of the most disgraceful incidents I have ever seen and made me ashamed to be British. The deliberate silencing and persecution of this man simply because the government doesn’t like what he says should concern us all.”

    No one gets a trial for a parole violation hearing. However, I’m extremely curious as to how the judge of a trial, with access to broad contempt of court powers, took it upon herself to decide the outcome of his parole practically on the spot. Did he have counsel? We have no idea thanks to the reporting ban, though statutes say he ought to have been able to have legal representation, and he asked for it while being dragged off by the police.

    It’s highly unusual, but thanks to the gag order, British lawyers would seem barred from publicly discussing the matter, so we will remain in the dark.

    Milhouse in reply to Fen. | May 28, 2018 at 12:36 pm

    “Robinson” had a full and fair trial, with the legal representation of his choice, and bail. After that trial he was duly convicted and given a suspended sentence. He broke the terms of the suspension, so it got unsuspended. Nothing different happens here in the US, or anywhere else.

      Well now I’m hearing his suspended sentence was three months, whereas this judge sentenced him to that and ten months more in a hearing that lasted four minutes. I’d like to confirm that, but there’s a gag order, so I have to rely on some Canadian. The judge really did make the rubble bounce.

      Someday, but not today, we will find out if this is truly proper and immaculate procedure in the UK.

Milhouse: “after a bad experience”

Speaking of dishonest: “…has been repeatedly harassed by the police, railroaded by the courts, and left unprotected by prison officials who have allowed Muslim inmates to beat him senseless.

Bad experience? Weasel words.

Millhouse: “I see no reason why he couldn’t be sent there again, or why he should be in more danger there now than he was then”

(cough) What part of “left unprotected by prison officials” do you not understand?

Milquehouse: “while his recent encounter with Mulsim prisioners is disturbing, he will be just fine on one kidney and most people only use a portion of their brain anyway”

Just prepping the battle space for you.

    Milhouse in reply to Fen. | May 28, 2018 at 12:40 pm

    What the hell are you talking about? He was beaten in Woodhill, but once he was moved to Winchester he was completely safe. He was not left unprotected, he needed no protection. Why would you even suspect it would be different this time? But if he’s worried he can ask for protective custody.

    Don’t forget he was not in prison for “political activism” but for good old fashioned fraud. Is that really whom you want to be championing?

      Sanddog in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 2:24 pm

      You can champion free speech and freedom of the press without liking the individuals who are speaking and/or reporting. That’s actually when it matters most.

        Milhouse in reply to Sanddog. | May 28, 2018 at 2:48 pm

        Of course it does. But you are not championing freedom of speech and of the press (which are one freedom, not two, for those keeping count), you are championing this hooligan and his cause, and making false claims about his safety. Yes, at one prison some Moslem prisoners beat him; at a different prison the Moslem prisoners treated him well. Therefore it is dishonest to pretend that putting him in any prison is the same as ignoring his safety.

      Fen in reply to Milhouse. | May 29, 2018 at 11:34 am

      Do you know where he is being kept now, Milquehouse? Winchester or Woodhill? Your casual generalizations about this man’s very life are frightening.

      You admit he was already beaten senseless once, but just assume the only reason he wasn’t beaten again after being transferred is because THOSE particular guards aren’t as corrupt as the previous ones.

      Have you even considered the possibility that the new set of guards backed off because, the prisoner having just been beaten, they were under too much scutiny?

      Bet you wouldn’t be so casual about human life if your life was tied to his. Want to do that? No? Ha.

And Milhouse, while we are on the subject of wisking journalists off to Star Chambers to be imprisioned without their attorney present, would you care to comment on the legality of this:

Law on Editors – bans Jews from editorial posts. 10/4/1933, Germany.

Perfectly legal, right? So why all the fuss?

    Milhouse in reply to Fen. | May 28, 2018 at 12:41 pm

    “Journalists”?! Since when is “Robinson” a “journalist”? Not that they should have any special privileges, but he isn’t even one.

      KGB in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 1:58 pm

      What prevents him from being referred to as a journalist in your mind? Does being a journalist require memvership in a certain organization? A passing score on a “journalism” exam? One of those old-timey “Press” tags stuck in the brim of his hat?

      Your assertion that a man who reports on current events is not a journalist has the overpowering odor of leftist elitism.

        Milhouse in reply to KGB. | May 28, 2018 at 2:44 pm

        Journalists are not special people, with special privileges; you are the elitist who claims he ought to be treated differently because you claim he is one. But whether someone is a journalist is determined the same way as whether someone is a plumber or a mechanic or any other tradesman, and “Robinson” is not one. He’s playing at it only in order to claim those special elitist privileges that they get for no good reason.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 5:34 pm

          In your opinion, you keep leaving that out. See in my opinion CNN, MSLSD, CBS, NBC, and ABC “news” personnel aren’t real journalist,but once again it is my opinion.

          Just because you don’t consider someone a journalist doesn’t make it fact.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 6:57 pm

          Whether someone is a journalist is no more subject to opinions than whether someone is a lumberjack. If he jacks lumber all day and makes his living from it, he’s a lumberjack even if he can’t carry a tune in a bucket. If he wakes up one morning and decides to put on a flannel shirt, carry an axe, and sing the lumberjack song, that doesn’t make him one.

          Did you mean to imply that “real journalists” don’t lie? Because I’d like to know when that was the case.

          KGB in reply to Milhouse. | May 29, 2018 at 6:36 am

          I’m sorry, but I haven’t claimed that anyone ought to be treated differently for any reason. You made that up. It’s you that’s stated Robinson isn’t what he clearly is because… credentials. Tradesmen learn skills in which there is an objective outcome. Either the plumbing in my house leaks or it doesn’t, either the lights turn on when I throw the switch or they don’t, either the tree was felled in such a way that it can be made into lumber or it wasn’t.

          Journalism is an entirely different ball of wax and I’m still not sure what, in your mind, disqualifies Tommy Robinson from being considered one. Do you, for example, consider the work of Professor Jacobson on this blog “journalism”?

          The role of bloggers as journalists is not settled, and you know it. You can’t wake up one day and declare yourself a certified plumber, but you can certainly wake up one day and decide to be a blogger or citizen journalist (as has become the more accepted term, though again, this is not settled at all).

          Your personal distaste for Robinson is apparently causing you to leap to illogical conclusions and to make bizarre, unsubstantiated claims.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | May 30, 2018 at 12:11 pm

          @Fuzzy Slippers

          But you forget Fuzzy this is the great and powerful Milhouse, who’s words become reality as soon as they fall from his sainted lips…or keyboard.

          My argument would be that bloggers fit the definition of Journalist than most people who claim to be journalists these days. But once again that is my opinion and is worth just as much as Milhouse’s.

      Fen in reply to Milhouse. | May 29, 2018 at 11:17 am

      Milquehouse: “Since when is “Robinson” a “journalist?”

      If you are walking K street crossdressed as a little slut and propositioning men to pay you to have sex with them, you are a whores. A streetwalker. A hooker.

      Even if you were a lumberjack by day.

      Why do you have such a hate-on for Robinson? Your Lawful Neutral authoritarian streak is more Nazi than usual. Fess up the real reason for your animuse.

      If I appealed to the Human Rights code, I half expect you to come back with “but he’s subhuman”

DieJustAsHappy | May 28, 2018 at 5:22 am

Conservative German MP Petr Bystron has stated “Tommy Robinson is a political prisoner, whose life is in clear and pressing danger. We have to do everything we can to make sure he is granted political asylum.” Note the phrase “political prisoner.”

Also, for additional thoughts on the political motivation on Robinson’s arrest and imprisonment (as well as others articles on Europe in crisis) see specifically “It’s Come to This” at Gates of Vienna. Ref:

    Milhouse in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | May 28, 2018 at 12:44 pm

    No, he is not a political prisoner. The UK has no political prisoners. Petr Bystron is a ****ing liar, which should surprise nobody.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 5:36 pm

      “Petr Bystron is a ****ing liar, which should surprise nobody.”

      Proof, citation, or evidence? I don’t even know who the hell he is but I wouldn’t call him a liar without proof.

Orwell’s fiction becomes reality in 21st-century Britain.

The individual who is merely reporting on the predations, belligerence and pathologies of fervent, jackbooted adherents of the intrinsically totalitarian Islamic ideology, is deemed to be an “enemy of the State” by the powers-that-be. That such an individual is deemed to represent a greater threat to civil order and the citizenry than the aforementioned jackboots who rape, rob and murder innocents who have the temerity to not share their religious beliefs, speaks to the total posture of meek and emasculated dhimmitude that has infected the U.K. and most of the European continent.

VaGentleman | May 28, 2018 at 6:01 am

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

At a time when the west is full of highly degreed but woefully educated citizens, eternal vigilance is more necessary than ever. The few have convinced the undereducated to give up their freedom in the name of tolerance. ‘Useful idiots’ never had more meaning than it does now.

VaGentleman | May 28, 2018 at 7:41 am

It keeps getting worse.
Under the heading of You Can’t Fix Stupid we have this from Merry Olde:

Knives are too sharp and filing them down is solution to soaring violent crime, judge says

A judge has proposed a nationwide programme to file down the points of kitchen knives as a solution to the country’s soaring knife crime epidemic.

Last week in his valedictory address, retiring Luton Crown Court Judge Nic Madge spoke of his concern that carrying a knife had become routine in some circles and called on the Government to ban the sale of large pointed kitchen knives.

“It might even be that the police could organise a programme whereby the owners of kitchen knives, which have been properly and lawfully bought for culinary purposes, could be taken somewhere to be modified, with the points being ground down into rounded ends,” he said.

Then they will have to ban the sale of files to re-point the blades. And they will. Then they will ban rocks over 2 inches (50mm) in diameter.

What is that word that best describes the UK perps engaged in the Muslim child grooming gangs . . .

Oh yeah. ANIMALS

We should discuss this case on any media we can. If the Brits are sheep, and are living in a leftist police state it doesn’t stop us from blowing up this court order. What’s the judge going to do ban the internet from reporting it? Good work Legal Insurrection.

The UK has a horrible problem, one which the government of that country created. They allowed in millions of immigrants who have failed, or refused, to integrate into British society. And, it has been encouraged to become worse, This has now made the UK so unstable that the “government” is using draconian measures to keep the lid on it.

Now, the UK has had an incredible number of child related sex crimes, which include large numbers of teen and per-pubescent girls, since 1960. What is interesting is that most of these cases involve Muslim men [at least 6 major criminal cases since 2000, with most of the trials and convictions coming since 2013]. So, here the government has yet another such case at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment is at n all-time high. Publicity on this case could lead to widespread citizen unrest and bring down the current government [May was under fire for her handling of the Dicken’s files when she was Home Secretary].

This has nothing to do with the ability to have a “fair trial”. It is all about protecting the government of the UK.

Henry Hawkins | May 28, 2018 at 12:38 pm

England, not satisfied with having lost all its colonies, moves to lose the country itself.

Don’t forget the exact warning the judge gave him when suspending his sentence:

“In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as ‘Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists’ and so on 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? Thank you very much”.

What is hard to understand about that?

    tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 1:40 pm

    Oh, it’s very understandable.

    Any government abuse isn’t really abuse at all, so long as the government informs its victims that they’re about to be abused.

    I see. Yes, very clear, and oh-so-convenient if one happens to be a government.

      Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | May 28, 2018 at 2:51 pm

      Being ordered not to interfere with an ongoing trial is not abuse. And anyone violating a court order here, while under suspended sentence for the same offense, would get the exact same treatment.

        Getting it with such speed that the rubble bounced is still odd. But, as I’ve said briefly elsewhere on the Internet, he picked a bad fight. Contempt of court powers are not easily defeated, and as the song says, he fought the law and the law won. The judge, not the elected government, is the law so far as an active trial is concerned. I still have questions about the procedures and the propriety of a gag order on Robinson’s side of things, but I don’t expect that to save Robinson.

Simply the fact not all of the trials are in front of a jury.

Aks9 what part of the statement “Muslim paedophile” is incorrect?

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | May 28, 2018 at 2:53 pm

    The fact that a jury has not yet found them to be that, and calling them it is very likely to prejudice both the jurors in their case and future jurors in their alleged accomplices’ cases, which is why the ban extends until the entire matter is no longer sub judice.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2018 at 5:39 pm

      Not to disrupt your obvious hatred of Robinson, but so far there is zero proof he did anything other than stand quietly and record that I have seen.

        Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | May 28, 2018 at 7:01 pm

        what part of “turn up at another court […] and you will find yourself inside” is hard to understand. He was told to stay away from these trials, for fear of causing mistrials.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | May 30, 2018 at 12:22 pm

          Well as someone who is so focused on details (well actually usually only the ones you like) I would expect you to know the difference between “showing up at a court” and standing peacefully on a PUBLIC sidewalk.

          But once since the UK has never been a free country it shouldn’t be that surprising.

See what happens when you have open borders and “immigrants” are treated BETTER than CITIZENS !

all the linked archives gone too.
should have used to do it

When the U.S. had a political prisoner, we eventually got rid of his persecuter (Obama). Looks like the U.K. chose another route.

Mark Steyn talks about Robinsons latest incarcertion (after a four minute hearing), and includes part of an article he wrote about visiting Rotherham last year and talking with some of the victims.

“…Liddle notes another aspect – the contrast between the urgency of the flatfeet when it comes to Tommy Robinson and their utter lethargic indifference when it comes to the young women I spoke to in Rotherham and the thousands of others like them in Leeds, Telford, Oxford, [Your Town Here]… West Yorkshire Police in Leeds are not to be confused with South Yorkshire Police in Rotherham. The latter are institutionally corrupt and depraved. As I told Mark Steyn Club members last year of my meeting with the victims of Rotherham:

To Mad Ash and his fellow ‘Asians’, the likes of Jessica and Katie are ‘white slags’. To Her Majesty’s Constabulary, they’re mere ‘Paki-shaggers’, and thus unworthy of valuable police resources. The girls recall the night Mad Ash’s brother Bannaras was in his car having sex with a twelve-year-old. A ‘jam sandwich’ – a police cruiser – pulled up alongside, and the officer rolled down the window. ‘She’s just sucking my c**k, mate,’ said Bannaras Hussain.

The cops drove away…

Jessica kept a detailed diary of what had happened to her. She took it to the cops. It ‘disappeared’. There was one kindly officer, but the others told him to back off, and, when he didn’t, he died in an accident. Katie puts the word ‘accident’ in air quotes. Rotherham is a land of coincidence. ‘Some of these things can happen, but not all of them, not in one town.’

A couple of years after taking them her diary, Jessica went back to see the police. This time the detective told her none of the officers who’d witnessed her abuse would support her story because if they gave evidence at trial they’d wind up ‘getting in the shit’. She left the room having taken the precaution of covertly recording the conversation. And thus the cover-up began to unravel…

It is striking to read Judge Norton’s sentencing remarks from last year (Judge Marson’s do not appear to be available: he rules in darkness). Her Honor huffs and puffs about Mr Robinson referring to “Muslim paedophiles” and “Muslim child rapists”. I can appreciate that that might be vaguely annoying if one were a non-paedophile Muslim – although evidently not so annoying that spokespersons for the wider Muslim community ever rouse themselves to object to all the industrial-scale sex slavery. But it is a fact that in 21st-century England – in Yorkshire, in Shropshire, in Lancashire, in Oxfordshire, in the Home Counties – child-rape gangs are Muslim. It is a phenomenon, one that has never existed previously in the British Isles and one which will continue and metastasize until there is honest debate about it.

And, while Judge Norton is evidently outraged by Tommy Robinson’s ill manners in referring to Muslims who rape children as “Muslim child rapists”, one notices that neither she nor anybody else display any such outrage about the ruined lives of thousands of victims of men who get away with their evil for years …because officialdom has chosen to prioritize “Islamophobia” over real crimes.

One more thought from my trip to Rotherham:

The cops drove away. It must have been an abiding image for Jessica, for Katie, for Bannaras Hussain’s twelve-year-old, for the girl who would later testify that all three brothers pissed on her like ‘a pack of animals’, for a thousand and more ‘Paki-shaggers’ and ‘white slags’ all over Rotherham, year in year out, for decades: The police driving away …and leaving them.

…and heading off to arrest one man with a cellphone, over and over and over…”

Re. Rotherham. The real question for us is whether mass rapes and rape gangs are happening in the USA?

PS. It is not just the judicial system in the UK. Don’t forget about the Labor woman politician who spoke out about Rotherham and had to “Resign”.